Pathways to Hunting

As many of you probably know, the views I often share on the site have a hint of ethical discussion or "big picture" pretense. One thing I cherish about the Total Outdoor Network and especially all of you on the boards of FBO is the unity (or common ground) we all share. However; from time to time, conflict –-or perhaps better put, fluctuating opinions–-occur. One such subject is youth hunting.

The subject has come up quite often and this hunting season is no exception. But it wasn't until what has become known as "Dani's Article" that I felt obligated towards capturing facts and logical opinions in hopes of creating a centralized train of thought. Of course, I can only take a small amount (if any) of credit for bring this issue to the forefront because many organizations, individuals, and members throughout FBO and the outdoor realm have shed light on this issue from past to present. There's too many to list so I trust this sentence is credit enough. Besides, you know who you are, as does everyone else. So do me a favor, give yourself a pat on the back.

As stated above, it wasn't until "Dani's Article" that I really became fired up in putting the pencil to paper (or fingertips to the keyboard), however in complete honesty; it was both a combination of Dani's Article and a series of emails from a devoted Hunters Education Instructor by the name of Lee Bratlie who prompted creation of this article. There was a lot of conversation between Lee and I so trying to formalize a readable format for you all would prove to be a tedious task. After hitting the delete key many times I thought to myself, "Why not do an interview and let Lee tell the story?"

The remainder of this article pertains to topics derived from Dani's Article, Lee's interview, and other various resources concerning youth and first time hunters. It's suggested you click on the link immediately above and read through Dani's Article before moving on to the interview. It'll help create background for the discussion ahead.

Question One: Lee, tell the viewers about yourself, how you are involved in the outdoors, and what your favorite pursuits are? Perhaps extend those comments in sharing how you feel about the direction hunting is going? Also, tell the viewers about your involvement with the ND Hunter Education Department.

Well, I’m from Drayton, North Dakota, 50 years of age, and have been a hunter, or involved in hunting my entire life. I still have very fond memories of time spent with my Dad when I was too young to actually carry a gun, but was allowed to skip school (occasionally anyway!) to accompany him on hunting trips. Thankfully, both my parents saw the value of time spent hunting with Dad as a means of “educating” their son, certainly different than the “textbook variety,” but equally beneficial in the long run.

As far as favorite pursuits, gosh, where do I start? I’ve done all the typical North Dakota stuff like mule deer, whitetails, antelope, sharptails, ruffed grouse, pheasants, turkeys, hungarian partridge, ducks, geese, plus fishing for many species to trapping chub minnows as a kid in the creek on my grandparents farm near Larimore, ND. Some of my fishing pursuits include catching salmon, walleye, muskie, crappie, and northern pike throughout North Dakota, Minnesota, Ontario, Montana, Wyoming, and Manitoba waters. In addition, I’ve been an avid bowhunter for the past 25 years and have hunted caribou in Quebec twice, black bear in Minnesota three times, moose in ND several years ago, and have fished lake trout, walleye, and northern pike many times in the Flin Flon/ Cranberry Portage, Manitoba area. Plus, I can't go without mentioning the salmon and halibut trips in Alaska with my wife.

The direction hunting is taking in North Dakota is very alarming to me for several reasons. On one hand, there has been the recent proliferation of guides and outfitters combined with fee hunting and the purchasing/closing of hunting land to the general public by wealthy individuals. The other, and the most serious threat to hunting in my opinion, is the lack of recruitment of youth/new hunters to our ranks. This is being driven by broken homes, single parents, parents who don’t hunt, urbanization, peer pressure, the mentality that hunting is a “man's sport”, among others.

My interest in the North Dakota Hunter Education program started many years ago when the instructor at that time from Drayton asked me if I’d be interested in helping him teach classes. I took the initial steps to become certified and helped out with classes but it wasn't until about eight years ago when I became an instructor. It seemed as if things came full circle when he [his instructor] called explaining the class he was about to undertake would be his last. The next year, I was Drayton's newest Hunter Education Instructor. In addition to being a certified Hunter Education Instructor, I’m also on the Board of Directors of the North Dakota Hunter Educators Association, representing District 4, which includes the counties of Pembina, Walsh, Cavalier, and Ramsey.

Question Two: Is the North Dakota Game & Fish Department (NDGF) supportive of youth seasons and in extending hunting experiences for ND's hunting youth? If so, why? 

