16 Years Old: First Time Shooter Experience.

 

 Remember this: Opportunity loves opportunity.

This evening I had planned to take a couple of the boys shooting. My son was a little down because he didn’t think his friend Stan would come over but much to his surprise a different friend that lived next door showed up unexpected. His name is Roger as I have introduced him in a previous post. Both of these boys were first time gun shooters, 16 years old and myopic (near-sighted). These boys never experienced recoil before.  My son came to me and asked if we could go shooting. I was right in the middle of working on a project and almost decided against it. I saw a little hope there because I asked my son before which he turned the offer to practice shoot down.

I took my opportunity.

I got the Wingmaster Supermag and a box of shells. We loaded into the truck and headed down to the 100 acre wood. Young boys seem to like riding in the back near the tailgate? I had also stopped to pick up a .22 squirrel gun with a scope and bullets. As we were walking out to the field I went over gun safety verbally. The boys went out to one side of this grassy field and set up four targets in the back and two in the front, evenly space by ten strides based on Roger’s height. Roger is a little over six foot tall and skinny as a rail.

I was standing over by the fence waiting for them to come back. I surveyed the fence which look like someone was trying to keep a dinosaur from Jurassic Park in instead of the deer out. After they cleared the field I scoped the targets to make sure the distance was good for them to be able to accurately focus and hit the dummies. I instructed them to pick separate targets so I could assess whether or not they hit the mark.

I showed them physically the different parts of the .22 rifle, the safety option, how to load the bullets then chamber it. I also explained it was an automatic and didn’t need to be manually loaded after firing but to watch for jamming. I explained body stance. I did not go over holding one’s breath because I wanted them to see the difference when shooting. They wanted to lie on the ground or kneel. I told them no. Stand up and shoot. Besides there were fire ant hills everywhere.

Roger told me he wanted to join the military. I laughed and said, “Son, I am fixing to teach you a life skill.” I doubt right now Roger or Quinton will know just how valuable this little endeavor the three of us were on would mean to them later down the road. Time would tell. I passed Roger the .22 caliber.

Roger was the first to shoot. I allowed them two bullets at first. Quinton shot next with his allowed two bullets. I instructed them to go out to the target and see how they fared. The objective was to hit the target not a certain part of it. Both missed. 

Roger asked me to shoot the gun. I wondered if he thought I was joking. I chose a target and popped a hole in it. I believe I convinced him that I was serious and could show him. I didn't shoot anymore because I was to engrossed in correcting form or giving my observations or corrections.

I then decided it was a good thing to communicate their experience and concerns. Listening was key. I asked Roger what he did before pulling the trigger. He stated he noticed when scoping the cross hairs moved a lot and he seemed to shake away from point. I asked Quinton the same thing. He concurred.  I told them to hold their breath, aim, and pull the trigger without lingering. I let Quinton shoot. I was a little amaze even though he didn’t have his glasses on that he hit the target: twice.  Roger took his turn. He smoked one shot and missed the other. He said it did help to steady his grip on the rifle by taking a calming breath, hold then aim.

I allotted them more shots. With the .22 both boys were less likely to hand the rifle over after shooting. It was less noise and recoil. I had them collect their targets and move to another clearing. I walked back to my truck to get the 12 gauge and box of shells. They were waiting in the field. I could tell both were somewhat intimidated.

I gave Roger the empty gun on safety and had him do several dry runs. My son had practiced this the day before with a tactical gun.

 I asked, “Who is going first?” Roger hid behind my son. I thought give him a good healthy shove Angelia. My son was going to shoot but I told Roger to do it because he was hiding.  I reviewed the shotgun, how to maneuver it, the different tracking swings, safety, and loading/unloading. Sheepishly he took the gun, assumed the position and waited for the flying targets. The first one went back. He looked around for it. I laughed. I told him he had to pay attention to the target and when things looked odd to stand down and not follow or take the shot. I told him he shouldn’t wildly swing the gun around looking for Bugs Bunny like Elmer Fudd does at times. We tried again. He waited for it to be eye level then shot. He missed as he did on the second shot. Quinton was up next. Roger tossed off the target. Quinton shot then missed twice. My son was a little gun crazy for a moment because he wanted to keep shooting. He turned around and said, "That felt good." I laughed. It amazes me how much shooting a gun at a lifeless target can alleviate pent up stress because it focuses your mind away from what is bothering you.

It was getting late and I allotted two shells per teen because I knew they weren’t that great as first timers with their aim. I suggested practicing more with a BB gun or dry runs.

I did notice that when Roger shot the 12 gauge he handed the gun to me. I wondered at this. It was like he wanted to distance himself from it or was the gun making his discomfort unconsciously obvious. Power will do that to someone who is not used to having it in his hands.

We collected all the empty shells and casings, picked up the targets and went to the truck. We cruised down the road to push the golf cart because it was sparking on one of the battery wires. Those two kids gave me a laugh because I was ribbing them about being weak and not being able to push a golf cart long term. Oh they hated it but it was funny.  I told them to eat their Wheaties or do some push-ups. They'd never get a girlfriend without some muscle.

