Why is there Air?

 Albert A Rasch explains the meaning and purpose of  hunting!
© 2009-2012 Albert A Rasch and
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™

I’m a curmudgeon. I really don’t like anyone. Everybody’s in my dang way, and those pesky kids are always under foot. How I manage to get anything done is beyond me.

There’s a fellow, Mr. Ron, who comes over while I’m in my garage; I can’t get anything done while he’s visiting. Miss Nancy likes to check up on my progress with whatever project I am working on. Then there’s Samuel Joshia; I think he’s four months old, and loves Charlie. He bounces up and down in his mother’s arms when he sees him, and they come to visit every time I’m out. There’s Jeffery, Joey, Matt, Darrel, and lord knows what all the other urchins' names are.  Can't forget the old deaf guy here that drives one of those snazzy black Audis. He listens to talk radio on his car stereo system so loud, that I can’t hear the table saw above it. And to put icing on the cake, Miss Mae has two little fair haired ones that are so painfully cute, it makes me wince. Of course, they beeline right to me when they see me, peppering me with dozens of questions, none related to the previous one like, "Why is there air?"

Funny thing is that for a curmudgeon, I sure am tolerant of their visits.

I guess it's not that bad really.

Jeffery actually helps me out. Well as best a seven year old can. In return I’ve taught him how to use a Daisy Red Rider, and the fundamentals of safety. Those two itty bitty cutie pies, Sean and Tessa, can identify red rat, black racer, and cottonmouth snakes now. So can most of the other children; they have all had an opportunity to look at them and actually study them up close. The parents, meddlesome as they are, have learned the importance of biodiversity during these impromptu natural history classes. I can’t tell you how many Moms have been dragged over by a child to see a one of those pesky cottonmouths. I don’t get the “Why don’t you kill them?” question too often anymore. I think the kids tell them why it’s important to protect and safeguard them.

Mr. Deaf Audi Guy drove by a couple of days ago with a half flat tire. I whistled at him, and lo and behold he heard me. I had him back up the Audi close to my shop so I could fill his tire. While waiting for me to assemble my compressor, he noticed the latest cottonmouth in a bucket. I’m not going to bore you with the whole of the conversation, but it eventually got to firearms and hunting. He told me he didn’t like guns, and didn’t understand why anyone would want to shoot an animal.

“You see all this nature here,” I started waving a wrench around me, narrowly missing his alltogether to close head, “I'm responsible for all of it. From that huge live oak over there, to this little ornery fellow here, every last bit. Just like I stopped you, and I’m taking the time to help you out, I take the time to do something I love, hunting. I’m the forester, guardian, and warden of every patch of woods, fields, or beach I walk on. I’m an enforcer when need be, a steward, and an educator. Whether it's an orphaned bird, a lost snake, or in the case of that danged invasive Brazilian pepper tree which I mercilessly hack and kill, I do what needs to be done.”

He understood that part, but then he asked, ”If you're its protector, why kill anything?”

Stealing Ortega Y Gasset I answered, “I kill in order to hunt. It’s not the act of killing I love, that is actually somewhat sad; it is everything that precedes it, and for that matter what follows, that is most important. The death of the animal is a very small, but important part of the hunt. But it’s not the totality of it.” I was on a roll and kept on. "Think of me as part of the equation. Lions do their part, raccoons theirs, even the cottonmouth here does his. I'm just part of it. You don't take offense at the fox taking a turkey do you? Well I am just another member of that circle."

I continued, “Not only am I part of a cycle that has existed since the first form of life came to be, but I add to it by the fact that I have memories. The sore muscles, the cold or heat, the view, the scent of the game, the sweat, the frozen breath, the warm blood, every one of those things are indelibly engraved in my memories. A worn buck deer torn apart by a desperately hungry wolf pack is never remembered, the one I bring home, or not, will live forever in my memory. You can’t buy that for the price of a movie ticket.”

I paused to let that sink in. Then I added, “I live more during the hunt, any hunt, than most people do in their entire lives.”

I saw him look around; really look around. He noticed, maybe for the first time, the buzzards flying by overhead. There was a squirrel in the median between two parking areas. He reached for the pack of smokes in his breast pocket, they looked like Lucky Strikes, thought about it, and pushed them back down. There was an odd look in his face.

I finished filling his tire. There was a nail in it. I got up and grabbed a yellow wax lumber crayon from the tool box.

As I was marking his tire so the repair guy could find it easy, he offered me a few bucks. I declined; not that I couldn't use them mind you. He was trying to put it in my pocket, but I said, “Look, I did it because it’s the right thing to do. No other reason.” As an after thought I added, “That’s why I hunt; because it’s the right thing to do.”

He got the message. Then he went to his car, started it, and thanked me for helping him out. He rolled forward a few feet, stopped and reversed. I stopped coiling the air hose, and turned to him.

He leaned out the window. “What’s your name anyway?”

“It’s Albert, sir.”

“It’s been a real pleasure. Thanks again.” With that he drove off.

I thought to myself, “Another convert.” I don’t care if they’re young or old, man or woman, Black, White, Asian, or Rainbow coalition, I talk to them all…

Because it is the right thing to do.

My hands were all dirty and greasy from fiddling with the tire.


I see red headed Jeffry coming down the street, fishing pole in hand. I reach for the hand cleaner.

I suppose fixing the table saw can wait until later.


Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch
Member: Lakewood Ranch Tent Club
Member: Hunting Sportsmen of the United States HSUS (Let 'em sue me.)

The Hunt Continues...

Though he spends most of his time writing and keeping the world safe for democracy, Albert was actually a student of biology. Really. But after a stint as a lab tech performing repetitious and mind-numbing processes that a trained capuchin monkey could do better, he never returned to the field. Rather he became a bartender. As he once said, "Hell, I was feeding mice all sorts of concoctions. At the club I did the same thing; except I got paid a lot better, and the rats where bigger." He has followed the science of QDM for many years, and fancies himself an aficionado. If you have any questions, or just want to get more information, reach him via TheRaschOutdoorChronicles(at)MSN(dot)com.

Idaho Wolves and F&S Blog

© 2010 Albert A Rasch and
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles
$g&m f9bd 45kd q!?5.

Ok, I occasionally go to the Field & Streams blogs. I like posting there now and again and touching base with a lot of folks I don't normally communicate with.