It's not uncommon to hear arguments against youth season. What are some that you [NDGF] hear? Out of them, what are your favorite misconceptions?

Oh man, are they ever!! I can’t say enough about what NDGF has done to support and expand the youth hunting opportunities under the direction of Commissioner Dean Hildebrandt and Hunter Education Supervisor Jim Carter. One only has to pick up an issue of North Dakota Outdoors magazine or talk to either of these gentlemen in person to see the importance they place on youth seasons or youth in general as part of our hunting community. They understand that youth hunters will be the next generation to carry the ball so to speak and will ultimately define the future hunting plays in this state.

I believe that youth hunts are supported by the majority of hunters in the state, but you’re right, there are some who don’t feel a youth season is necessary. The biggest complaints I hear about the youth seasons are that they give kids an “unfair advantage” over the adults, that they spook game before the regular seasons, and that we are somehow “coddling” the youth with special seasons.

Another thing that really floors me is when someone suggests that kids should only be allowed to shoot does during the youth season. My feeling is that you can shoot many deer in a lifetime, but you only get a chance to shoot your first deer once. And we want them to “cull does” with their first license? For what reason, so there are more bucks for “us big boys?” Or so they “learn about wildlife management?” We teach them all about that in Hunter Ed class. I’ve even heard people say it's wrong to shoot bucks that early in the year because they haven’t had a chance to breed. So what about the bow season? What about last year, didn’t they breed last season? I shake my head when I hear armchair biologists lacking formal training attempting to justify their beliefs. The truth is, if you shoot a buck in September it won’t breed this year. If you shoot it in November it won’t finish breeding this year, and neither deer will breed next year. Management from real biologists allows other deer to claim their place in the cycle. If such management explained youth hunters to be unbeneficial to their plan, so be it. The case is; however, that no such evidence exists.

When you look at the big picture regarding youth recruitment it becomes obvious the sentiment against youth hunting seasons is either bred by ignorance, selfishness, or a combination of both, and you also see that the buck in the above example isn’t really that important in the whole scheme of things. It's the future strength of our hunting community!

Question Three: In past conversations, you’ve spoke of a study which backs that statement up, can you explain?

Sure Tim, this summer I again volunteered to work at the Pathways to Hunting booth at the state fair in Minot, ND for a couple days. The Pathways to Hunting is a shooting range inside the NDG&F complex at the state fairgrounds where youngsters can shoot pellet guns at metal targets after being instructed in safe gun handling by certified instructors. During a lull in the action, I visited with Jim Carter and he told me about research recently compiled for the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the National Wild Turkey Federation. The research project by Silvertip Productions, Southwick Associates, and The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance identified urgency for aggressive recruitment of young hunters was in dire need.

The research showed a disproportionate percentage (45.8%) of hunters aged 35 – 54 exists and as the ages get younger, the percentage of hunters drops off significantly. So much in fact, that the very sport you and I are so fond of is in grave danger in years to come. The data showed nationally, 4.23% of Americans ages 6 – 15 hunted in the year 2000. By contrast, 6.15% of Americans ages 16 and older hunted the very same year. By dividing the youth percentage by the adult percentage, the study provided a ratio of youth hunters compared to adult hunters in the general population, and then looked at the demographics of the general population as a whole. This resulted in what is called the national hunter replacement, or recruitment ratio (RR) number. The study suggested the RR should be at the very least a 1.0. This would mean that statistically for every hunter leaving the sport another would enter. Obviously a state wouldn’t want their number to be below the 1.0 mark.

Question Four: Expanding on this study, what were the recruitment results for North Dakota? How do they compare to the national average, and what was the range of the replacement ratio nationally?

Sadly, the RR number for North Dakota is .53. This compares to a national average ratio number of .69 for all 50 states. The range was from a high of 1.16 to a low of .26. It might come as a surprise to find out that the bottom state wasn’t an urban state such as New Hampshire or California. Michigan, a state most think of as an “outdoors type state” with hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling (especially in the Upper Peninsula region) claimed an alarming RR of .26. By the way, New Hampshire came in 3rd highest with a 1.09; California came in at #15 with a .82 replacement ratio number; and North Dakota's dismal RR put us in 40th.