We left in the truck to go check out the 12 acre. I told both boys if they wanted to camp or play airsoft down there they could. As we were leaving out down the dirt road I thought this was the perfect time to ask Roger and Quinton a couple of questions about their experience (being first timers). Most adults don’t ask these questions and if they do the minor will tell them what they want to hear to please them unless they are just blunt kids.  

Remember both are 16 years old.

Roger told me that he had never shot a loaded gun before. He said he was more comfortable shooting the .22. When it came to shooting the Wingmaster he was pre-exposed to stories of recoil and thought the gun would kick him hard or knock him down. Imagery. I think he imagined the gun was like a hand cannon where just as soon as he pulled the trigger he would go flying back like a leaf in the wing. After shooting it, he said the reason he handed it back to me was because he was not use to shooting a shotgun. It was a little intimidating but he got a rush of adrenaline.  Oh first love, how it confuses us all. He was excited and not sure what to do about it. I can only think this is like being a first time driver out on the road by yourself hoping you don’t wreck before you get to your destination on the first go round. The unexpected can do that to you but you have to work through the hesitation in your mind to pass consciously through the barrier to learn there is no barrier there or anything to hold you back. This is what builds confidence and I was working on building two peoples confidence: to which I succeeded.

I asked both did they feel like they had just taken part in an aggressively violent activity?

Both replied that they did not feel that way. As far as Roger’s emotional state he pointed out that he felt less stressed or over-anxious. Quinton agreed but said he wanted to shoot a machine gun. I rolled my eyes. I could tell by the smiles on their faces that they felt like they had moved a little more toward being manly. I then thought it doesn’t occur to adults that sometimes the teenagers don’t lack confidence in themselves but in the adult. They may question the adult’s ability to pass them safely from point A to point B. Some children stand silently by wanting to move forward or engage but being respectful or unsure do not move from the spot unless you've a trained eye that they are frozen with some invisible mental obstacle.

In regards to them feeling manly, I wondered how far that would get me because it was a female doing it. I wondered how adept I was at being a unisex amoeba. Being the male and female to a child is very draining because you’re doing double duty with no one to help you especially when you have no prospects or connections. It is also somewhat of a dubious task to extend your already exhausted self out to teach and instruct children that are not yours biologically. I did ask Roger how he felt that it was not his parents teaching him this for the first time and if it mattered. I think he was taken aback by this question but I felt like it was relevant. I wasn’t asking to boost my ego or make myself feel a little condescending.  I wasn't asking to hurt Roger either. I honestly wanted to know how he felt personally. I have seen this kid just being alone, wondering around if you will.

I asked him how he thought his father would react.

Roger explained to me that his father did indeed hunt but because of his schedule working on the coast did not have time to spend teaching him how to hunt. As he was from the city, learning to do such things was improbable. He was excited he was getting the chance in general regardless of who was demonstrating shooting or offering it. It didn’t matter to him that much as he spent more time with his mother than his father. I could understand this as this was the case with my son.

I asked Roger did he think this would help his relationship with his father.

 He said yes. I told him it probably would help because if his father were too busy then in the meantime Roger could learn to shoot and hunt with no pressure to appease his dad. When the time came they could go hunting together with Roger pre-exposed and taught the safe way to manage a gun. This would make his time with his father more of a bonding experience instead of a learning experience fraught with frustration.  I would be rendering his frustration and lack of knowledge mute by intervening on his part to ensure education would enrich the hunting experiences he was yet to have with his father. I was satisfied with that.

I asked Roger did he think he could see shooting as a once a week activity he would look forward to?

He responded that he felt like he could do it every day.

After questioning Roger I think his answers relieved him even more because he actually thought about the meaningfulness of his first shooting experience. Young kids always like to have their little accomplishments celebrated. To many times milestones are passed by because of time crunches, distracted parents, or just for lack of giving a first time accomplishment any value.  I dug their first .22 bullet leavings out of the dirt along with their first two shells. I told Roger to write the date and where it was done. He needed a memory and so did my son.

As far as my son’s experience I had helped him work through his trauma from childhood by being exposed to the sound of a shotgun going off by his head thanks to my uncle. I wondered if he was ever going to shoot but I tried not to over push the idea and waited it out. With my son, it was his fear of the blast/recoil but once he shot that Wingmaster he didn’t want to give me the gun back.

I did reiterate to the two boys that when they were shooting the idea to focus on yourself and others in relation to the business end of the gun was important. After shooting, the tendency to aim carelessly or without scrutiny was slightly elevated.  They had no problem when actually aiming the gun and pulling the trigger but afterward was when I felt the responsible adult should be vigilante because teenagers at times can be attention deficit due to some kind of ‘disconnect’ to the actual gun. There 'disconnect' is false security because of it being on safety or 'empty'. I told them to always consider it a loaded weapon.

 After I was satisfied by the question and answer from a 16 year old's perspective I felt somewhat accomplished. The two boys looked pleased and accomplished themselves. It is not often that adults ask the opinion of the activities they engage youth in. It makes the kids feel like they matter, what they are doing matters, and your opinion of them is expanded because they feel a little closer to being an adult or validated. The child feels a little closer to you or at least accessible.