The one thing that bugs the living daylights out of me is the amount of SPAM comments on the blog. I mean really, will nobody moderate them nightly?

Well I guess all the complaints finally got someone to do something. Of course it was overboard. So now whenever I try to post a link to something related, or my blog's link, it kicks me out, the SPAM filter will not allow the post to be published. What a PITA! Guys, you're a big corporation, that's what you get interns for. They physically go through the blogs and clean them up! Jeez...

Now to the meat and potatos.

Seems like some Idaho Sheriff is telling folks that It's OK to break the law and shoot wolves. He says he's not.

From this story in the Spokesman-Review:
A northern Idaho sheriff said he is not advocating the illegal shooting of federally protected wolves by offering a hunting rifle and a shovel as the prize in a raffle called “.308 SSS Wolf Pack Raffle” in a region where SSS commonly stands for “shoot, shovel and shut up.” Idaho County Sheriff Doug Giddings said the SSS in the raffle stands for “safety, security and survival.” “We knew that this would stir up some interest,” Giddings told the Lewiston Tribune.

Seriously.

I believe him like I believe in the tooth fairy.

And of course there was the usual diatribe against the Federal Government, the US Fish and Wildlife, the New World Order, and asorted and sundry other things. Almost sounded like a fringe element of the Tea Party had gathered in one place. One fellow tongue in cheek (maybe...) said we ought to let some wolves loose in Central Park, while another wondered why common birds in one place couldn't be shot at, after all there are a lot of them here! So I had to respond:

How many of you are wildlife biologists?

Just saying...

But this smacks of two things.... ok several.

1) Laws are laws. If we pick and choose which ones we will follow, then we are essentially lawless. I believe Socrates spoke at length on the subject as did Benjamin Franklin.

2) Sometimes, and I mean sometimes, we as a people need to see the bigger picture. That's were a Federal Gov't comes into play. Yes, the rancher in Idaho may not like wolves eating his livestock, but the wildlife manager sees a halt to CCD. So which is more important?

Releasing (hungry) wolves in Central Park, while amusing and certainly something I would enjoy, would not change the equation. Wild menacing wolves howling at night and striking fear into grown mens' hearts, eating poodles, cats, homeless people, and the occasional child does not constitute an issue over livelyhood. It's just a animal niusance issue. Still it would be entertaining.

The Spaniards use the Spanish Mastif to protect their flocks and herds. Very effective. But I doubt many American ranchers want to go through the trouble of following their herds around and penning them up nightly. All together too much trouble for the subsidized industry now isn't it. Much easier to minimize threats and leave it at that. It would be too expensive to spend his or her valuable time out there. What! You can't pass the cost to the consumer?

Now how much is that Dollar Whopper again? Should it really only be a dollar?

And one more thing, just because something is plentiful here, doesn't necessarily make it so way over there! If we as sportsmen, can't even be trusted to clean out the bilges of our boats to stop the spread of invasive species, how can you be trusted to decide what should or shouldn't be hunted? Seriously.

Now I would like to hear some common sense approaches to this.

Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch™
Member: Shindand Tent Club
Member: Hunting Sportsmen of the United States HSUS (Let 'em sue me.)
The Hunt Continues...

Hunting Shows: If They Suck, Why are They On?

© 2010 Albert A Rasch™ and
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles
$g&m f9bd 45kd q!?5.

"Personally, I think the majority of hunting shows stink."

Albert A Rasch

I started to write a post on the very subject some time ago, but it was such a diatribe against "Horn Porn", rich people buying trophies, and celebrities numbskulls, that I finally deleted it. As far as I could discern, there was niether artistic nor educational merit in any of the shows. I couldn't get past the gratuitous "Kill Shot," and the overbearing and abundant use of "Pseudo-Redneck" language employed by the majority of the participants.

Galen Geer of The Thinking Hunter, has put together a well thought out and researched post on the very subject questioning among other things, the ethics being taught by the medium.

"...frustrated by the constant butchery of verb tense and number by the “stars.” Her displeasure is nothing new from people who care about language. This is the foundation of most arguments against outdoor television, and a second argument is that the programs are unrealistic. To one degree or another, the claim can be made that we turn a blind eye to both problems and grudgingly admit that the problems are endemic to the medium and not going away."

Responsibility in Outdoor Media asks for some input from us, the outdoor blogging community. Does the Sportsman Channel, Vrs, ESPN, and other media outlets have some responsibility to the rest of society to portray ethical and appropriate behaviors?

Mr Geer would like to explore the following: "I am curious, however, what you think. For myself, I see an element of a growing problem with many new members of the outdoor media whose lack of a formal education in media law, ethics, practical journalism and creative writing/film/broadcasting, is contributing to increasing misinformation about hunting and fishing by many non-hunters/anglers."

Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch™
Member: Shindand Tent Club
Member: Hunting Sportsmen of the United States HSUS (Let 'em sue me.)
The Hunt Continues...

Shooting or Hunting: An Ethical Question

© 2009, 2010 Albert A Rasch™ and
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles
$g&m f9bd 45kd q!?5.

Hello Everyone! Once again this is work in progress. We will continue to modify, add, and refine as the conversation continues. You will notice that I have added permanent links somewhere over there to the right.

Albert

Last week we delved into the High Fence and Preserve Hunting question. Again I wanted to thank all of you for participating so enthusiastically and professionally. You do all sportsmen a great honor and service.

After carefully reading the post and comments, the impression is that the real question is about the ethics of shooting behind fences or enclosures. Is it ethical to shoot an animal in an enclosure and still call it hunting? Several comments were made questioning the ethics of doing so. But careful review of the conversation yielded no reasons for questioning the ethics of the activity. I might venture to say that it is reasonable to say that one man's ethics are another's moral morass.

At this point ethics and morals seem to be intertwined so tightly as to be indistinguishable. The easiest way to separate them is to define them. Morals are something that we all agree upon ie: killing for the sake of killing is wrong; broad general ideas. Whereas ethics are our method for assuring a moral outcome to any of our actions, or how we define our values. Those of you that are philosophy majors or philosophers please feel free to correct my definitions.

I propose that we dissect what transpires when we pull the trigger. At what point do we have to consciously make a decision as to whether the shot is righteous or not. Is there an ethical checklist that one must complete if and when he is to pull the trigger? Does it matter if you are feeding your family or killing for horns and antlers. What are the objective values that we need in order to make an ethical kill.

