The Outdoor Scene

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

Learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere.  ~Chinese Proverb

As much as I embrace learning, rest assured I won’t be studying at the Humane Society University.
According to a U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance press release, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) plans to educate the next generation of anti-hunting, animal rights activists now that it has received “a license as a higher education degree-granting institution by the District of Columbia Education Licensure Commission.”

The Humane Society University plans to offer on-site and Internet courses including those devoted to advocacy.  A potential activist can become a “Certified Advocacy Management Specialist” by completing five courses that focus on research and planning, influencing corporate behavior, message development, becoming a citizen lobbyist and building a grassroots movement.

While I know there are educational opportunities for those entering wildlife and fisheries professions, will there be advocacy training for our nation’s hunters, anglers, trappers and target shooters?

I learned something else last week. While I didn’t expect to hear back about how peregrine falcon restoration was funded, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) took me up on my request for information and responded back to me two days after my blog was posted. Getting the answers took a fair amount of digging, according to the agency’s media relations senior editor.

First, FWC’s 2009 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration dollars (from excise taxes on firearms and ammunition) combined with 2008/2009 hunting license and permit revenue totals $14.7 million or 4.5 percent of the total agency budget. While that doesn’t sound like a lot, if someone suggested the agency cut their budget by that amount, it would likely cause concern.

However, it’s not perfectly clear whether or not Wildlife Restoration money was part of the mix when it came to peregrine restoration. Nongame Wildlife Trust Funds, which come from fees for previously owned vehicles titled in Florida for the first time and a portion of speeding fines, also might have been used. The agency can confirm peregrine restoration dollars came mainly from Section. 6 funds, which are federal tax dollars appropriated through the endangered species act. Bradley J. Gruver, Ph.D., of the FWC’s Species Conservation Planning Section has this to say:

“It really is not as simple as a particular source being the primary source of funds for the recovery.  The peregrine was added to the federal endangered species list in 1970 (under the Endangered Species Conservation Act, the predecessor to the 1973 Endangered Species Act [ESA]) and removed from the ESA in 1999.  Over those 29 years, many things funded from many sources contributed to the peregrine’s recovery.  Probably the single most important thing in the peregrine’s recovery was the banning of DDT by the federal Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 under authority granted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.  I don’t believe it would be possible to credit any one particular source for such an act.

“Other contributors to the peregrine’s recovery were protection and enhancement of habitat, minimizing disturbance and mortality, monitoring contaminants (DDT), and reintroducing captive-bred birds to the wild.  Many states use Section 6 funds and Pittman-Robertson (PR) funds to protect and/or enhance habitats for a wide variety of species, including listed and unlisted species.  It is very likely that Section 6 and PR projects helped peregrines, but I cannot specifically identify either funding source as the source for peregrine recovery.

“It is very likely that Section 6 funds were used for projects that minimized or investigated peregrine disturbance, mortality, and contaminant monitoring because during the ‘70s and ‘80s, for many states, Section 6 funds were a major source, probably the most important source, of funding for work on listed species, including the peregrine.

“Reintroducing captive-reared peregrines was primarily an effort of the USFWS, some states, and private or private-public partners, including The Peregrine Fund, Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, and the Midwestern Peregrine Restoration Project.  It is likely that some Section 6 funds were used for this, but it is also possible that some PR was used as well.  It is likely that the majority of the funding came from the private partners and their memberships.”

So while Brian Millsap of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said “I don’t think this is one where the sportsmen can claim much credit, outside of the falconers who donated their birds to start up the captive propagation programs,” it does look like taxpayers should get a pat on the back. And I still contend we take every opportunity to shine the line on what sportsmen and women have contributed, when and where it’s appropriate.

On a completely different note, women can look forward to a new online resource from the National Wild Turkey Federation. In addition to a 16-page section devoted to women’s interests in each issue of the bi-monthly publication, “Turkey Country,” NWTF announced on its Web site they are in the early stages of ramping up their Women in the Outdoors Web site. NWTF invites you to provide your opinions of what you want from www.womenintheoutdoors.org. 