As with most things, children or teenagers live under the regime of parents or other adult rules.  They are rarely asked for their input other than to be given instruction on what or how to do something regardless of whether they are comfortable with what they are being asked to do or not. Kids at times do not feel they can say no or if they even have a choice.

After reading articles on other peoples speculations as to the feelings of minors where shooting and hunting is concerned the child is basically left without a voice as to whether shooting or hunting is something they actually want to do. They to have a voice but at times are excluded in lieu of someone making decisions for them instead of at least asking their input. This usually leads to feelings of helplessness and victimization. If we are going to raise functional adults we have to at times let them get a taste of responsible decision making and articulated input where their rights/abilities are concerned otherwise they are the invisible unheard well of insight and clarity.

Later as I wrote this I recognized that I didn’t care if I had the  respect of my peers (known or unknown), if any adult person wanted to share in my love of guns, hunting, or shooting, or where I stood in the greater scheme of things. The only thing that mattered in those two hours was the positive experience I could nurture for two young first time shooters so they could possibly find a lifelong love. Two young boys had the confidence in me to teach them the way while I found the confidence to know I could do them justice. Being there for someone when they are developing is the best endeavor whether they are related by blood or not. They are all my children to teach. I just have to teach them right and well.

 

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Watching From This Side Of The Pond: A Perspective.

 

Remember this: A Stone in the water makes a ripple over there'.

Today I was doing some prescribed burning on the pine plantation. I took a break and began to meditate over a controversy that seemed to be brewing across the great pond, far away from my little speck of the world.

The problem originated with W.H. Smith’s ban on hunting and shooting magazines that could no longer be purchased by children under the age of 14. This sounded fairly odd.  After reading comments on the outraged nature of shootists in the United Kingdom I decided as a great neighbor to the British to take a closer inspection on this new change in buying magazines. I wondered if they would outlaw any book to the nature of learning to shoot, hunt, or fish? It reminded me of Hitler and his book burning escapades.

Let us delve into this. What do we know as a fact in the UK?

 

·         There is no minimum age for applying for a shotgun certificate.

·         One must be at least 18 years old to own a gun.

·         Children under 14 must be accompanied by a responsible adult.

·         Any criminal activity in lieu of using a weapon by a minor is archived with the authorities.

    

After reviewing this information it seemed pretty straightforward that the law had things covered much like here in the States. So what was the problem really?

I researched further to find that an animal activist group, Animal Aid, had published a report earlier this year labeling that country sports magazines as ‘pro-violence’ and having a ‘corrosive, long lasting effect on impressionable young minds’.

W. H. Smith reported they were doing responsible business practices by putting a till or age requirement on the magazine purchases with shooting , hunting, but surprisingly not everything gun related.

I then wanted to know exactly who was this Animal Aid and how did they get the power to write a report that would make a store change its age requirement policy by implying the store, magazine purchaser, or random citizen didn’t have the common sense to be morally able to judge for themselves or their families on whether such a subject in a magazine was appropriate for their lifestyle?

This is the link I found on the purported ‘report’:

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/booklets/gunningforchildrenreport.pdf

 

The list of objectives in short:

 

·         Put magazines on the top shelf out of sight and reach of children under the age of 14.

·         Requiring children to be 18 and over to purchase the hunting/shooting magazines which would categorize them with pornography (sexual explicit content) and tobacco.

·         To have the Secretary of State ensure there is no form of gun promotion in schools.

 

This also extends to youth organizations. Then you have clipable copies of magazine photo-ops of random people during some form of shooting, hunting, or just the dead animal in less than spectacular positioning. Death ain’t pretty.  It never is. This report also states that it targets kids but if they are not 18 years or old can’t necessarily buy a gun. What rhetoric!

The report eventually stops referring to minors as children then goes on to designate the minors as ‘young blood’.  Animal Aid makes hunting/shooting groups sound like a gang living in the barrio that punches you in so you can go take part in crime and sale street drugs.

It’s all in the wording. We learned it in school when you are trying to write a persuasive letter to get something that you want for right or wrong reasons even if manipulation is dripping between the typeset. Then there is a quote by Jeffrey Masson to lend psychoanalytical credence to their argument when no child was reported as to being ‘shrinked out’ by a licensed professional on whether or not the child was mentally traumatized (even though this is still on a case by case theory).

Further reading the Animal Aid digresses that shotgun certificate ownership is declining every year but yet they feel compelled and threatened by the owners of guns for hunting and shooting to write a report belaying the point? Was this a couple of more nails in the coffin for the UK shootists? I wondered.

On I read. It stated the gun lobby research reported that if a person doesn’t ‘go to gun’ by age 14 then the child to adult is less apt to take to gun activity. This was a clear indicator Animal Aid was trying to circumvent the spread of shotgunning by intercepting the education of the UK’s youth by making the literature semi harder to acquire. What next? The library? Online googling? The list could go on……but really it’s just to cause a controversy and bring sensationalism to their causes. With that said I on occasion do take a second look at situations where I feel like there is undue killing but again it’s a case by case basis.

