The new RMEF funding, totaling $29,965, will affect Beltrami, Goodhue, Kittson, Marshall, Otter Tail, Roseau and Wilkin counties.

Other projects have statewide interest.

“These grants are possible because of the successful banquets and fundraisers staged over the past year by our Minnesota volunteers–most of whom are elk hunters as well as devoted conservationists,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Since 1984, our annual grants have helped complete 104 different projects in Minnesota with a combined value of more than $1.8 million.”

RMEF grants will help fund the following projects, listed by county:

Goodhue County–Introduce young people to outdoor recreation and conservation by sponsoring Red Wing Environmental Learning Center bowfishing and bowhunting programs.

Kittson County–Construct 24 firebreaks in preparation for prescribe burns on 8,821 acres of elk habitat at Caribou and Beaches Lake wildlife management areas.

Marshall County–Encourage elk to utilize public lands by planting 67 acres of forage openings at Grygla and Wapiti wildlife management areas (also affects Beltrami County); brush shear and mow 300 acres to restart vegetative succession and improve habitat at Grygla, Wapiti and Moose River wildlife management areas (also affects Beltrami County); prescribe burn seven sites totaling 5,210 acres to improve aspen parklands and other habitat for elk and other wildlife (also affects Roseau and Kittson counties).

Otter Tail County–Introduce families to outdoor recreation and conservation by sponsoring Henning Rod and Gun Club Take-a-Kid Fishing event.

Statewide–Sponsor Minnesota 2010 Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus to help facilitate representation on sporting issues statewide; introduce young people to outdoor recreation and conservation by sponsoring Minnesota 4-H Shooting Sports and Wildlife Camp in a Box programs; sponsor Becoming an OutdoorsWoman programs including Becoming an Outdoor Family Weekends, College Outdoor Skills Day and Deer Hunting Clinic, and mentored archery deer hunts; sponsor National Archery in the Schools Program kits for schools across Minnesota.

Wilkin County–Introduce young people to outdoor recreation and conservation by sponsoring Breckenridge National Archery in the Schools Program.

Projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities.

Partners for 2010 projects in Minnesota include the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, other organizations, schools and landowners.

This is a warning to outdoor users about a potentially deadly biological event that could result from one’s curiosity to poke at and kick through scat from wolves, coyotes and foxes. Of course not everyone knowingly does this but many hunters, trappers and simply the curious, want to know what these animals have been eating.

Back in the end of November I gave you a link to a story, “Of Wolves and Worms”. That story introduced many of us to the subject of worms being found in wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.

According to a new study out in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, three-millimeter-long tapeworms known as Echinococcus granulosus, are documented for the first time in gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. And the authors didn’t just find a few tapeworms here and there… turns out that of 123 wolf intestines sampled, 62 percent of the Idaho gray wolves and 63 percent of the Montana gray wolves were positive. (Ew!) The researchers wrote: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding.” (Again… Ew!!) This leads to the interpretation that the E. granulosus parasite rate is fairly widespread and established in the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves.

There is discussion about how some think the worms ended up in the wolves in this region but the article tends to downplay any serious concerns people should have from coming in contact with these tapeworms and the eggs they leave behind.

In the comments section of the article, Will Graves, author of the book “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, left his thoughts on his own research discoveries about the dangers to humans of these parasites.

In the first paragraph in my letter to Mr. Bangs dated 3 October 1993 on the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) which was titled “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho,” I warned about the damages and problems wolves would cause to Yellowstone and other areas by carrying and spreading parasites and diseases over larger areas. Some of these parasites are damaging not only to wild and domestic animals, but can also be dangerous to humans. One of these parasites is Echinococcous Granulosus and Echinococcus M. Since 1993 I have been working to tell people what I have learned from about 50 years of research on the characteristics, habits and behavior of Russian wolves. From that research I came to the conclusion that one of the most serious consequences of bring wolves into the US would be the wolves carrying and spreading around damaging/dangerous parasites and diseases. I did my best to explain this in my book titled, “Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages” edited by Dr. Valerius Geist. Details about my book are in my web site: wolvesinrussia.com.