Question Five: Obviously, the results are rather low especially for a state that is predominately rural and considered one of the last states left to hold quality hunting opportunities. Does the study shed    any light on this? What, if anything can we do to turn these disappointing numbers around, did the study have any ideas on that? 

The study found that the states with the highest replacement ratios were those that had the least restrictions on youth hunters. It matters little if it’s a rural or urban state, the fewer restrictions on young hunters, the more young hunters that state will have. The hunting laws regarding young hunters of each state were examined, and each of the 50 states were then put into one of three groups: Very Restrictive States, Somewhat Restrictive States, and Least Restrictive States. Of the 20 states defined as very restrictive, 16 of them were below the national average replacement ratio. Five of the 13 states defined as somewhat restrictive were lower than the national average; however, only four of the 17 states listed as least restrictive were below the national average. By the way, North Dakota fit into the very restrictive state classification.

One thing the study found to be imperative was to use the 35 – 54 year old age group as an advantage in recruiting and retaining youth hunters. It can be looked upon as an advantage because this is the largest group of hunters overall, and also the group most likely to interact with youth. Many have children of their own, or family or friends with children. The study looked at a cross section of the population and sorted by age when their first hunting experience occurred and found that 79.60% of those surveyed were in the 6 – 15 year old age group. No other age group was anywhere close. The next group surveyed was the 16 and 17 year olds, and if they waited until that age [16-17] for their first hunting experience only 13.20% participated in a first hunt. More disturbing is that a smaller percentage kept hunting. Hence, a decline in the age group most commonly linked with getting youth involved in hunting. Clearly, if you don’t get them hooked by the time they are 14 years old, you’ll miss [recruiting and retaining] most of them. While talking with Jim, it dawned on me that out of the 10-12 year olds I instructed, only half of them continued forward in becoming hunters.

Question Six: Again mentioning the disappointing recruitment numbers, what does this do for the overall big picture of hunting? Furthermore, how can this cripple the NDGF's ability to manage its resources? 

Well, like the old saying goes, “there’s strength in numbers”, so the fewer of us there are, the less strength we have. For starters it’s the obvious loss of revenue for the Department. The NDGF is a self sufficient entity, meaning they aren’t funded through the general fund, but by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. Fewer license sales means less revenue to manage the wildlife resources of this state. As the number of hunters decline, license fees could be raised, but only to a point. Raise license fees high enough, and the hunters of modest means will find another hobby, and we will lose them also. By the way, that’s the reason I’ve always been against controlling the number of non-resident hunters with increased licensing fees instead of limiting the number of licenses through a lottery. If we try to control hunter numbers in this manner we a will be effectively locking out the average family. An average family would most commonly be two parents with a couple kids with and income in the low to average bracket. If we block them out, the sport of hunting becomes a toy for the affluent. This goes against the thinking of such great sportsmen as Theodore Roosevelt, Jim Posewitz, Aldo Leopold, and many others. If hunting is going to have any chance of surviving it needs to remain within the economic reach of most people regardless of their stature in life. To do otherwise will turn it into an aristocratic sport much like England, and we all know what problems that has caused or at least we should know if we’ve been paying attention.

Another problem with low recruitment of new hunters is the effect at the ballot box on election day. Pheasantgate is a prime example that should long be remembered and serve as a warning to all of us in North Dakota. I’m sure you remember that fiasco and the uproar that followed, sportsmen’s groups from around the state lined up against the Governor and vowed to sink him in the next election, but when the votes were counted he won by a landslide. I believe that as hunters and sportsmen, we lost a lot more than we realize from that dilemma. Most politicians aren’t hunters, and that scares the heck out of me Tim. To have a non-hunter deciding our fate in the legislature makes as much sense as you and I writing a procedure for a surgeon to do a heart transplant at the Mayo Clinic, but that’s what happens ever legislative session. Politicians who couldn’t tell the difference between a sling shot and a shotgun are deciding important wildlife issues, and they are constantly bombarded with half-truths and out right lies from lobbyists. And then they look at what happened with Pheasantgate left with the feeling we're not a power to be reckoned with, and the fewer of us there are, the worse it will get.