Much of it is subjective. Do you consciously decide if pulling the trigger will be ethical when it's a rat? Most will strive to humanely end the rodent' s life by shooting carefully and with purpose. Some would be satisfied with any thing that will end the creatures life now or later, as long a sit dies.

It becomes stickier when the competitive nature of the human race comes into play. You've paid $4500 for a three day guided Mule Deer hunt. You brought the wife along, and she's been fawning over the rugged, broad shouldered guide. You know that your comfort zone is inside of 125 yards. Your guide gets you to just inside of 270 yards on a broad racked 4X4. He puts down his laser range finder and tells you it is 270 yards. He says it's big and tells you to take the shot. He puts his 10X Stetson down for your rifle to rest on for God's sake.

What do you do?

That would be determined by your definition of right or wrong, your ethics.

Is it a 30/30 or 300 Winchester Magnum.
Your knowledge of the ballistics table.
Have you any experience at 300 yards
Can you whip the guide if you mess it up and he chortles about it up at the lodge.
In front of the other hunters... and your wife.

Well maybe that last one doesn't count, but I sure as hell would add it to my equation.

I don't care how big the deer is, if I had a Winchester 94 in thirty-thirty I wouldn't shoot. That's the extent of my decision making process on that particular scenario. I know what I'm capable of and I leave it at that. Whereas with my Weatherby 30/06 I might consider the shot determined by the particular scenario.

Now, if I am in an enclosed property, it would depend upon my perception of whether I earned that deer ; did I work for it. First thing, why am I there? In my particular case, it wouldn't be for a magnificent specimen of that species. No, I would either be shooting culls for meat, or hunting a representative example of the species.

If I was shooting for meat I wouldn't take the shot. I'm there for meat not a big deer. If I was there for antlers, I would take the shot assuming in this case that I had fulfilled my personal criteria for an acceptable hunting experience, and I was comfortable with the probability of that shot.

"A Trophy is a Trophy is a Trophy, and to each his own." Adds Mike Riddle of Native Hunt. "My Trophy might not make P&Y or B&C or S.C.I. books but, it will always remain "MY" Trophy each and every time I look upon it, and reflect on that particular hunt while reliving the most vivid of memories which are conjured up from that hunt."

My primary game species is the feral hog. Most of the time hogs are baited, but in my particular case, I ambush them on their way to the bait, that's what I prefer. I've also ridden in doorless vehicles, four wheelers, and on horseback in pursuit of them, and chased them with dogs. Many of these hunts are less than an hour long from start to finish, but they are hunting expeditions none the less. Personally I have never shot an animal from a vehicle moving vehicle. But I have dismounted and stalked into position to take a killing shot.

Traditions also play an important factor in what we consider ethical. In the south, you chase deer with dogs. When I moved here I was aghast! Up north you shoot dogs that chase deer! But after consideration of the effect, the traditions, and the sport, I concluded that it was just another method of hunting. Interestingly enough I consider hunting hog, bear, or lions with hounds the height of hunting. Well, the height would be wild boar, hounds, horses and lances, but you get what I mean.

In some areas up north you can bait bear. That is an acceptable means of hunting for those areas. If the management goals of that area were negatively impacted by the practice then it is well within the scope of scientists in the management division to curtail the practice. It is not acceptable for others to deny the practice because they feel it is unethical.

The Hodgeman, as always, does a great job of illustrating the discussion:

"When we step outside of our culture and examine hunting traditions of other cultures the ideas get more outside our realm of experience. When I first moved to Alaska and saw some of the hunting practices in Western AK I was appalled. Shooting swimming caribou from boats, baiting bears, setnets, killing whales- among other things. It took me a while to realize this was a trip to the "store" and the people involved didn't want the experience to be "sporting" because it was their method of survival. Is it ethical- certainly. Moral- I think so. Is it for me- no."

"What passes as ethical for a resident of the Y-K delta who's surviving from nature suddenly becomes unethical if I do it- because its not ethical in the culture I exist in."

"Common practices in my culture- catch and release fishing, shooting large bulls not fit for consumption, even fair chase are looked at as disrespectful of nature from a subsistence perspective."

Hodge, thanks for helping refine the discussion.

Though I have absolutely no interest in ever (Well, the opportunity hasn't come up...) harpooning a whale, I appreciate the skill and the Inuit hunter's natural acumen when pursuing them. I also respect the scientists who determine what numbers may be taken, as long as it's science and not politics determining the numbers.

If we were to carefully analyze most situations that we commonly come into contention, we would find that in the end it is not you or I that can honestly say whether the action or activity is "hunting." Only the person in that moment, in that experience, can truly decide whether it is or isn't hunting.

My good friend and Black Powder enthusiast Rick Kratzke (Whitetail Woods ) has given some thought to how he defines his ethics.

"Ethics is a tricky word, but what I will tell you from my experience is this:

1. I don't shoot unless I feel I can make the shot.
2. I take pride in following the laws and regulations set forth by the state I live in.
3. I don't harvest anything unless I intend to eat it
4. I don't harvest anymore than I can consume in one year unless I am donating it to the homeless.
5. I can honestly say I have passed up deer when I could have shot, but didn't, because it was not legal to do so.

Now I know everyone has there own definition of what ethics means to them, but in the end if you hunt legally and harvest humanely, (the least amount of suffering to the animal), then you have done right."

An excellent synopsis of one person's ethical criteria for squeezing the trigger.

If you don't desire to participate in a particular form of hunting, or if you disapprove of a certain practice, then you are well within your rights to discuss it with others. But to discredit it or make claims that you cannot substantiate, that is wrong. We have enough opponents without making more of them within our own ranks.

I want to close with this, an observation from Holly Heyser, our own NorcalCazadora.

"If you let people argue about methods of killing (beyond the essential mandate of avoid cruelty/excessive suffering), they forget the simple fact that 96.8 percent of American adults eat things that used to have beating hearts. Wrap yourself in complicated ethical schemes and it becomes easier to marginalize some hunters; define hunting as one method in a larger system in which humans eat animals, and suddenly you can't separate us from the non-hunters - the only remaining divide is vegetarian v. meat eater, and we WAY outnumber the vegetarians."