Also announced at the site, more resources for event coordinators and outreach volunteers are on the way in 2010. Plus, soon NWTF will no longer require a membership as part of the registration fee for participants who are already NWTF/Women in the Outdoors members.

I invite you to follow my updates on Facebook at facebook.com/tammy.sapp2 and Twitter @TammyDianeSapp.

The weekend before last a black bear chased me from my turkey hunting spot at the worst time possible, when a gobbler was making his approach. On Saturday, I wasn’t taking any chances. I threw the fear card and asked my husband to join me at the root ball blind. It wasn’t hard to twist his arm since the option of hearing a gobbler versus the music of warblers, wrens and cardinals was clearly better.

Wes and I usually don’t hunt together. We figure we can cover more ground if we split up. And our hunting styles are different. I’m more three-toed sloth because I tend to hang out and call. He’s more mountain lion - always on the prowl. But when we do team up, there’s no pretense. We’re equals afield, and the independent woman in me likes that. Given the chance, I’d shoot a turkey out from under Wes in a heartbeat. And he’d do the same.

As we neared the field, the bird blasted out a good morning gobble. Without putting much thought into it, I sat down where I always do and Wes took the other side of the root ball. The next gobble made me doubt my choice, because I realized the birds had roosted to my hard left. The likelihood of them entering the field from the swamp trail was pretty high, which would put them directly in my husband’s line of fire.

Wes became a one-man hen band, calling with his diaphragm, box and slate calls. Truthfully, even though he’s a great caller, I thought he was a little over the top. That is until I saw a hen enter the field 80 yards in front of me. Next thing I knew, the whole flock began pouring into the field – three hens and three jakes. And they were followed up by big daddy, who was alternately strutting and charging at the jakes. The first hen ran towards us like a crazy woman, then forgot what she was doing and started to bug. The rest of the gang rushed towards us, too. Coming through the tall grass, they looked like an army of necks marching into battle.

Next thing I knew, big boy came out of strut and looked around as if to say, “So, what do you think of that, baby?” Instinct brain reappeared out of nowhere and pulled the trigger, likely out of concern that conscious brain would screw up in the midst of this adrenalin rush. A flopping gobbler in front of me proved once again that instinct brain had served me well.

Now, the privilege of hunting is something I don’t take lightly. I’ve attended too many conferences where the topic du jour was the idea this time-honored tradition might be slipping away. There are several reasons for this, but urbanization is often cited as a primary cause. There are many tentacles to the urbanization monster. It eats up wildlife habitat with its strip malls, parking lots and housing additions. It thrusts hunting areas inconveniently far from would-be sportsmen and women. And it severs people’s ties with the land so they are neither knowledgeable nor realistic about wildlife populations and habitat management.

When it comes to animals, people often rely on emotion as their guidepost. And groups such as the Humane Society of the United States manipulate that naiveté. They would have you believe they take care of abandoned pets by running your local dog and cat shelters but nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, HSUS shares with PETA and other animal rights groups an extreme agenda of eliminating American traditions such as hunting and fishing.

Apparently Rush Limbaugh didn’t get the message, though. As hard as it is to believe, this is one conspiracy Rush hasn’t uncovered. He is actually supporting HSUS, and has produced ads for them and provides a link to their Web site. It’s not clear why he would support this extraordinarily well funded organization whose CEO openly admits he’d like to see the end to all hunting. I guess Rush, too, suffers from urbanization, and just doesn’t know that hunters are the ones footing the bill for wildlife conservation.

Thankfully, there’s a group out there working to make this fact abundantly clear. The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has taken the lead in challenging the popular radio talk show host. A letter expressing disappointment was signed by 28 respected conservation organizations and sent to Rush. As powerful as that is, making your voice part of the din is even more effective. The folks at USSA encourage you to get in on the act by arming yourself with the facts about the HSUS and its anti-hunting agenda. In addition, they urge you to contact Rush and tell him the truth about the HSUS. For more information, visit http://www.ussportsmen.org/rush.

I can assure you I emailed Rush expressing my concerns about his support of HSUS. My instincts told me it was the right thing to do.