After several years effort, I finally recently obtained help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Parasitic Research Center in Beltsville, MD. This research center will try to conduct research on the blood taken from wolves in our western states. Oneparasite they will be researching is to determine if wolves carry and spread the parasite Neospora Caninum around. It is established that coyotes and dogs carry this damaging parasite.

I remember that about two years ago there was a report about one wolf carrying Echinococcus Granulosus in Montana.

Much more research is needed about the danger wolves bring to our environment. Some of the parasites carried by wolves are dangerous to humans.(emphasis added)

Around this same time that Will Graves posted his comments, he contacted me by email and asked if I could somehow be of assistance to him in obtaining blood samples from wolves taken during the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts. The word went out quickly and hopefullyGraves gets what he needs to help him in his research. This can become extremely valuable information for all of us.

In the meantime, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary and Dr. Charles Kay, of Utah State University, who holds degrees in wildlife ecology, environmental studies and wildlife biology, exchanged thoughts on the discovery of worms in Yellowstone wolves in emails I received.

Well, Charles? What else is new? What did we warn about, how we were censored as alarmists………………………
And yes, a colleague assured us that all that is not a problem for us, but for some native types. Nothing to worry about, really. Remember how, early on, we put out a warning – do not kick dry wolf feces or poke about in such looking for evidence of food habits. Do not handle wolf feces as it will disturb the tiny Echinococcus eggs that float up like little dust cloud to envelop you, and you are very likely to ingest some of that “dust”. This know-how, which we older Canadian types carried away from our parasitogy lessons was poo-hood by some American colleagues. Wolves are after all, harmless! Remember the question we posed: is it really such a great idea completing ecosystems when the progression is herbivores, carnivores, finally diseases and parasites?

It is not my intention nor that of Drs. Geist and Kay to attempt to instill unnecessary fear in people but to educate, as it was back in the day before wolf reintroduction. There are very important lessons and warnings that all should heed and take into consideration when in the woods or maybe even in your own back yard.

Dr. Geist emailed me the other day and asked me if I would be kind enough to post this information so that anyone and everyone will be aware of the potential for some very serious health issues.

Urgent: could you make a point of it that now, that we know that the majority of wolves are infected with Echinococcus, that all hunters control their curiosity and not poke about in wolf or coyote feces to find out what these predators ate. these feces are saturated with tiny, lightweight Echinococcus eggs that rise like dust plume from the disturbed feces and envelop the poking hunter. If the air-born eggs are ingested, the an infection is possible, and having Echinococcus cysts grow inside oneself is not a desirable condition. Trust me!

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.

There is however, another much more alarming angle. Echinococcus multilocularis is a nightmare, and much more virulent than Echinococcus granulosus of any strain. We cannot encapsulate this cyst, and it grows and buds off like a cancer infecting different parts of the body incessantly. Were some of the wolves infected with multilocularis? Coyotes and foxes carry it and it has been spreading. Do canids in Idaho, Montana, etc. have it? It’s found in Alberta. Regardless, now is the time to send out an SOS to ALL outdoor users. Hold your curiosity in check, do not poke into the feces of wolves, coyotes and foxes. If you do you will release clouds of Echinococcus eggs which will envelop you, and you may ingest the eggs, bring the eggs home and endanger your family. This is nothing new to me and I have lived with this constraint on my curiosity for over 40 years. This is just a know how that maintains your personal and your family’s safety. Also, never feed uncooked offal to your dog as it may become infected with Echinococcus and infect you and your family. Echinococcus cysts love to be in lung and liver, and if consumed by dogs you have a health hazard on your hands. And such cysts now grow in deer and elk where you live. Somebody should take a second look searching out Echinococcus multilocularis.