Among the many things that we need:

• Scholarly works that we should all be familiar with. Holly Heyser has a post on must read texts on hunting traditions and philosophies: "Books About Hunting ..."
• Solid science in layman's terms for all of us to be able to grasp easily and use in our own defense.

Again this is a work in progress. I'll be adding to it as the discussion builds. Thank you everyone for your participation an help!

Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch™
Member: Shindand Tent Club
Member: Hunting Sportsmen of the United States HSUS (Let 'em sue me.)
The Hunt Continues...

Though he spends most of his time writing and keeping the world safe for democracy, Albert was actually a student of biology. Really. But after a stint as a lab tech performing repetitious and mind-numbing processes that a trained capuchin monkey could do better, he never returned to the field. Rather he became a bartender. As he once said, "Hell, I was feeding mice all sorts of concoctions. At the club I did the same thing; except I got paid a lot better, and the rats where bigger." He has followed the science of QDM for many years, and fancies himself an aficionado. If you have any questions, or just want to get more information, reach him via TheRaschOutdoorChronicles(at)MSN(dot)com.

Feeders, Feeding, Food Plots: Are they Fair?

.$g&m f9bd 45kd q!?5.
I was doing my daily readings of the bazillion blogs I follow, when an article on Extreme Outdoor caught my eye. To Feed, or Not to Feed? That is the Question... is as contentious a subject as there ever is. It's right up there with High Fence hunting if you ask me. And I am always looking for contentious!

I wrote Paul and asked him if he would mind if I reprinted it here on The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles. Paul graciously and enthusiastically agreed to the proposal. My hope is to get a good discussion going and once again learn new perspectives from my fellow hunters.

To Feed, or Not to Feed? That is the Question...

While doing my daily run-through of the blogs I follow, I came across an article written by Rick at Whitetail Woods. His article entitled Deer Feeders, Can be Worth Added Cost particularly caught my eye. Rick featured a tri-pod style feeder he encountered while at a friend's house. He did a great job giving specifications of the product. While the post was aesthetically flawless, I couldn't help but think about the implications of using a feeder, and perhaps the "ethical" dilemma that comes with it. Since I couldn't get the subject out of my mind, I decided to create a post to further explore this issue.

I'd like to start this off with a short story. When I started turkey hunting, I learned that a semi-distant relative hunted land very close to the land I was hunting. Every year, he harvested a large Eastern Turkey. After hunting hard and having little luck, I wondered how the heck he managed to do so well every year. I eventually found out his secret. Prior to and during the hunting season, he would take a bucket of corn and dump it in front of his favorite place to sit in the woods. Every day, equipped with a new bucket of corn, he took to the woods. He never had to wait long to pick the bird of his choice to harvest.

The BIG questions here: Is this cheating? Is baiting, in general, a dishonest way to hunt?

At the time, I'll admit I was furious at the idea of baiting or feeding. What he was doing took no skill. He never had to call or stalk the turkeys. He just had to sit there and wait. It wouldn't matter if he spooked the birds off--they would be back for more corn, and he would be waiting for them (another BIG question: Is this really hunting?)

My initial reaction is this:
Is this cheating? Yes. By placing a food source in an area and intentionally sitting over it for the purpose of harvesting animals gives the hunter an unfair advantage over the game they are after.

I wanted to push the issue a little further, and the first comment on Rick's post helps me do so. "Native" writes:

"Great thing that feeders are starting to lose their undeserved stigma Rick! It is so funny how (here in California) a person will disparage the use of a feeder, but will go right out the very next morning to hunt over a Barley Field. Same thing No? The other reality is the fact that we must supplement the food source for today's wild life. Just as with Factory Farming for people, so must it be with our wild life because there just ain't enough land to support us all anymore without doing so"

"Native" brings up a very good point. What is the difference between placing your stand in the corner of a cornfield and throwing out a bucket of corn every day? Either way, the hunter is taking advantage of the fact that animals have to eat. If placing the stand in the corner of a corn field is considered smart for understanding that game will travel to and from this location, then using a bucket corn or any food supplement should also make the hunter "smart" for doing so...not a cheater.

One might suggest that there is still a clear difference between using a feeder or food plot and sitting on the edge of a corn field: a feeder or food plot has one specific purpose--to attract animals. A corn or bean field might be considered a more "natural" food source for animals because they don't exist for wild game. The farmer who grows the field has an agenda for the crops, and that agenda doesn't include the feeding of wild animals. Because of this difference, one could also suggest the use of food plots or feeders should be rendered illegal because they are meant specifically for the attraction of wild game. While this solution seems logical for a "fair" hunt, it just can't happen for one simple reason: wildlife/habitat restoration. Every year, tons of money is spent to increase habitat for animals. This is exactly the same as creating a food plot or using a feeder. For example, a farmer patronizes the Conservation Reserve Program or CRP in a field on their land to increase habitat for pheasants. The farmer also plans to hunt the pheasants when a decent population exists in the CRP. Creating habitat, even in the name of hunting, is seen as a noble cause. No one has a problem with this. But what is the difference between giving animals a home and giving them food? Creating a CRP field and feeding game can both be done in the name of hunting, and both benefit the wild game and hunters. If we allow increased habitat for hunting, we must allow feeders, food plots, and salt blocks.

Another approach to the matter: Feeders, food plots, and salt blocks are all methods of attracting wild game to a hunting area. Hunters use many means of attracting animals all the time. Scents, calls, and decoys are used every season to attract game and get them within shooting range. If we removed the use of food sources to attract game, it seems only logical to remove all forms of attracting during the season.

One must also keep in mind that not all regions have good food sources to begin with. While Iowa has lush corn fields that keep animals well fed all year, locations in the southern United States don't have this rich vegetation. Feeders and food plots supplement the health of the animals, as well as create hunting opportunities.

Some hunting scenarios require a food source for a successful harvest of game. Bear hunting is often done by baiting. While this doesn't seem like "hunting," it is often the only way to even see a bear and make a clean shot.

While I don't think feeders and food plots can logically be taken out of the hunting scene, I will not use them in my own hunting. Hunting itself is determined by the individual. Personally, I like to make my hunts as challenging as possible. If someone else defines hunting by results and chooses to do whatever it takes to get results, so be it. The same debate can be placed on many aspects of hunting: using a blind vs. not using a blind...using a modern bow vs. a traditional bow...hunting with a bow vs. hunting with a gun...the list is endless. In the end, hunting is what you make of it.