Using the term ‘recruitment’ makes it sound like the UK is building a secret army of children soldiers. If an adult enjoys the sport and endeavors to instruct and extend the option of partaking in the sport itself then recruiting is a far cry of a word to use. You can give a person an option but they must make the independent decision on whether that is something they are willing to take part in, short term or indefinitely.

Eventually they get into the specific magazines and the thought crossed my mind that Animal Aid was not sued for loss of livelihood because of the negative press the magazine, who should sue as a collective, bring ‘bad business’ to their door. If Colin Farrell can sue for his sex tapes ruining his career why can’t a hunting magazine sue for loss of readership, annual income, and intentional wanton attack on publisher morals and reputation? There has got to be some miss-step in there on the part of Animal Aid. Probably a few.

Animal Aid has no problem immorally using children to promote their stance.

Animal Aid documents in pictures, the magazine name and the issue month year. Anyone can go to back issues to see who these children are. If it’s a disturbed mind, could hunt that child down and kill them just for animal activist reasons. Hereby Animal Aid put a target on a child’s back and put the child itself in harm’s way. Who is worse? The magazines or Animal Aid?

I felt like a little ‘pot calling the kettle black’ was going on here.

After this controversy that child is going to need to learn to shoot to protect himself from unwanted advances.  It always boggles my mind when someone thinks they are doing a noble act for the greater good of some cause only to find after closer inspection that they are doing just as much or more damage as the one they are lobbying against. Now that…….is insane. Two crazies do not make you mentally competent.

With all organized endeavors there is always the opportunity given to engage youth to a different form of social or physical outlet. For every child that you might find shooting there is probably one in the street or vice versa. Responsible adults or parents are always worried over their children. Who are they hanging out with? What kinds of friends do they have? Are they involved with the wrong crowd? Is my kid being menaced on the internet by pedophiles?

Parents have enough on their plate raising their offspring. If the parent finds an outlet that procures the traits of an adult that can become a productive member of society, not to mention if war breaks out and they have to be sent into some terrible country to help fight for freedom, other people’s lives, or their very own: would it not be worth it? I say yes.

Onward into this ridiculous report I find they are admitting that there is lessons, education outlets, and some form of conservation or animal husbandry going on with a plan that is reasonably organized.

Animal Aid states the BASC is reaffirming the tradition of countryside life. This educational information was based on lifestyle, conservation, education and safety. But this is a bad thing to promote?

I began to wonder what crack pot wrote this because it is a sympathetic plea rather than a thought provoking treatise on the pro’s/con’s of shooting let alone hunting. Made me glad I live on this side of the ‘great pond’.

As I had stated in previous blogs on over hunting I wonder how much of this are non-hunters or animal activist viewing the non-stop posting of dead animals? Not that I am telling people to not post their photos.

Think for a moment that you are a non-hunter viewing things on the internet and the ‘number’ of photos is a designation to the amount of carnage that they believe is actually happening even if the pictures are taken at different hunting season or even years. There is no differentiation in their minds. It’s the amount of perceived deaths and the toll is rising in their mind because they do not hunt and don’t immediately realize that a season ends, animals don’t always die, and hunters go home empty-handed.

It is like the old turn of the phrase when someone says about another person, “Its selective” hearing, seeing, or limited understanding or denial.  They see what they want to see and interpret it that way with biases to their own belief system but most people are guilty of this.

By the end of this report the Animal Aid reduces to name calling in regards to children that partake of hunting. This is less than admirable and certainly not something I would think would come from a free thinking morally based adult with their head squarely above the shoulders.

This report is purely emotion driven and any professional indication on the part of Animal Aid is mute.  They could do the same thing to a person who hit a deer with a car. Don’t let that person drive a car because that person might kill a deer with it.

 

The main thing that struck me about this little report was the way in which Animal Aid took it upon themselves to be the judge and jury on what they deemed morally fit or an outrage without other peoples input or even consideration. They made objectives, one of which was successful in W. H. Smith. Why is it that this group, Animal Aid, can somehow exclude everyone else and get their requirements met? Who made them, for lack of a better word, “God”?

It’s the total removal of everyone else from what Animal Aid wants. It can be read as Animal Aid deciding that normal adult citizens no longer have the long vision of a moral or ethical compass and thus must influence government or other parties through force, coercion, or less than noble means to get their objectives met.

Animal Aid is doing a slight of hand trick by taking the citizens right away to make decisions on their behalf by questioning morals, common sense, or lack thereof. To some degree it is almost like martial law. One day the government just takes over and you have no rights unless the government says so. Animal Aid is subjecting citizens to loss of what we call in the states ‘inalienable rights’   by replacing or influencing  citizens with their agenda by taking  YOUR HAPPINESS AWAY and YOUR RIGHT TO DECISION MAKING.

Animal Aid is also meddling into the structure and functioning of the family by questioning how you raise your child, if you are a competent enough parent for ‘exposing your child’ to violent behavior, and suggesting to a ‘higher power’ that the average citizen can no longer function as the decision maker or nurturer of future citizens.