But the biggest problem with low recruitment rates will be wildlife management problems created in years to come. Using lawful hunting seasons to control wildlife populations has always been an argument that hunters have used to justify sport hunting that is beyond reproach. Better for hunters to control the population of wildlife we say, than to let Mother Nature do it as hunters are actually much more humane. But how will we control wildlife populations if our numbers are cut in half? Take this year for example, there are probably 65,000 deer hunters in the state, and they are being asked to control a deer population which is at a historical high with over 140,000 licenses available this year. If the current trend continues, how will 30,000 hunters control a deer population like we have now? Last year we had similar numbers of hunters and similar numbers of licenses. The outcome was thousands of licenses left un-purchased by season's end. What will happen when we have half the number of hunters? How will a deer population similar to today’s numbers be controlled by sport hunting? It simply won’t happen, so then what, National Guard sharpshooters? How about poison? Maybe People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will come up with a sterilization plan for wildlife so their numbers can be controlled more “humanely.” Then what? How will we argue we’re a necessary part of wildlife management, when we really no longer are? What I really find interesting, or actually quite disturbing, is that for the first time in my memory there have been extra antelope, turkey, and tundra swan tags available. Those tags are heavily sought after and several years of preference points were needed to acquire one in years past, now you can buy extras over the counter after the drawing? Don't get me wrong, this is a great time in our state's hunting history be we cannot lose sight of what the future could bring. As I’ve always said, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it and then find out it wasn’t what you really wanted in the first place.

Question Seven: In question four, it's clear that some states are doing much better in recruitment than North Dakota is. What are they doing different? Is it something that North Dakota can focus on?  Expanding further than other state's tactics, what else can North Dakota do to create better recruitment numbers? How do you feel the public could react to each? 

Well again, the study found that to be effective at recruitment, a state has to get kids involved at an early age, and that means relaxing some of the restrictions that were previously in place. The study found big game hunting has gradually begun to replace small game hunting as the preferred hunt of young hunters. North Dakota is surrounded by states and provinces that allow big game hunting at the age of 12; however, we are still stuck on not allowing kids to hunt big game unless they have reached the age of 14 before the day season opens. Why? It makes absolutely no sense at all! Remember all those deer licenses that were left last year? How many do you think will be left over again this year? How many of us have multiple licenses this year that could be made available to youth hunters instead of filling our own freezers? But the first thing you would hear from some people if we talked of dropping the age for big game hunting down to 12 years is the safety aspect. Take note there is no valid scientific evidence to support such a claim! In fact, the study shows in the year 2002 there were 1.7 million hunters under the age of 15 who collectively hunted over 15.3 million days, and they were involved in only 77 hunting related shooting incidents. With those numbers it's no secret hunting is a very safe activity. Statistically, it's much safer than aerobics, horseback riding, tennis, basketball, and even cheerleading.

Another thing some states have done is implement a “mentor program” for youth hunters. Willing adults are paired with young hunters that do not have an adult to accompany them. States that allow such a program have found two advantages with the mentor program. First, (and most obvious), young hunters who otherwise wouldn’t have an opportunity to hunt are given that chance. Second, the mentors find time spent with a youngster rewarding and enjoyable often creating lifetime friendships. The mentors make a positive impression on hunting which significantly helps in retaining that first time hunter. This is probably an appropriate time to thank FBO’s own tjeklr for his unselfish offers in allowing young hunters to hunt his land last fall. In a trade a trip board, tjeklr offered to let youth hunters on his land to harvest a buck of their choice. We need more people like him to offer the same opportunity to our youth. The NDGF has taken the first steps at addressing this problem with their program by offering free signs to willing landowners stating youth hunters may be given special consideration to hunt on their property.

In some progressive sates, yet another opportunity given to youth hunters is the setting aside of management blocks for exclusive use of youth hunters, not only in the youth seasons, but for the entire season. This idea, coupled with the mentor program gives some very special, relaxing, enjoyable hunts to young hunters along with caring adult mentors. Can you imagine the uproar if North Dakota set aside part of the National Grasslands for the use of only young hunters accompanied by a mentor?

As radical as some of these ideas may seem to some, I believe we need to work towards this direction if we are going to reverse the lack of recruitment in the state, the study clearly shows this. I’m sure we’ve all heard motivational speakers define insanity as, “doing the same thing over and over, always expecting different results.” I can’t think of a better way to describe what we’ll be doing if we decide to continue at status quo.

Question Eight: The following question(s) were spawned from Dani's Article [if you have not read her article, please click here before reading on].  Although the NSSF/NWTF study dealt with youth hunters, should states focus on youth hunters or should they focus on both youth and NEW hunters? That is, hunters joining the tradition regardless of their age? 