What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know--I'm curious to hear various opinions on the subject.

Paul Steeve

Yes please, a good and bracing conversation is what we all need after this week's shenanigans!

Regards,
Albert A Rasch
Member: Hunting Sportsmen of the United States HSUS (Let 'em sue me.)
The Hunt Continues...

Related Posts:

Giving Conservation a Bad Name
Game Reserves, High Fence Hunting What are the Facts?
Sometimes it is Hard to See the Forest...
High Fence Hunting

The Ethical Question, Hunting or Shooting?

© 20009, 2010 Albert A Rasch™ and
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles
$g&m f9bd 45kd q!?5.

Hello Everyone! Once again this is work in progress. We will continue to modify, add, and refine as the conversation continues. You will notice that I have added permanent links somewhere over there to the left.

Albert

Last week we delved into the High Fence and Preserve Hunting question. Again I wanted to thank all of you for participating so enthusiastically and professionally. You do all sportsmen a great honor and service.

After carefully reading the post and comments, the impression is that the real question is about the ethics of shooting behind fences or enclosures. Is it ethical to shoot an animal in an enclosure and still call it hunting. Several comments were made questioning the ethics of doing so. But careful review of the conversation yielded no reasons for questioning the ethics of the activity. It is reasonable to suppose one man's ethics are another's moral morass.

At this point ethics and morals seem to be intertwined so tightly as to be indistinguishable. The easiest way to separate them is to define them. Morals are something that we all agree upon ie: killing for the sake of killing is wrong; broad general ideas. Whereas ethics are our method for assuring a moral outcome to any of our actions, or how we define our values. Those of you that are philosophy majors or philosophers please feel free to correct my definitions.

I propose that we dissect what transpires when we pull the trigger. At what point do we have to consciously make a decision as to whether the shot is righteous or not. Is there an ethical checklist that one must complete if and when he is to pull the trigger? Does it matter if you are feeding your family or killing for horns and antlers. What are the objective values that we need in order to make an ethical kill.

Much of it is subjective. Do you consciously decide if pulling the trigger will be ethical when it's a rat? Most will strive to humanely end the rodent' s life by shooting carefully and with purpose.

It becomes stickier when the competitive nature of the human race comes into play. You've paid $4500 for a three day guided Mule Deer hunt. You brought the wife along, and she's been fawning over the broad shouldered guide. You know that your comfort zone is inside of 125 yards. Your guide gets you to just inside of 270 yards on a broad racked 4X4. He puts down his laser range finder and tells you it is 270 yards. He says it's big and tells you to take the shot. He puts his 10X Stetson down for your rifle to rest on for God's sake.

What do you do?

That would be determined by your definition of right or wrong, your ethics.

Is it a 30/30 or 300 Winchester Magnum.
Your knowledge of the ballistics table.
Have you any experience at 300 yards
Can you whip the guide if you mess it up and he chortles about it up at the lodge.
In front of the other hunters... and your wife.

Well maybe that last one doesn't count, but I sure as hell would add it to my equation.

I don't care how big the deer is, if I had a Winchester 94 in thirty-thirty I wouldn't shoot. That's the extent of my decision making process on that particular scenario. I know what I'm capable of and I leave it at that. Whereas with my Weatherby 30/06 I might consider the shot determined by the particular scenario.

Now, if I am in an enclosed property, it would depend upon my perception of whether I earned that deer ; did I work for it. First thing, why am I there? In my particular case, it wouldn't be for a magnificent specimen of that species. No, I would either be shooting culls for meat, or hunting a representative example of the species.

If I was shooting for meat I wouldn't take the shot. I'm there for meat not a big deer. If I was there for antlers, I would take the shot assuming in this case that I had fulfilled my personal criteria for an acceptable hunting experience, and I was comfortable with the probability of that shot.

"A Trophy is a Trophy is a Trophy, and to each his own." Adds Mike Riddle of Native Hunt. "My Trophy might not make P&Y or B&C or S.C.I. books but, it will always remain "MY" Trophy each and every time I look upon it, and reflect on that particular hunt while reliving the most vivid of memories which are conjured up from that hunt."

My primary game species is the feral hog. Most of the time hogs are baited, but in my particular case, I ambush them on their way to the bait, that's what I prefer. I've also ridden in doorless vehicles, four wheelers, and on horseback in pursuit of them, and chased them with dogs. Many of these hunts are less than an hour long from start to finish, but they are hunting expeditions none the less. Personally I have never shot an animal from or even near a vehicle. But I have dismounted and stalked into position to take a killing shot.

Traditions also play an important factor in what we consider ethical. In the south, you chase deer with dogs. When I moved here I was aghast! Up north you shoot dogs that chase deer! But after consideration of the effect, the traditions, and the sport, I concluded that it was just another method of hunting. Interestingly enough I consider hunting hog, bear, or lions with hounds the height of hunting. Well, the height would be wild boar, hounds, horses and lances.

In some areas up north you can bait bear. That is an acceptable means of hunting for those areas. If the management goals of that area were negatively impacted by the practice then it is well within the scope of scientists in the management division to curtail the practice. It is not acceptable for others to deny the practice because they feel it is unethical.

The Hodgeman, otherwise known as Mike Rodgers, as always, does a great job of illustrating the discussion:

"When we step outside of our culture and examine hunting traditions of other cultures the ideas get more outside our realm of experience. When I first moved to Alaska and saw some of the hunting practices in Western AK I was appalled. Shooting swimming caribou from boats, baiting bears, setnets, killing whales- among other things. It took me a while to realize this was a trip to the "store" and the people involved didn't want the experience to be "sporting" because it was their method of survival. Is it ethical- certainly. Moral- I think so. Is it for me- no."

"What passes as ethical for a resident of the Y-K delta who's surviving from nature suddenly becomes unethical if I do it- because its not ethical in the culture I exist in."

"Common practices in my culture- catch and release fishing, shooting large bulls not fit for consumption, even fair chase are looked at as disrespectful of nature from a subsistence perspective."

Mike, thanks for helping refine the discussion.

Though I have absolutely no interest in ever harpooning a whale, I appreciate the skill and Inuit hunter's natural acumen when pursuing them. I also respect the scientists who determine what numbers may be taken, as long as it's science and not politics determining the numbers.