You and I probably have no idea in the world whether these worms exist in the woods we hunt, trap, hike, etc. but good advice given by Dr. Geist should tell us it’s not something we should mess around with. Squelch the curiosity to dig in the poop and just assume there could be hidden danger.

I want to take a moment to thank Will Graves, Dr. Val Geist and Dr. Charles Kay for caring enough about the rest of us to be willing to share their findings and experiences.

•    Gear: Clothes, utility tools, ATV’s…
•    Favorite weapons: guns, bows, sticks, stones…
•    Best Duck Blind or Hide…
•    You, family or friends dressed for the hunt…
•    Where you hunt

All I need is a digital picture in any PC compatible format and a description of the picture.  You can make the description as long or short as you would like.  If there is a story behind the picture we would love to hear about it.

Send Pictures to:

Todd Krater
U.S. Hunting Today
Managing Editor
todd@ushuntingtoday.com

Note: If you want a picture posted and do not have a digital copy I would be willing to scan it for you.  Please contact me for details.

US Hunting Today reserves the right to refuse any picture for any reason as well as edit it where appropriate.

In 2004, there were 8,648 reported accidents with vehicles involving deer in Missouri. Simple math tells us that this would cost sportsmen $2,162,000 annually.

Fiscal year 2007, collected revenue(pdf) to the Department of Conservation was $171,676,521. $31 million of that came from license buyers. To pay for this added expense would call for either cuts, increases or a combination of both. Will this once again fall on the backs of Missouri’s outdoor sportsmen? Either way wildlife conservation will suffer and in fact this move could actually end up exacerbating the problem.

Let’s suppose for a minute if we can. If there were 8,648 REPORTED deer/vehicle accidents in 2004, how many are there today? And the bigger question would be how many would now get reported (wink, wink) knowing they could claim $250 for saying they got hit by a deer. Read what the text of the bill says.

252.042. The department of conservation shall pay the owner of any motor vehicle the first two hundred fifty dollars for repair of damages to any motor vehicle that collides with a deer that is not otherwise covered by insurance. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any damage caused to a motor vehicle that involved avoiding a deer where there is no contact with a deer. The owner shall prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that such damage was caused by a collision with a deer and that at the time of the collision the motor vehicle was legally operated.

So, the owner of the vehicle has to show “clear and convincing evidence”. Interesting! Will they have to bring the remains to the Department of Conservation? Or how about bring them to Mr. Quinn’s house and let him decide. Maybe we could have victims cut off four feet? We could require them to carry a hack saw around with them. Oh, but wait, what if they hit the deer causing damage and the deer runs away, living to get hit again? There better be hair on the grill. If you don’t have any deer hair to make it look convincing, I’ll be you can get your hands on some quite easily.

Another interesting note is that no compensation will be paid to anyone who wrecks their car trying to avoid hitting the deer. So if you see one, make sure you take careful aim. $250 “bucks” (sorry, I couldn’t help myself this time) would be quick and easy beer money wouldn’t it. Say you hit a deer and you got blood, guts and hair on the grill. Then get some body shop guy say it’s going to cost, oh, let’s round it off to about $250, collect the money, say sayonara to the body shop guy (or maybe slip him an easy $50), and head on over to the beer store.

The point to all this is the ridiculousness of the whole thing. How can this at all be regulated? Oh, geez! I hadn’t thought that would could place restrictions and requirements on the deer. But what’s even bigger is the domino effect of abuse and lawsuits that will follow.

By the Department of Conservation being forced to pay for damages incurred by deer, is saying that is the Department’s fault that there are deer and in particular the sponsor of this bill probably is one of those guys who thinks that hunters cause everything – too many deer, not enough deer, sick deer, healthy deer, Lyme disease, global warming, George Bush’s stuttering problem and that Al Gore gained 600 pounds riding around on icebergs looking for endangered polar bears.