Ha! I’ve been wondering how long you would wait before asking this question! After all Tim, this is what crossed our paths in the first place! I remember reading Dani’s Article last spring and sending off a note for you to pass on to her, a few notes went back and forth, and here we are today! OF COURSE we should reach out to the new hunters, along with the youth hunters. And we should pay particular attention to both the new and youth hunters of the female gender. After all, with our “good old boy mentality” of “huntin’ is a mans sport”, we have effectively ignored half the population! We can’t afford to do that any longer!

I think Dani’s idea of a new hunter of any age being allowed to hunt during the youth season is a great idea! Can you imagine what a wonderful experience it would be for her? To be accompanied by you, on her first hunt for deer in a relaxed environment, with very few hunters, in terrific weather like we have here during September in North Dakota? What a wonderful way to initiate a new hunter into our ranks! I personally think they should get two years of that before having to “wade through the sea of hunter orange” during the regular season. But if something like that was to be proposed, someone would be sure to argue it wouldn’t be “fair” or give some other explanation. Sure, there are grey areas. An example could be the Air Force bases in Minot and Grand Forks. People would argue how would we ensure new arrivals to the state as first time hunters? However, we need to get over the road block statements and realize "if there's a will, there's a way." If someone makes a concerted effort to break the law, they probably will succeed and get away with it. But should we let that interfere with all the positives gained from letting bona fide first time hunters utilize a special season? What would be gained by doing that? It doesn’t make sense, I’ll go out on the limb here and say that close to 50% of the hunters in NE North Dakota party hunt, but nobody proposes closing deer season because of it. So why penalize the youth and first time hunters because there may be a bad apple or two in the bunch every year? We are sometimes our own worst enemy it seems.

Question Nine: Extending upon Dani's Article, she touched on a few other things you found interesting. What are they? Are they something the NDGF has been looking into?

Well, as an instructor I really appreciated her thoughts. I think I can speak for all the instructors across the state in saying we are always looking for new ways to become more effective in what we do, and Dani sure had some unique ideas on that! I forwarded her article to the President of the North Dakota Hunter Educators Association and he was equally impressed with her article, and also with the questions she posed to all of us.

Most classes in the state are filled with 10 to 12 year olds whose real motive for being there is to get a certificate so they can hunt. They generally aren’t interested in learning or doing anything that will lengthen class out. They want to come to class, go over the material, take the test, get their certificate, and be done with it all. But Dani brought a different perspective to class, she felt that some things were skimmed over, and she was disturbed that there was no actual live fire with guns. Her question, “Basics are very important but shouldn't hunter education involve shooting too?” was thought provoking to say the least! She also stated that there is so much more for her to learn, such as what kind of gun to use for different types of hunting, which shells to use for what game, how to field dress game, find hunting opportunities (both private and public), and a host of other things most of us take for granted. But that’s the problem, we do take it for granted, and don’t understand that there are those who don’t have any idea on things of that nature. So it’s overwhelming to a first time hunter, and easy for them to get discouraged. Dani needs a mentor, and it seems she has several in her life such as you, her mother, and the rest of her family, and she is truly blessed by having all of you around to help out. But what about someone who isn’t quite as fortunate as Dani in that regard, who will help answer their questions? Who will show those proud 14 year olds how to field dress that deer they just shot if they haven’t got a parent or other relative to get them started? How can we possibly expect things to change for the better if we continue down the same path that has brought us to where we are today?

Question Ten: First, thanks for your time and others whom may be reading this that helped out with presenting information. Second, I know you are a huge supporter of Hunters Education. What would you like to tell people out there that may be interested in helping out or becoming an instructor? Maybe explain the requirements and benefits of becoming an instructor. 

To be an instructor you have to submit to and pass a criminal background check, have a valid hunter education card, and teach a class under the direction of a certified instructor. Anyone interested in pursuing this should check with NDGF.