A little frightening there because you wonder if someone in the animal activist regime or government has been planning a ‘Pied Piper’ move by taking the children and brainwashing them into believing this Unstable Mother Earth really wants them to hold hands and and sing Cum Ba Ya.

On things like this I don’t argue to far on the point of ‘but the other magazines have this in them’. That is just a waste of time.

I feel what needs to be done is set up one organization that is specifically targeted at this kind of animal activist behavior. You would need an expert on Public Relations, and a Strategist. You have to out think them and cut them off at the pass.  The nature of this attack should be delegated to people that are experts in this type of problem. The main thing is Communication.

There should be a streamlined avenue of communication to keep dialogue open to all individuals that could be potentially affected by this problem.

There should also be a set of guidelines and rules for handing different types of situations when they arise and who should be handling them and in what way.

A group of lawyers that can find a loop hole when there is no air to breath.

It should be militantly executed but keep the ideas of all the crazy things you wouldn’t see coming in clear focus to.

I am kind of appalled that the UK citizens are appalled that this is happening. The animal activist people have been working on this for a long time. They are chipping away at things. When you see a group of people broadsided by something and are taken off guard that means you’ve gotten a little to secure in your position and need to tighten up the ranks. The whole state of affairs where hunting and shooting as it exist in the UK needs to be reassessed for any kind of weakness or point of entry on the part of attack.

I also thought about perceived power on the part of Animal Aid.  When they got W. H. Smith to ban children under the age of 14 from purchasing the hunting magazine there was some influence or power there. Find out the point of this supposed power and diffuse it like one would diffuse a bomb. I am not saying be a internet terrorist but one can go the proper routes to undo such evil trickery.

If these kinds of things are in place one needs to question what is not functioning properly and address the weakness.

You have to be smart, pay attention, know when to act, and do it.

Otherwise, I’ll be watching from my lily pad on this side of the pond.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~



 

 

 



Cultivating Silence, Skulking, Lurking and Shadowy Avoidance.

Remember this: Wild creatures have no thought of the future only NOW.

"Perhaps there is no aspect of wild nature more fascinating than a consideration of the artful ways in which birds and animals meet their emergencies. Our human emergencies are of various kinds--social, financial, psychological, physical. But in nature, crises are always associated with physical peril. We are often trying to escape debt, ennui, loneliness, crowds, vauge but mastering fears of the future. Wild creatures probably have no thought of the future; what they try to escape is immediate danger, fraught with the possibility of death.
In my long life in the wilderness woods, in a country especially rich in wild life, I always took an especial interest in watching how children of Nature met their trials; for in their doing so, they often manifested a poise and an ingenuity that disclosed not only a high intelligence, but what appeared to me to be spiritual quality--a ready dauntlessness that is nowise short of valor.
One day I was walking through a stretch of bulrushes. My setter dog had ranged on ahead of me. Suddenly I heard him begin to bark excitedly. Knowing that he had encountered some kind of wild animal. I hurried forward, soon coming to a break in the marsh where there was a deep brackish pond, perhaps an acre in area. Almost halfway across this stretch of placid water an old raccoon was swimming fast. My dog was also swimming, bent on catching the coon. A raccoon, gentle and ingratiating by nature, can be a valiant fighter; and in shallow water he can often defend himself against an ordinary dog. In deep water the coon's chances are not so good.
Just beyond the halfway mark in the pond, to my surprise the raccoon stopped swimming. He had come on a submerged stump or log, the top of which was almost flush with the level of the water. The coon clambered up on this support, shook the water from his coat, turned, crouched, and so waited, facing my setter, that now, with rising hope, appeared to be certain of seizing his prey.
All about me stretched the great lonely marsh. Here before me was this land-locked lagoon. And in the middle of this arena I was about to see enacted a little drama of the wilds. Here two natural enemies were about to meet, one much stronger than the other. Could sagacity, some form of unpredictable strategy, save the day for the weaker of the two antagonists?
When the dog was within three feet of his wary prey, crouching there, as I thought defenseless, the raccoon suddenly thrust forward his little black hands, remarkably human in their shape and in their suggestion of sensitiveness. As soon as the dog was within reach, these hands gently but firmly took hold of my setter's ears, pushed his head under the water, and held him there. My dog made a wild struggle, as I could tell from the way in which his hind legs and tail frantically threshed the water. Just as I was about to wade in to save my setter from being drowned, the raccoon, with a look on his face that seemed to express contempt for inferiority, thrust the dog's head violently downward and away from him. Gasping pitifully, my setter swam painfully back to me, where he lay down on the edge of the pond and whined, confessing failure, and a dread of a further attempt. He was really more disheveled in spirit than in body. We left the wily old raccoon master of that field of honor. He was not smiling sardonically, but his aspect indicated that such was his feeling over my champion's inglorious discomfiture.
It seems to be a law of nature that anything (even a butterfly) will fight as a last resort. But an older law of nature enjoins wild things to evade trouble. After more than half a century of observing American wild life in its native haunts, I should say that we do not have a single bird, animal, or reptile that will normally take an aggressive attitude toward man unless it is cornered, or thinks it is. An exception perhaps should be made of mothers with their young; yet even they will move off into secrecy and hiding if they are not molested. Another exception is the individual, whose behaviour may be abnormal and therefore dangerous, because it is unexpected.
It is amazing how close wild things will lie or crouch, in the hope of being passed by completely. I remember scores of examples of this, but none more surprising than the case of an old turkey gobbler, a superb veteran, I knew, of many narrow escapes.
I had dried and burned off the stubble in one of my big rice fields. There I had turned in a drove of hogs to root it up. All this was to attract Wilson snipe that delight in such softened ground as they bore in the soil for their food. My sons were coming home for the winter holidays, and snipe shooting was a sport they enjoyed.
When the four of us went to the field, the fire and the hogs had done their work well. No cover of any kind remained except a stubborn solitary tussock or marsh near the center of the field. It was hardly big enough to hide a rabbit.
Approaching the field from different sides, two of us began a bombardment on the east, and two on the west. We kept following the snipe. We crossed and recrossed the field, passing many times near the small tuft of marsh, and shooting all around it. Finally, discovering that we had run completely out of shells, we started for the house. Near the middle of the field we came right to the lone tussock. All of us were within ten feet of it, when, to our amazement, a huge wild gobbler suddenly rose from his scant shelter, ran a few paces, and then took flight. Ponderous yet graceful, that flight took him to safety deep in the distant pine forest. For thrilling moments we watched his lessening black bulk against the pale blue sky.
In this case, as in practically all others that have come under my observation, a wild thing in a tight spot always asks, What's safest to do now? And very often the life saving artifice is to do nothing. We had come up to this open field from two sides. The wild turkey had seen us (he always will see a man before the man sees him), and he had forthwith decided to hide where he was. He crouched low by the little tussock; nor did all our fusillade of shots, and our calling to one another make him budge. His strategy was to wait it out. It was only when he saw that we were about to step on him that he moved.
In dangerous straits wild creatures may by no means resort to flight. They dread revealment. They know that an enemy is innocous if they remain unseen. They therefore cultivate silence, skulking, lurking, shadowy avoidance. Assuming a statuesque pose, a deer or a wild turkey will hold it so long that the eyes of a human watcher may grow weary. By doing nothing when they are startled, they appear to be nothing. I remember one day watching the dead top of a fallen tree. I was sure I saw the horns of a deer amid the dry branches, but could not quite distinguish them. After full twenty minutes, during which time the buck had not moved at all, this wary strategist stepped forth. I believe that many intelligent wild things, as this deer did, select cover favorable to camouflage. Thus I have long noticed that wild turkeys, in selecting roosting trees, invariably choose those that have mistletoe in them, or big bunches of moss, or squirrel nests."