If we were to carefully analyze most situations that we commonly come into contention, we would find that in the end it is not you or I that can honestly say whether the action or activity is "hunting." Only the person in that moment, in that experience, can truly decide whether it is or isn't hunting.

My good friend Rick Kratzke (Whitetail Woods)has given some thought to how he defines his ethics.

"Ethics is a tricky word, but what I will tell you from my experience is this:

1. I don't shoot unless I feel I can make the shot.
2. I take pride in following the laws and regulations set forth by the state I live in.
3. I don't harvest anything unless I intend to eat it
4. I don't harvest anymore than I can consume in one year unless I am donating it to the homeless.
5. I can honestly say I have passed up deer when I could have shot, but didn't, because it was not legal to do so.

Now I know everyone has there own definition of what ethics means to them, but in the end if you hunt legally and harvest humanely, (the least amount of suffering to the animal), then you have done right."

An excellent synopsis of one person's ethical criteria for squeezing the trigger.

If you don't desire to participate in a particular form of hunting, or if you disapprove of a certain practice, then you are well within your rights to discuss it with others. But to discredit it or make claims that you cannot substantiate, that is wrong. We have enough opponents without making more of them within our own ranks.

I want to close with this, an observation from Holly Heyser, our own NorcalCazadora.

"If you let people argue about methods of killing (beyond the essential mandate of avoid cruelty/excessive suffering), they forget the simple fact that 96.8 percent of American adults eat things that used to have beating hearts. Wrap yourself in complicated ethical schemes and it becomes easier to marginalize some hunters; define hunting as one method in a larger system in which humans eat animals, and suddenly you can't separate us from the non-hunters - the only remaining divide is vegetarian v. meat eater, and we WAY outnumber the vegetarians."



Among the many things that we need:

• Scholarly works that we should all be familiar with. Holly Heyser has a post on must read texts on hunting traditions and philosophies: "Books About Hunting ..."
• Solid science in layman's terms for all of us to be able to grasp easily and use in our own defense.

Again this is a work in progress. I'll be adding to it as the discussion builds. Thank you everyone for your participation an help!

Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch™
Member: Kandahar Tent Club
Member: Hunting Sportsmen of the United States HSUS (Let 'em sue me.)
The Hunt Continues...

Though he spends most of his time writing and keeping the world safe for democracy, Albert was actually a student of biology. Really. But after a stint as a lab tech performing repetitious and mind-numbing processes that a trained capuchin monkey could do better, he never returned to the field. Rather he became a bartender. As he once said, "Hell, I was feeding mice all sorts of concoctions. At the club I did the same thing; except I got paid a lot better, and the rats where bigger." He has followed the science of QDM for many years, and fancies himself an aficionado. If you have any questions, or just want to get more information, reach him via TheRaschOutdoorChronicles(at)MSN(dot)com.

Hunting in NebraskaAirSoft: It's Not Just for Kids!Yo-Yos for Troops!Nebraska Hunting CompanyCupidFish.comScott Croner

Hunting in NebraskaAirSoft: It's Not Just for Kids!Yo-Yos for Troops!Nebraska Hunting CompanyCupidFish.comScott Croner

An Interesting Question...

© 2009 Albert A Rasch

Late last night I was trying to catch up with the many blogs I read. I would like to say that the quality of the bloggers affiliated with Outdoor Bloggers Summit is exceptional! The truth is that the writing steadily improves and quite frankly I think in many cases surpasses that of professionals in the traditional sectors!

My many friends out there, I want you all to know that I do read just about every post that comes out, but I am limited to the number of comments I can type out! So please know that I am there with y'all almost every day even though I may not comment.

I was going through Deer Passion's Blog when I bumped into this:

Julia said...
Sorry to post twice, I just landed on your blog. I'm not a hunter (which you'll know if you read my first comment). But all of the hunters I've met in my life talk about how much they love the wildlife they hunt. And yet I rarely hear about hunters off-season going out just to appreciate wildlife the way many of us non-hunters do. I don't fully understand that. Am I just reading that wrong? I hate to make generalizations. For me, there's nothing more captivating that being out on the trails, seeing the hawks and eagles and deer and the bobcats (they live in my area) -- especially since this time of year there tends to be calm, owing to the fact that is off-season for much game. It's sometimes easier to get close to the animals and be a part of their world in a non-threatening way. I've read posts about guys in utter despair after deer season, planted in the chair watching hunting shows. If you appreciate the outdoors and wildlife as much as I do, you just want to be out there, hunting or not. Or so it would seem.

OK, I understand and appreciate Julia's perspective.

I answered back immediately without giving it much thought; (I'm from the ready, shoot, aim, school of verbal repartee):

Julia,

First of all, thanks for stopping by our fellow OBS member Deer Passion. We always appreciate new readers and good questions.

Many of us do have off season pursuits, I fish, restore habitat, camp, garden, tend my bees, grow hickories for planting in public places, I try to hog hunt, and pick up trash at the preserves and public spots I frequent. I also teach kids about the outdoors, including fishing, hunting, trapping, bio diversity, perma-culture, ecology, ethics, and morality; not to mention the basics like logic, reading writing, and arithmetic.

You make an interesting comment though about how much you appreciate the outdoors when you are out there. I would suggest that you also try to educate those around you that don't take the time to really see what's out there.

We Sportsmen, like Deer Passion, NorcalCazadora, The Suburban Bushwacker, and all my friends at the Outdoor Bloggers Summit see the outdoors, and all its splendor, everyday. Because we LOOK for it!

As I was writing I thought that Julia really deserved a better, more thought out answer. So I added:

You have motivated me to write a more thorough explanation, Please look for it sometime after 9PM 2/24/09 on my blog The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles.

And here I am.

I am firmly of the opinion that outdoorsmen have a greater ability to find the natural beauty they seek where ever they are. Whether it's peregrines in New York City, deer in the suburbs, or squirrels racing along a power line, we tend to see them long before anyone else does.

We also have a vested interest in maintaining the wild spaces around us. We are the ones that that fund the great outdoors for the use of many.

......................................

I've been sitting here for over an hour wracking my brain for a better answer than what I wrote yesterday. I wrote the last two thoughts out, but I don't know any better way to explain what I feel and do in the outdoors than to invite Julia to read my archives.

I already listed some of the things I do.

I feel like I have not explained myself thoroughly enough, but I am also feeling that I am trying to justify something.