If sportsmen are to blame, at least to some degree, for deer accidents, who else can the lawyers blame and the courts agree with? Let’s start with the landowner where the accident happened. I’m sure evidence can be found that might have caused a deer to cross the road where it did, when it did. Maybe it’s a fence or a tree blew over in a recent global warming enhanced thunderstorm that the landowner had yet to clean up.

Maybe the Department of Transportation didn’t have their “deer crossing” sign in the right place. We have all heard about the idiots who complain that the deer don’t cross in the crossing zones. That has to be the fault of the DOT by not putting the sign in the right place.

The manufacturer of the vehicle has to now assume a certain amount of responsibility too. Couldn’t something have been done in the design of the vehicle to make it more “deer proof”?

Let’s not forget the family Griswolds’ who moved to the suburbs to “get away from it all” and decided it’s really fun to feed the deer. They have to be blamed. Maybe each neighborhood should be required to pay into a fund specifically for deer related accidents. After all, that deer probably wouldn’t have gotten hit if the Griswolds hadn’t of built their house there.

What’s nuts about this is that a percentage, how much I don’t know, of these accidents happen in areas where hunters aren’t allowed to hunt to reduce the numbers. If the number of deer wasn’t so high, there wouldn’t be some many accidents. If I’m going to be blamed for deer/vehicle accidents and have to pay for them, then I want to have some say in how many deer there are in the woods to run over.

Is this all just ridiculous? Of course it is. Is there no sense and sensibility left in this country? Give me a break!

Maybe it’s all good for the Motherland, comrades!

Tom Remington

I’ve written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be approved.

The intent of the existing Clean Water Act was to ensure that our navigable waters remained pollution free. We have witnessed some abuses of this act through narrow interpretations by our court system. The Clean Water Restoration Act, according to Knight, goes far beyond navigable waters, leaving us to wonder just how far this regulation and court-interpreted Act would go.

In reality, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) does not “restore” the CWA. Instead, it greatly expands its scope and jurisdiction. The bill would bring federal oversight to activities that affect all “waters of the United States” as opposed to merely “navigable waters” as called for in the original CWA. “Waters of the United States” is broadly defined in the legislation to include “all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments.”

I spoke with Knight by phone last fall and we discussed the prospects that with enactment of CWRA and the typical efforts of environmentalists, particularly through lawsuits, hunters could be facing ridiculous restrictions on such things as constructing duck blinds, whether portable, temporary or permanent without first obtaining permits.

Knight gives prime examples in addressing foreseeable problems in the upper Midwest – some of this nation’s top waterfowl hunting grounds.

Both “prairie potholes” (depressed areas that temporarily hold rainwater and snowmelt) and “sloughs” (swampy depressions typically comprised of stagnant water or mud) are specifically named in the CWRA as “waters” that would be subject to regulation – a departure from the original Clean Water Act. As a consequence, driving posts into water and mud near a prairie pothole for construction of a duck blind could constitute discharging dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” which is illegal under the CRA without a permit.11

In addition, hunters who fire shot over and near prairie potholes, lakes, rivers, ponds and wetlands could be considered polluters under the CWRA. In 1996, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled against a shooting range when it found that expended shot, even non-toxic steel shot, is considered a pollutant under the current CWA.12

But the passage of the CWRA wouldn’t just affect hunters. It could have unusual and ridiculous consequences for anglers, recreational boaters and all shooting sports. Knight says that with the wording of the CWRA, that includes virtually every place there is or has been water and leaving much of the interpretation of what would be considered a pollutant up to the courts, anything and everything that is put in the water, including the fisherman, could conceivably be prohibited.

This means trout and small-mouth bass fishermen could lose access to their favorite rivers and streams, as wading in these waters necessarily disturbs rocks and sediment, and therefore could be considered harmful to fish and other wildlife. Lead lures, sinkers or split-shot could be deemed pollutants.

Recreational boating could be restricted or banned in certain waters due to the incidental discharge of engine cooling water, bilge water, deck runoff or ballast water. In fact, environmental litigators have already struck a blow against recreational boating under the current CWA.