Written by: Archibald Rutledge, deceased.

~Courtesy of AOFH~

Readin' His Book: An Excerpt from Archibald Rutledge

 

  Remember this: Come follow me and you'll end up everywhere.

"Once on a golden autumn morning I was standing with my Negro foreman in the pinelands. He was quite matchless as a woodsman, as good as an Indian of the old days. Before us was a dense bay through which a deer drive was coming. On the still and balmy air the clamor of hounds and of drivers was momently increasing. Suddenly Prince and I saw a regal buck emerge from the dense thicket ahead of us. Rather deliberately he walked out into the open woods, where he came to a stand, facing us. We were about one hundred and fifty yards from him; our backs against two pines. We were standing close together. Whatever air was stirring was from the deer to us. He could not wind us; and as we intended to remain motionless he would not see us.

Behind him all the while the clamor kept increasing. The hounds were on his trail, and were coming fast. Yet there he stood, now and then turning his grand head to listen to the increasing uproar behind him. With all that tumult forcing him forward, he stood calculatingly still. 

Without moving, I whispered to my foreman, "Prince, why is he standing there like that? Why doesn't he come on?"
"He's readin' his book," the Negro said softly.
That old stag, with a wild hurricane of hunting at his very heels, stood there deliberately, ---"reading his book," mapping his elusive strategy. Before him lay thousands of acres of wild forest, and his obvious course would be to race straight ahead. The speed of the hounds would not trouble him, for no hound living could possibly overtake him; moreover, a master at skulking, he could utterly bewilder the dogs by dodging. But he had in his mind a way of escape that was by no means the obvious way.

A mile behind him lay the great river, beyond which was the vast wilderness of the Delta. There, he knew, was absolute safety for him.
Even as Prince and I watched in admiring amazement the great stag turned, threw up the tall banner of his snowy tail, and raced straight back the way he had come.

"Well, Prince," I said, "he surely read his book."

"And he done find the answer," Prince replied.

Here, you see, was a case of subtle strategy, and a decision made even while peril was imminent. That buck thought his way out of danger; and that way of escape is, I believe, the one most commonly used by wild creatures to deliver themselves from death."

Written by: Archibald Rutledge, deceased.