The rewards for being an instructor are many. I still remember the second day at “Pathways to Hunting” this year when a lady accompanied by her 7 year old daughter hesitantly walked up to the shooting benches. I offered to help the young girl, and as we both sat down I asked her if she had ever shot a gun before. Her mother spoke for her and told me that neither of them had ever shot a gun before, and that she didn’t really know if they should be here in the first place because she was afraid of guns. I told her that guns should always be respected, but never feared, then gave her daughter a pair of safety glasses to put on and helped her with her shooting form. The first shot was high so I told her to aim a little lower; the second shot hit the metal target with a resounding “clink.” I looked at her about the time she turned to look at Mom, and the look on both their faces will be remembered the rest of my life. The girl's eyes were as big as silver dollars, and the smile on Mom's face was indescribable. She shot a couple more times, hitting the target with each shot, then turned to Mom and said, “Mommy, this is fun, you should try it!” I asked her if she would like to shoot, but she stammered that, “she didn’t think so, not now anyway.” About a half hour later, they showed up again, and I had the opportunity to help “Mom” shoot a gun for the first time in her life.

During the four hour drive home I had plenty of time to reflect upon the day's happenings, and I thought about that lady and her daughter. She was maybe 30 years old, and while helping her shoot I noticed she wasn’t wearing a wedding ring. So here we have a lady who obviously wasn’t raised in a hunting household as she told me she had never shot a gun before, and she probably didn’t have a husband or significant other who hunted, but both her and her daughter had a positive experience with guns. What would become of them I wondered, would the daughter ask for a pellet gun for her next birthday or Christmas? Would they both take a Hunter Education class and become hunters? Or would their shooting be limited to once a year at the state fair, until some new ride caught their attention and they forgot about Pathways to Hunting? I truly believe that those two were low hanging fruit, and were in need of someone to take them under their wings and become a “mentor.” So who will that be? Will someone take the time to further their experience with guns, or will they be talking about that one time experience when they shot a gun at the fair 20 years from now?

I always make it a point to ask participants at Pathways if they’ve ever shot a gun before. Some are seasoned veterans with pellet guns, but many have never shot a gun before. Whenever I help someone who hasn't shot a gun before, I tell myself that I have the next three minutes of my life to make a lifelong difference in theirs. I truly hope I made a difference in those two lives, but I’m afraid that’s wishful thinking. I’m afraid they went home to wherever they lived, and there is no one to take up where I left off, and that’s sad.

Question Eleven: Any closing comments? 

You know Tim; we need to listen to the Dani’s of the world, for they’re the future. We need to rethink some of our preconceived notions about what’s right, and what’s wrong. Dani and scores of other first time or youth hunters have the answers; we just need to ask the right questions and then listen to their answers. If we fail to do that we are statistically dead in the water.

I became a grandpa for the first time this spring, and my son in law is also a big hunter. When he and my daughter brought my grandson home from the hospital he was dressed in a camouflage outfit, camouflage hat, and camouflage booties, and they laid him in a crib that had both camouflage sheets and blankets. Heck, they couldn’t find the little guy for a couple hours until he started crying from a wet diaper, then they couldn’t find the diapers because they were in a camouflage duffle bag! But it scares the heck out of me to think what it will be like when he’s my age. Will he be able to take his grandson hunting? Will he be able to tell his grandson stories of hunting with his Dad and Grandpa? Or will they only look at faded photographs of days gone by? And if he’s only looking at faded photographs, everyone else’s grandchildren will be looking at the same thing. And when they ask us why, what will we tell them? What did we do to preserve our hunting heritage? What did you do?

Interviewer's Note:  As you can see from Lee's comments, the future of our hunting in North Dakota and even the nation for that matter is at an important junction.  We need to invest time, dollars, and compromise in hopes of creating a plan and then implementing it to capture youth and first time hunters.  Many people fear change and do not like "competition" over their favorite hunting grounds.  I won't lie when I say I get a little jealous when I see a new hunter stepping into the field and potentially taking away that "big buck."  However, I'm truly jealous because I miss the feeling from harvesting my first duck, goose, deer, or whatever.  Moments like that are once in a lifetime.  Why not use that in our favor?  We need to capture first time hunters in this way so they become involved not just in the physical realm of the outdoors but in the political and social realm.  The truth is, if we don't develop a better recruitment number we'll lose our youth to video games, to drugs, to alcohol, to whatever.  The future is now and it's up to us to keep what great thinkers in the 1930's put in motion...

Again, a thanks to Lee (pictured right) and all other entities involved in supplying information and photos.  A special thanks to the North Dakota Game & Fish Department, Hunter Education Supervisor Jim Carter, Danielle Kary, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, Silvertip Productions, Southwick Associates, and The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.