The Outdoor Scene

With ample time between flights, I kicked back in concourse C at O’Hare to catch the unofficial fashion show. There was the lady in the leopard print pants that were so tight they resembled an exotic sausage casing. Then there were the hat people modeling everything from tweedy newsboys and houndstooth berets to fedoras, turbans and a lid only Boy George could love. Legions of men and women passed by wearing tracksuits, presumably in case the opportunity arose to knock out a few jumping jacks at 30,000 feet. Of course, the business suits marched by with their pin stripes, two-button, single breasted jackets and silk neckties. There were cargo shorts and flip flops, skinny jeans and purple ankle boots and t-shirts communicating the wearer’s love of Coldplay, the Red Sox and Harley Davidsons.

And every now and then somebody wearing a Mossy Oak Break-up tee-shirt or a Realtree Hardwoods baseball cap cruised by. It warmed the cockles of my heart to see them. Were they proud to fly the flag? Or completely unaware of the statement they made? Either way, I always feel like some secret handshake should be exchanged when we who hunt run into each other in improbable places.

But is an airport really an unlikely place for hunters to bump into each other?

Actually, the answer to that is “no.”

According to the 2006 National Survey on Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation, out of the 12.5 million hunters they count, 10 percent of them hunt in other states and their state of residence while 4 percent of them hunt only outside of their home state. Some of them take to the friendly skies, too. A report entitled Hunting in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse shows out of the $25 billion in retail spending by hunters in 2006, nearly $160 million went towards commercial air transportation.

If you’ve ever flown into Little Rock, Arkansas during duck season or Rapid City, South Dakota during spring turkey season, you’d think everyone at the airport was a hunter. Baggage claim is dominated by gun cases, rolling camo duffel bags and throngs of happy hunters.

I caught a flight a week or so after the horrific events of 9/11, and you could roll a bowling ball down the concourse and not hit anyone. Other than a few road warrior businessmen and women, some of the only other folks flying back then were elk hunters heading west. To me, they were a welcome sight. When the world felt like it might never be the same, hunters conveyed a sense of normalcy desperately sought in those dark days following the terrorist attacks.

While seeing my fellow sportsmen and women at airports always lifts my spirits, it also should put a smile on the face of flight attendants, pilots, store clerks and others whose livelihoods benefit from hunters’ dollars. When you add it up, hunters support nearly 600,000 jobs in a wide variety of industries. When hunters spend money on travel, lodging, food, gear, gas and more, the ripple effect of their dollars total a whopping $66 billion in overall economic output.

With today’s slumping economy, hunters likely are sticking a little closer to home. However, the dollars they spend not only support wildlife conservation, they also may help contribute to our eventual economic recovery.

So, if you don’t have enough reasons to go hunting, add that one to your list!

Most people my age and older remember our childhoods as a time when we were free to roam. Lucky kids lived in the ‘burbs, the outskirts of town or in rural areas where we could jump, climb, run and play. Chasing frogs, toads and butterflies was part of the fun.

My parents didn’t shuttle me from gymnastics to swim team to soccer and if there were pervs in our neighborhood, we didn’t know it.

Though my mom didn’t have a Ph.D. in child psychology, she knew playing outdoors alone or with other kids was good for me. Plus, it allowed her to catch up on household chores. And back then, we had only three channels. While I found Gentle Ben, Flipper and Daktari pretty riveting TV, they were no match for the real deal. I don’t recall subjecting myself to appointment viewing, especially in Wisconsin where decent weather was in short supply.

Today’s newer parents never experienced the freedom of outdoor play unless they were raised in the country, and that has become less likely with each passing year. Their lives can be summed up by two meanings of the same word: monitor. They’re lives were regularly supervised and spent in front of a screen. And while knowledge means power it can also engender fear, especially if what you’ve discovered are registered sex offenders living in your community.  Thus, you can hardly expect this generation of parents to let their offspring bounce around the neighborhood unsupervised.

Jodi Valenta, a mom, blogger and wildlife professional, is committed to sharing different ways parents and kids can have fun by playing outdoors together. While it may seem intuitive to us, it might not be to a 30-year-old who grew up in the city. So, Jodi got down to business and uncovered research that should convince concerned parents everywhere why families need nature.

One study Jodi found revealed students who participated in environmental education programs at school did better on standardized tests in math, reading, writing, and social studies. For parents hoping to better their children by exposing them to classical music before they’re born, the promise of higher test scores through outside play should be pretty tantalizing.

Another study Jodi looked at indicated the ultimate raw material for much of human intellect, emotion, personality, industry and spirit is rooted in an accessible and abundant natural environment. Caring parents want nothing more than to give their children advantages in life. This research makes it apparent they can provide a broad array of benefits without spending anything other than their time.

Those are only two examples from Jodi’s top 10 list. There are eight other compelling research-based reasons why every parent should spend time with their children puddle jumping, watching birds, peeking under rocks, examining spider webs, backyard camping, hiking and gardening. And these are all things you can do without ever leaving your yard or neighborhood. For more information, see Jodi’s blog: http://www.kidsdiscovernature.com/

Take it one step further by making a commitment to get outdoors by attending one of many events on National Hunting and Fishing Day, this Saturday, Sept. 26. Events are listed at your state wildlife agency’s site. Find your agency at this link: http://www.fws.gov/OFFICES/STATELINKS.HTML

You can also visit the National Hunting and Fishing Day site for more information: http://www.nhfday.org/Page/Events.aspx

Get outside and improve your mind, body and spirit!