We already have seen the courts rule that spent lead and steel shot, as well as clay targets, from shooting ranges, for example, are deemed a pollutant. With expanded control by the government to all waters, which includes watersheds and wetlands, where will this leave shooting ranges, etc.?

EPA notes that lawsuits “have been the driving force behind most legal actions against outdoor ranges.”28 For example, in 1994, the Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, an environmental organization, successfully sued the New York Athletic Club under the CWA because the club had been operating a trap shooting range on its property. In this case, the court found that debris from clay targets and expended shot, including non-toxic steel shot, are pollutants under the CWA. According to EPA, “Based on the court’s decision… any range whose shot, bullets or target debris enter the ‘waters of the United States’ could be subject to permitting requirements as well as governmental or citizen suits.”29

More recently, Blue Eco Legal Council, an environmental organization, filed a lawsuit under the CWA against the United States Department of Justice, Coast Guard, Navy, Marines and Department of Defense, alleging that an FBI shooting range in North Chicago is endangering Lake Michigan with stray bullets.3

The majority of hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts want to keep our land and our waters clean. As a matter of fact, sportsmen have contributed over $10 billion dollars in funds used for conservation but to give the federal government, which in turn would turn interpretation over to the courts, broad and sweeping jurisdiction over “all the waters” in this country, would not only be costly but could very easily tie up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits and seriously strip hunters, fishermen, boaters, landowners and effectively every American, opportunities to enjoy the natural resources God has given us.

The Clean Water Restoration Act, at least as it is written, should not be allowed to pass. Please contact your congressmen and let them know.

Tom Remington

Remember back to the days of Little League baseball? Having spent many of my earlier years coaching, organizing the local leagues and even a stint as county Little League baseball commissioner, dealing with the kids was a cake walk. The same could not be said for the parents. Sometimes I think the authorities at each state’s fish and game department wake up some mornings and think to themselves, “Ah, Geez! I got to go to work today and listen to another unhappy deer hunter who knows more about how to put all this information together and come up with a deer hunting season that keeps everyone happy – including the deer.”

Figuring out who gets to hunt, for how long, of which sex, by which instrument and dates to pull it all off is a monumental task. Never fear, the game commission has all the help they need.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m a hunter too and I have offered up a suggestion or two of my own that I thought would make things better. The fish and game departments are far from perfect and in some cases I think they are completely corrupt in some aspects. We as hunters need to keep these people on their toes, after all they are working for us.

So when was the last time a group of hunters actually reached consensus on issues dealing with hunting? Many times satisfaction follows success rates. In other words if I hunt this year and bag a trophy buck, what have I got to complain about? On the same token if this is the fifth year in a row that I have not even seen a buck in the woods, don’t I have plenty to complain about?

But it goes beyond anything so simple. To begin with, for whatever the reasons, and there would be no consensus on this topic either, hunters as a whole have a pretty low opinion of their fish and game departments. In an article I was reading this morning in the Joplin Globe (Missouri) the writer revealed sentiments I have heard more than I care to.

It seems the Missouri Department of Conservation is considering “revamping” the deer hunting season. As part of the process, public meetings are going to take place. Here’s what the writer had to say about this process.

I have a suspicion that what changes will be made are already being planned and that the “public meetings” are being done to win support from hunters for their willingness to listen.

That’s a great attitude. Did this come as the result of past history when it comes to such events or is this just an angry dissatisfied deer hunter sharing frustrations?

Read also what the writer says about what he believes to be the priorities of his own fish and game department.

I have watched the Missouri Department of Conservation become a real bureaucracy over the years. I have seen a great deal of mis-spending and downright corruption, and a trend toward making as much money as possible and putting less and less of it back into true game and fish management.

One thing I know will come of this attempt to revamp the deer season. Nothing will be put in place which does not provide the possibility of the same or greater number of deer tags being sold, and more revenue for the department.