~Courtesy of AOFH~

Running The Numbers: How Do We Know When We Overhunt?

Remember this: People tend to eat all the gummy bears out of a bag.

As I have said in previous posts: Lets take a closer inspection of this...........
Once again this website is a tool to get people to think a little deeper about the sport of hunting, habitats, wildlife, and hunter behavior.

I have since read a book from the 1700-1800's. In this book which I can not recall the name was a description of South Carolina before Lord Ashley's immigrants moved in. I read that one group came to South Carolina and the comment was the 'sky was darkened by turkey in such a number to astound a man'. Not exact words but I remembered this phraseology because I was curious to the fact that there were that many turkey. I wanted to live back then even if dysentery was the conversation of the day.

 
That's dedication. Can you imagine though hunting in a time where there was more game than you could shake your stick at? As I reflect on this passage from a book from my memory I thought upon the turkey herd near me. There is probably about 20 in number that I know of because the herd collects in March through May to breed and nest. Twenty turkey are not enough to darken the sky. Maybe over one of my eyes on a cloudy day?

Usually when I am alone with my time out afield hunting I have the clearest mind and great thought on conundrums that sometimes do not seem so obvious to others. Not that it makes me special but when you live in a time where social media has covered every known topic getting a different slant on things is like finding gold or a coal encrusted diamond.

My world of hunting is very small but my observations are big. I don't choose to be a world traveling hunter because of the bad impressions that other hunters having pursued that endeavor have afflicted me with but that is for a later topic.

 
As one can see the above is a very beautifully well mounted Mountain Goat. When reflecting on the internet and the menagerie of trophy photos (which are endless) how do we as hunter know when we are actually overhunting? Where do we go to for that knowledge and is it really correct or false security? If it is evident by what we as hunters observe on our outdoor excursions would it not be a relevant topic to address based on observations afield?

I, as a woman who hunts and a woodswoman, feel at times I am undervalued for my perspective, my observations, my opinions, and feedback but yet I feel compelled for the greater good of wild game, the enjoyment of hunters of all genders, and the general state of ecosystems and habitat to stick my finger in the murky water of this quest and stir vigorously.

 
On occasion I have been told to say nothing that would make hunting look bad but with a conscious about the broad health of hunting how can I sit in silence and not say a word? Would it be more valuable if it came from a man or maybe more believable if I were a hunting show personality with the backing of a big sports channel?

 
I say chuck it. I am putting it out there for the universe to deliver unto the masses regardless of who steals it or passes it on. The greater good I say.
The reason that I asked myself this question this evening was because of deer and birds. Mostly birds.

I can remember back in the 90's I could drive down the road to my house and there would be coveys of quail bursting from the bush to fly elsewhere. Since the 90's I have only seen one quail and it was a pharaoh quail.  Over 22 years I have only seen that one. I have travelled other places and no quail insight not even on the land managed areas of the DNR. Very troubling to me especially when there are governmental agencies that disperse funds to land owners to grow habitat for non-existent birds.

 
South Carolina was known for quail hunting. Since the introduction of wasteful fox pens that are eventually used as coyote pens to train dogs and spread disease, domesticated animals such as dogs and cats, other competitive wildlife, the quail have as the old phrase states "gone to the birds".

Even if you have a quail population the domesticated or wild animals eat the eggs.
Quail are known as the "Prince of Game Birds" but their slow decline in the state of South Carolina makes them look like the pauper.  I googled, back in 2007 the DNR accommodated 1100 people but in 2011 they would only accommodate 35 people because there was no interest in the quail seminars they were hosting.

As a link to check just for my state I researched the Quail Forever website on the outdoorhub.com page: Click this link after reading my full commentary.

 http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2012-quail-nesting-habitat-conditions-report/

Even looking up your state it will give you the general conditions on quail nesting habitats because if the eggs can't survive to hatch you will have no quail.  If quail have their breeding season with accompanying conditions that would be tuff on the hunter getting his birds. I noticed the key word at the beginning of the commentary was hope which basically points out the helplessness of any control of the outcome of quail hatchling survival.

Just for my state this was what the Quail Forever posted:

"South Carolina’s virtual lack of a 2011 winter, combined with moderate harvest levels, has resulted in high quail carryover on managed properties, reports Billy Dukes, Small Game Project Supervisor for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. One of the mildest winters on record resulted in an early nesting season for many bird species, including quail. These early hatches will help to spread out an already protracted nesting season and may lead to greater instances of re-nesting. South Carolina’s spring was essentially normal, with a few timely rains that improved growing conditions. That said, all counties except Barnwell are now in drought status, which will likely decrease hatchability of nests and lower chick survival.

Since South Carolina added counties to those eligible for the state’s CRP SAFE practice, acreage has increased from less than 100 acres to more than 1,000 acres. South Carolina’s SAFE practice is essentially a short-term set aside program in which landowners are allowed to convert whole crop fields to native warm season grasses and forbs for the duration of their contract."