I was surprised and disappointed the nomination of Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s pick to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), was not stopped.

Sunstein, a Harvard law professor and now “regulatory czar,” has said some pretty nutty things during his career such as “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives.” And “We must ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation.” Not only is Sunstein an avowed anti-hunter, past statements clearly indicated he does not believe the second amendment applies to individuals. And these are not positions Sunstein declared during some college frat house party. They are things he has written or said in the last 10 years.

Here’s how it went down. On Sept. 9, the U.S. Senate voted to end debate on Sunstein’s nomination despite efforts of Senator Johnny Isakson (R- GA) to place a “hold” on the nomination. That essentially made Sunstein’s formal confirmation a done deal. Here’s the kicker. It would have taken 40 votes to prevent the confirmation on Sept. 9 and opponents of Sunstein had 35.  For the formal confirmation vote Sept. 10, 50 no votes were needed. Sunstein was confirmed in a 57 to 40 vote.

Even more shocking was the press release from the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance stating “Of the 63 senators who voted in favor of Sunstein, 22 were members of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus.” So while sportsmen came within five votes of stopping Sunstein’s nomination, 42 percent of the senators who voted in favor of this anti-hunter/animal rights activist were members of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. 

Huh?

Here’s a little meat and potatoes about the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. Established in 1989, the CSC prides itself on being one of the largest and most active caucuses in the U.S. Congress. Comprised of republicans and democrats representing nearly every state, its sole purpose is to preserve and strengthen the rights of hunters and anglers. 

I knew there had to be more to this story so I called Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, which serves to provide access and a voice for sportsmen and women in the U.S. Congress, the Administration and federal land management agencies. It bears saying the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, despite the obvious similarity in names, does not police the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. Rather the Caucus sets its own rules.

First, Jeff was adamant CSF did not support the Sunstein nomination. However, he explained in Washington, D. C. you have to pick your political fights, and this was one battle sportsmen were sure to lose according to senators from both sides of the aisle. The writing was on the wall when former Sportsmen’s Caucus leaders Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) recently lifted their holds after Sunstein pledged in writing he wouldn’t use the position as a platform to advance his radical animal rights views. In a letter, Sunstein even went so far as to say the Second Amendment does protect the right of individuals to bear arms.

In addition, it was felt the position of “regulatory czar” posed little threat to sportsmen and women. Jeff said if Sunstein had been a candidate for Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, or Director of Fish and Wildlife Service, there would have been a huge push to prevent that nomination.

While I know more about the situation, this digging has left me with more questions than answers.

If more conservation organizations and sportsmen’s groups had joined U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, the National Wild Turkey Federation and others, would the outcome have been different? Could they have gained the needed five votes, especially from the 22 Sportsmen’s Caucus members who voted to end the debate on Sunstein’s nomination?

Is the job of “regulatory czar” so awesome it caused Sunstein to renounce his long-held views on the second amendment?

Will Sunstein’s role as overseer of federal regulations affect sportsmen and women particularly as it pertains to the Departments of Interior and Agriculture?

Can we believe Sunstein’s “pinky promise” that he will use his position for good instead of evil?

Should senators in the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus be held accountable for their votes?

There are a couple of things I am sure about. First, I don’t like the fact Cass Sunstein wields any amount of federal regulatory power. And second, when push comes to shove, we the voters hold the cards, and I don’t mean just when we enter the voting booth. You can let your senators know right now how you feel about their votes. I’m lucky, I can write letters thanking South Carolina Senators Jim DeMint and Lindsay Graham because they stood with sportsmen and voted no against Sunstein. Remember, the thanking is just as important as the letters that chastise. Either way, you’re making your stances as a sportsman or sportswoman known to your elected officials.

You can visit this link for a full list on how senators voted to end the debate on Sunstein: http://www.ussportsmen.org/Document.Doc?id=116

Angela DelDotto, forecast analyst for Pure Fishing, saw the questions about pink products at anglersurvey.com and huntersurvey.com recently and had this to say in an email:

“Funny you mentioned “pink” in your survey this month. A group of us just had a conversation on the ladies market the other day.

“It’s a relatively untapped market but I don’t think we grasp why women buy pink. I think each person is different. Here are the four reasons I came up with:

1. It’s cute…as hard as it is for me to admit it, there are women out there who actually care about looking “cute” in a boat. I’m not one of them.
2. The product is easily showcased as made for a woman, implying that it has product features designed for us. In an overwhelming category, the product stands out.
3. The breast cancer awareness factor. If we’re faced with a buying decision and one donates and the other does not - it’s an easy decision.
4. Our husbands won’t use it. It may sound ridiculous but if I own anything pink it almost guarantees me that my stuff will be exactly where I left it. These same reasons apply across categories. Golf balls, hammers, garden tools…etc.

Angela is definitely onto something. I bought pink Papermate pens because I knew it would cut in half the universe of people who might “borrow” them. And the pens supported a good cause, City of Hope for breast cancer research.

Love it or hate it, I know there are strong opinions out there about pink outdoor products for women. Your views are important, too. Make them officially known at http://www.anglersurvey.com/ and http://www.huntersurvey.com/ . By completing the survey, you will be entered in the monthly drawing for one of five $100 gift certificates to the sporting goods retailer of your choice.

Once the survey results are in, we’ll take a look at what they say.

I’d love to hear from you. You can find me at Facebook.com/tammy.sapp2 and Twitter @TammyDianeSapp.