And you know something, I don't feel that I need to justify anything I do. If it isn't obvious then I don't mind explaining, but this is coming dangerously close to justification.

Maybe some of my friends might lend a hand here.


Best Regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles
Albert Rasch In Afghanistan

The High Priests of Whatever

© 2009 Albert A Rasch



It seems that no matter what the activity there are always folks that think they know best or at least better.

I remember when the compound bows came out. Oh boy, you could hear the wails of the traditionalists. There was much gnashing of the teeth, hair pulling, and beating of the chest. I remember well the looks of disgust that the older fellows at the local sporting goods shop had for those first four wheelers; it was the same as the ones they gave the magnesium risers on the Ben Pearsons, and the same look they had for the first fiberglass laminates. Being young I wasn't as inflexible as they, and when the two wheelers came around I got a Browning Cobra. But I find myself looking askance at the newest bows with their fancy eccentric cams and laser illuminators.

Funny thing though, they still throw a stick with feathers on one end, and a pointy sharp thing at the other, into target butts and deer. Not much different than the neolithic flat bow my prehistoric cousins used a few dozen millenia ago.

A lot has been made of the disagreements between the inline muzzleloader and the traditionalists. Othmar Vohringer in his article, A Muzzleloader by any Name is Still a Muzzleloader points out the foolishness of the argument between the camps and resolves it neatly.

"This is the 21st century and we’re faced with huge problems that could end the hunting and shooting tradition for the next generation if we do not wake up to the challenges we face. I am glad that with sound reasoning and knowledge I was able to convince my hunting club acquaintance that with a little good will and respect all types of muzzleloaders can be combined into one. I am also pleased to see that the guy realized that we’re faced with more important issues then who shoots what. It is my hope that in the future we can concentrate more on what unites us all and less on what divides us. We’re all in the same boat and the sooner we realize that the better our future will look."

Othmar Vohringer

Interestingly enough, just days before, Othmar had posted another article on the crossbow. It seems that Pennsylvania has finally permitted the use of the crossbow for hunting. In Pennsylvania Permits Crossbows, Othmar again defends the use of another tool that has been discriminated against for as long as I can remember.

"Personally I welcome this decision and think it is about high time to make the crossbow a legal hunting tool everywhere. Here in Canada we use crossbows for many years and it has proven a great asset to bowhunting and the recruitment of bowhunters. It might also be interesting to mention that none of the often fabricated negative aspects of crossbow hunting have been noted."

Othmar Vohringer

This brings me in a round about fashion to "Religious Falconry."

Sometimes reality is far funnier than anything made up by any comedian. As it turns out, the aficionados of the ancient and honorable sport of falconry have their fair share of controversy. First one must be careful about how one uses the appellations; a falconer flies a falcon; an austringer flies a hawk. Get that wrong and you run the risk of losing an eye to a falconer's hawk or an austringer's falcon!

There's the whole short wing vrs long wing debate, and you can't leave the industrial park vrs open ground opponents out of the mix. As you can see, these can lead to terrible bloodlettings in the mews.

Now when I said "funnier" I really didn't mean it. And I don't think that Issac Nichols thinks it too funny either. He has written a beautiful piece, one that is so well thought out, that I want each and everyone of you to go and read it in its entirety.

Here is an excerpt:

"...While our beliefs about the afterlife, or lack thereof, may cross the spectrum, individuals reading this article most likely all share the religion of falconry, and it is this “religious falconry” to which I would like to speak. It is my intention with this article to encourage all falconers to adopt the above mentioned tenet of my faith as it applies to falconers.

Claim the privilege of practicing falconry according to the dictates of your own conscience, and allow all falconers the same privilege, let them practice how, where, or what they may."

Isaac Nichols

Claim the privilege of practicing falconry according to the dictates of your own conscience, and allow all falconers the same privilege, let them practice how, where, or what they may...


Think about those words. Truer words, I haven't heard spoken lately.

I would like to change that around a little, just as Issac has done:


Claim the privilege of hunting, according to the dictates of your own conscience, and allow all hunters the same privilege; let them practice how, where, or what they may.

I would encourage that all hunters, regardless of the tools they use, adopt the foregoing statement. It is simple and true beyond the few words it contains.

I would like to thank Issac for his well written and thought out article, and I extend an invitation to Issac and all his friends in the falconry world to join us at the Outdoor Bloggers Summit. We all have a stake in the future of each other's sports, and in defending our sacred rights.

Regards,
Albert A Rasch
The Hunt Continues...

Related Posts:
The Best of the Chronicles on Animal Rights Extremism
Giving Conservation a Bad Name
Sometimes it is Hard to See the Forest...

Fact or Fiction: When Speculation is Taken as Proof

© 2009, 2010 Albert A Rasch™ and
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles
$g&m f9bd 45kd q!?5.

This is the first in a series of commentaries on game ranching, hi-fencing, property rights, and hunter rights that I will be exploring. I encourage frank discussion, thoughtful responses, and lively debates. Those on the opposite sides of the aisle who don't usually visit here, are reminded that I only accept civil behavior, if you don't have the guts to post without being anonymous, please don't post. You will notice that I sign my name to everything I write both here and elsewhere. I believe in what I say, and I am not afraid to say it. Show me the same courtesy.

Albert A Rasch
Chief Chronicler

If you were to read the Humane Society of the United States' description of game ranch hunting, you might be led to the conclusion that ranchers are an evil lot, hunters are immoral and unethical, and if you are a careful reader, that animals are equal to humans.

After reading their web page titled, “Facts About Canned Hunting,” I was so disturbed by the faulty logic, misdirection, implications, and unsubstantiated statements, that I thought to dissect the statements made by the HSUS and perhaps dispel some of the propaganda that they are espousing. I would like to point out that the HSUS states, both in their url, and the title: “Facts About Canned Hunting.”

HSUS: “Canned hunts are private trophy hunting ranches, also referred to as "shooting preserves" or "game ranches." Canned hunts offer their customers an opportunity to kill confined exotic and/or native species for a price. Though not all canned hunt facilities are the same, here are a few things they all have in common:”

The term “Canned Hunt” is a phrase coined by the animal welfare proponents; it does not appear in the hunting community’s lexicon. There is no legal definition of Canned Hunt. It was created to explicitly imply that there is absolutely no such thing as “Fair Chase,” that the animal is in some way constrained or held unable to escape its fate.