As a point this is what I am talking about.
I looked in the SC Market Bulletin. This is a newspaper put out by the state to sale things statewide. I looked under Poultry to find ads for Bobwhite quail. This is the prices for quail hatchlings:

1 w/o $0.55; 8 w/o $2; 10 w/o $2.50; 12 w/o $3.00 then there was another ad for eggs.

 
If one was interested in Pharoah quail they run $0.50-$2.50 for 50 eggs so there is not much different in price for Bobwhite quail. Don't even get me started on Pheasants.

At this price I could see it worth making an initiative to raise and return Bobwhite quail populations back to the fields but where is the interest from hunters? Or the population at large that wants to conserve, conserve, conserve?

Yes you can increase acreage, get land owners to allocate tracts for habitat but its useless if there are no quail. Why do they not let the land owner raise the quail as close to wild as possible then turn them free? As a rule to help quail be less stressed from hunting do not have a hunting season for X amount of time. This would be followed by research for the number in the populations to see if it works? I haven't delved down into this dark hole yet but I am sure it would be interesting. If only other hunters would question this same thing.

I walked afield one morning hunting for dove. Doves are known to stay in the woods in the evening to breed but come out to eat hard in the morning. I only saw five dove sitting on a powerline. You can't shoot at them on the power line. Only five I saw and none in a freshly combined cornfield. I was pretty put out not because I couldn't shoot anything but because there was no dove population other than five renegade birds. I stood with my gun as a V of Canadian Goose flew over. At that point I didn't even want to shoot at them.

 
On the other hand I noticed as the weather got cooler here and tossing out black sunflower seeds in the woods, I had about 20 lite down by the stand I was in to eat and drink.  Of course I like that sound they make when they take off like a torpedo.
I also noticed this with wood duck in my habitat area. For five consecutive hunting season I have herd the blast of guns behind the area I hunt but each year its less and less because the hunters aren't really concerned with skipping that area for a hunting season for life to take its toll but have decimated it to no duck. 

They shot all of the duck out that area. The last season I heard the guns there was whooping and hollering back there clear through the woods. I feel that was disregard for replenishment. Here I am building a habitat and a breeding ground. There they are tearing it all down around me to nothing.  Usually duck come when its cold but the weather is too warm. If you as a hunter observe the change in the weather you will realize the conditions in the past were more conducive to migrations of waterfowl but as the weather has become indifferent to its past the migratory birds do not move to areas they use to visit. Breeding grounds are becoming desolate gameless areas.

 
On to the topic of online trophy photos as a working model or example. I was scrolling down a feed on a social site I peruse. Every post on that stream was a dead animal with a hunter smiling away. That part didn't bother me but when I started to count the different species up and realized they were no longer in the number of live specimens I became concerned. If you are a hunter with trophy photos sit down with pencil and pen then do a hash mark for the number of each different animals type and do a count by the end of your time on social media that night. Think about that and do it for a week.

 
My question here was how does anyone know exactly how many of these animals are killed in a season if there is no system for turning them in? I know there are tagging systems for the 'ones that count' but what about the game that are killed by hunters anonymously on a Saturday evening but go un-noted while hanging outside at the barn?

 
I can go into the woods and shoot five deer but never tell a soul that I did it.  How do these five deer figure into the population count the DNR reports as a flourishing deer population for the year of xxxx. I could take out a herd and no one would know. If that is the case what effect would that have on a deer population and its report on the yearly report?

I have heard farmers brag about shooting deer off their farm land when really they are only allowed to shoot over the head and scare away. The unfortunate thing about this was the farmer just let the body lay without getting the meat so it was a waste of life. When hunting season comes the deer have been long since killed and gone. It takes some time for new deer to migrate in. Sometimes the deer migrate in because of lack of habitat elsewhere or the pressures of over and unscrupulous hunting.

This year I have observed very disturbing things on behalf of hunters. I have seen a drive hunt based off a public paved road around a community of house where they weren't concerned in what direction they were shooting. I have seen hunters try and chase the deer out the woods with an ATV. I have found bodies in the woods where the horns only were sawed off and the intact skeleton lay in the oak leaves.
This is my concern and it should be others. Its different when its publicly managed lands but what about the individual with the responsibility for managing his own corner of the world or his behavior?

 
I have observed a lot of hunters that talk about and bemoan the fact they are 'conserving' but are they really? Do hunters really dig down deep for the information to follow a sound personal stream of thought on the very sport they profess to love?

 
How far as my initial question of knowing when we over hunt I feel that the hunting community only relies on the governmental agencies that post the report for game population numbers but really could be taking note of what they observe in the field.

 
If a hunter notices something afield that he could report it would be more eyes on the ground to help those agencies that are left to be responsible for collecting the data and information for public consumption.

 
My hope is that instead of the sport of hunting being about the photo-op or the gross arrogance of those that profess they are doing good for hunting  be diverted at least by those that are more concerned with the infrastructure of hunting, habitats, and the wild game replenishment when management only maintains a number in populations that is barely doable for hunting.

 
As hunters and huntresses we should be better informed on what effects the lives of game animals. If we do not have adequate game animal numbers we have nothing to hunt.

~ Courtesy of the AOFH~