This guy isn’t alone in his thoughts about fish and game. I hear this same lament everyday from both hunters and non-hunters. They believe the only objective of fish and game is to make money – more than they need to manage game animals. I know of very few hunters who think our license fees are being spent wisely. (It’s that Little League parent mentality.)

It is a shame that so many hunters feel this way toward their fish and game departments. It certainly contributes to an atmosphere conducive to disagreement.

But the writer goes on to offer suggestions he thinks will make the deer hunting in Missouri better. I so doing, we begin to see another growing problem that in some states is festering to a point where we are near gang warfare over it – special interests.

We all have our preferred methods and means in which we take to the woods but is it getting a bit out of hand? It’s one thing to have differences in how we hunt, like still-hunting, driving, tree stand, ground blinds, using dogs, baiting, preserve hunting, quality deer management and the list goes on. We have all had discussions about these methods for decades and I don’t foresee it changing anytime soon. But now the battle lines are being drawn between groups and individuals out to get their way when it comes to the weapon of choice to hunt with.

Forgive me as I know I will miss some weapons but let’s take a look a minute. Once upon a time there was a deer hunting season where in reality you killed a deer during that time with whatever you could put together to accomplish such. Of course some of those weapons have been disqualified from the list of eligible weapons.

But then we needed to make things “fair” – there’s that four-letter word I so despise. So we set aside an archery season for those hunters because they needed undisturbed woods and deer that hadn’t been chased all over the countryside by rifle hunters. This, of course, increased their “opportunities” (another overused term). What’s good for the goose I guess is good for the gander and over time each weapon methodology began requesting special privileges once again to make things “fair” and increase “opportunities”.

Now we have in the archery class, longbows, compounds, crossbows, atlatl (a primitive weapon thrown by hand) and I’m sure I’ve missed one somewhere. Switching over to guns, we have rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders and the battle rages on about the unending list of kinds of muzzleloaders that are all different and each seeking their own hunting seasons. In some states we now have handgun deer hunting season and of course with that we have primitive handgun seasons.

I think it is wonderful that so many hunters are finding ways in which they can enhance their deer hunting experience. Let’s face it. In some states hunters have taken up different methods or choice of weapons for deer hunting in order to be able to take more deer and that is fine providing that the increased harvesting of those deer isn’t putting the deer herd in jeopardy.

The problems we face come when these individual disciplines begin demanding special privileges at the expense of others or by taking “opportunities” away from others. As I said, I’m all for hunters expanding their horizons. I’m not for them taking away my “opportunities” in order to un”fair”ly increase theirs.

Even the words “special interest” these days carry a negative connotation, usually because the demands being made by special interests are only in consideration of themselves even if it is at the expense of others. When this happens, once again we have contributed to the atmosphere of disagreements.

One of the biggest outcries I hear these days comes within the ranks of muzzleloaders. Some are demanding that certain kinds of muzzleloaders be banned for use during so-called “muzzleloader” deer hunting seasons. After all, there are primitive flintlock weapons, the not so primitive black powder that utilizes a firing cap instead of flint, inline muzzleloaders, etc., etc.

Arguments abound over whether optics should be allowed on “primitive” weapons, including bows.

With increased technology driven by demand from hunters for new gimmicks and gadgets, the disagreements will continue. Along with each new invention will more than likely come the increased demand for more “opportunities”. But at what expense?

When you combine the attitudes of more hunters with more special interests with those that perceive the fish and game departments as only caring about how much money they can make, it all sounds like there’s not much hope for a promising future. I think that if we can find a way to enjoy our new-found hunting method without demanding more attention by taking it away from others, it would go a long way to increase better relations between hunters. With that, more energy and effort can be put toward better game management from our fish and game.

Tom Remington

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

More Government waste!

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

Hunters took 214,494 deer, which is down from last year’s record season of 235,409. Congratulations to Missouri deer hunters for making this a record safe hunting season.

Tom Remington

Tom Remington

Read more about it here at the Belleville News Democrat.

Tom Remington