HSUS: "Animals cannot escape. Canned hunts may range from a few to thousands of acres, but there is always a fence. On large ranches, guides drive hunters out to feed plots or bait stations that the animals are known to visit at certain times of the day. Small ranches offer animals in fenced areas where the hunter may approach the animals on foot, pick his target up close, take aim, and shoot."

As a matter of fact, the HSUS does not supply one single factual and documented example of this practice, on their page.

That animals cannot escape, is true. That they occasional do is also true. Just as any livestock rancher tries to avoid the loss of his herd, so does the game rancher. But, the implication of the preceding paragraph is that the animals cannot escape the hunter. This is only partially true. Any rancher worth his salt knows every square foot of his property. Naturally, he will know were his livestock will be at any given time. The difficulty is actually finding them. There are ten acre lots that a person can get lost in. To equate large enclosures of thousands of acres to one of twenty acres is disingenuous at best and a lie meant to incite at worse. Remember the HSUS states: “things they all have in common.”

HSUS: "Canned hunting often means a slow death. Because the object of the hunt is a trophy, hunters generally aim at an animal's non-vital organs in order to leave the head and chest unscathed. This makes for a more attractive trophy but condemns the animal to a slow and painful death."

Vital organ location has no impact on the capeing of a trophy. Any taxidermist can stitch bullet or arrow holes and you would never find it. Since the HSUS uses the phrase hunting and hunter throughout the page, then they are obviously uninformed, for the vast majority of hunters will always opt for the quickest, cleanest kill possible. Sure sometimes a shot is botched, but that is by no means a common, everyday occurrence.

HSUS: The animals are often semi-tame. Because the animals are often bred on site or purchased from game farms, animal dealers—perhaps even zoos—they have been habituated to humans. Animals who've lost their fear of humans are easy targets, which makes it easy for canned hunt operators to offer a "no kill—no pay" guarantee.

That the animals are “often” semi tame is an unsubstantiated claim. Might there be some unscrupulous individuals that have semi-tame animals? Undoubtedly. Animals do breed on site that is true, that they have lost their fear of humans is again unsubstantiated. The use of the word “often” implies that game ranches have tame, hand fed animals that walk up to humans. This again, is untrue and meant to be disingenuous.

HSUS: Exotic and native animals are bred for canned hunts. The exotic species bred to be killed in canned hunts include many varieties of goats and sheep, several species of deer and antelope, Russian boar, and zebra. The native species include deer, elk, bison, and bear.
Hunting groups that subscribe to the concept of "fair chase" oppose canned hunts. Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, the Orion Institute, and the Izaak Walton League all denounce canned hunting. Many individual hunters also scorn canned hunting as unsportsmanlike.

“FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.”

To be accurate, the Boone and Crockett Club position on “canned shooting” is: “The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus “hunting” situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill.” Emphasis mine.

The Pope and Young Club however, does not allow any animal taken from any enclosure whatsoever regardless of size, to be included in their record books. Their definition of Fair Chase is directly related to the taking of game to be included in their record books. In speaking to their representative, I was told that the spirit of the "Fair Chase Doctrine" was: "The taking of any animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals is fair chase." So the rule is not to condemn the practice of game ranching, but forbid those animals taken at hunting ranches as being admited into the books.

Nowhere on either of the preceding sites does it "denounce" game ranching, shooting preserves, or hunting preserves. You will find that many hunters do "scorn" "canned hunting," but appreciate preserve hunting or game ranching as a viable alternative to public land.

After careful research of both the Orion Institute and the Izaak Walton League websites, I could find no reference to canned hunting, canned shooting, or fair chase. (As I write this I have not been in touch with either group. As soon as I do, I will ascertain their positions.)

HSUS: Canned hunts carry the risk of spreading disease. Canned hunts can be directly related to the spread of serious wildlife diseases, most notably chronic wasting disease. When animals are concentrated in numbers, share food plots, or congregate at bait stands, the likelihood of disease transmission increases. Disease transmission is not only a risk to captive animals but also a potential threat to free-roaming wildlife. Many states have banned canned hunts because of the seriousness of this threat.

To use the words "risk", "can be", "likelihood", or "potential", implies a possibility not certainty. The title word of the HSUS page was “Facts” not possibilities. Once again, their use is meant to instill fear and concern. There are risks inherent with everyday activity. We use common sense, intellect and our wits to avoid the pitfalls that abound. Ranchers and game managers have their personal and financial well being tied up with their stock. They don't make foolish mistakes often.

HSUS: Canned hunts are legal in most of the United States. Most states allow canned hunting. At this time, no federal law governs canned hunting. The Animal Welfare Act does not regulate game preserves, hunting preserves, or canned hunts. Although the Endangered Species Act protects species of animals listed as endangered or threatened, it does not prohibit private ownership of endangered animals and may even allow the hunting of endangered species.

Again with the vague terminology; "Most states allow canned hunting." "Many states have banned canned hunting..." Which is it?

Of course "Canned Hunts" are legal in all states, as there is no legal definition for canned hunts. As to the legality of game ranches, there are some states that regulate them. And until the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits the ownership of property, owners may dispose of their property, including livestock, in whatever manner they choose.

Be honest HSUS. Your objection is not to any of the above mentioned activities, your objection is to the killing of animals. A little more honesty, and a lot less hypocrisy on your part would go a long way.

Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch™
Member: Shindand Tent Club
Member: Hunting Sportsmen of the United States HSUS (Let 'em sue me.)
The Hunt Continues...

Though he spends most of his time writing and keeping the world safe for democracy, Albert was actually a student of biology. Really. But after a stint as a lab tech performing repetitious and mind-numbing processes that a trained capuchin monkey could do better, he never returned to the field. Rather he became a bartender. As he once said, "Hell, I was feeding mice all sorts of concoctions. At the club I did the same thing; except I got paid a lot better, and the rats where bigger." He has followed the science of QDM for many years, and fancies himself an aficionado. If you have any questions, or just want to get more information, reach him via TheRaschOutdoorChronicles(at)MSN(dot)com.

Hunting in NebraskaNebraska Hunting CompanyCupidFish.comScott Croner

Hunting in NebraskaYo-Yos for Troops!Nebraska Hunting CompanyCupidFish.comScott Croner