airedale

It is tough to leave your home but after awhile you can only put up with so much and pack your bags. For the outdoor sports I think California has got NY beat for now. Even though the general population continues to rise those participating in the outdoor sports have had a huge decline. It is really depressing to see what has happened to a really good hunting and fishing state in just a few short years. By JIM MATTHEWS www.OutdoorNewsService.com The final 2014 numbers are in and the number of hunters and fishermen in California dropped to their lowest level in history last year. I think the Department of Fish and Wildlife can pat itself on the back for its monumental effort to drive sportsmen away from hunting and fishing in an unprecedented way. These are the numbers: In 2014, there were 990,447 annual resident sportfishing licenses sold in this state. This is only the second time the number has dropped below 1 million (the last time in 2011, when it missed the mark by 32 licenses). Throughout the 1970s and into the mid-1980s, annual fishing license sales exceeded 2 million each year, and the peak sales year was in 1981 when just under 2.3 million were sold. As an interesting note, during that time, fishing license sales were almost exactly 10 percent of the state’s growing population. License sales continued to grow on pace with the population until the mid-1980s when the sales numbers began to steadily decline. While there might still be a few more hunting licenses sold between now and the end of the license year the end of June, the numbers for the 2014-15 year look like they will drop below 245,000 for the first time, setting a new, all-time low mark. While DFW on-line data doesn’t go back before 1970, I have read that hunting license sales peaked in the late 1960s at about 700,000 (there were just under 691 thousand sold in 1970). Numbers have declined steadily ever since. Numbers hovered around 500,000 per year in the 1970s and then declined into the 1980s. They dropped below 400,000 for the first time in 1988 and below 300,000 in 1997. There has been a downward trend of 4,000 to 5,000 per year since then. Amazingly, the agency’s revenue from sportsmen has continued to grow even as our numbers dwindle. They gouge us with increased license and tags fees, permits or stamps also have annual increases, and there are new individual fees each year for just about anything we might want to hunt or catch. With the money the same or increasing, do you think the state agency cares our numbers are declining? Do they care enough to do something about it? Absolutely not. The DFW is in charge of selling a great ‘product,’ and if the staff wanted to refocus its management, reduce the regulatory burden on hunters and fisherman, and initiate a private-sector type marketing program (like the state has done for Covered California, the health care debacle), they could increase license sales by a minimum of 50 percent in three years. I happen to believe the reality is that they don’t want to increase our numbers again, and they are certainly not investing any of its funding to do so. They don’t want more people looking over their shoulders. They don’t want more accountability. When fishermen represented 10 percent of the population and hunters were four or five percent of the state’s population, we were a significant ‘constituency’ group that mattered to Sacramento legislators, so we also mattered to the DFW and Fish and Game Commission’s political appointees. A phone call or letter to a representative about declining trout plants or changes in a hunting season meant the DFW and FGC would be called out and there was accountability. Today, no so much. There are legislators today who probably don’t know the state plants trout for anglers. Why should they? Anglers are now just 2 1/2-percent of the population, and hunters represent barely a half-percent of the people in the state. To the rest of the state’s population the DFW is supposed to represent when it comes to non-game and endangered or threatened species, most can’t tell you who or what the DFW does. They don’t know its Fish and Wildlife that are supposed to be the watch dogs that protect wildlife and habitat. If they did know that, they would gasp in horror and the incompetent job the agency is doing. Why? Because there is no accountability. Just the condor program is a prime example. The state is supposed to be the coordinator of a broad-based coalition of scientists and researchers from private, state and federal agencies working with this critically endangered bird. After 35 years of supposedly intensive study, we still really have no idea of where or what condors eat in the wild. With all of the birds wearing markers and most with radio telemetry gear so we can track their movements and location, we still only have anecdotal information on where and how they feed in the wild. There has never been a food study done on condors. This is a critical omission when you have been telling everyone for two decades that lead poisoning from the condor’s food is their biggest threat to recovery. And that lead poisoning — they have and continue to say — is caused by lead ammunition remnants left in game gut piles and carcasses discarded by hunters. But then we banned lead ammunition for hunting in condor country, there was a real shocker. It didn’t help. The after-ban data shows the condors are still getting lead in the same amounts. Now, the so-called experts are scrambling trying to make the data fit the disproven theory. They are grasping at straws: ‘Hunters must not be complying.’ ‘Poachers are still using lead.’ But all the excuses beg the simple question. It’s working for eagles and vultures, why isn’t it for condors? Well, it appears the simple answer is that the assumption about condor lead coming from ammunition was at least partially wrong, mostly wrong. Has the DFW said, ‘Whoa, we need to finally, once-and-for-all, do a condor food study and see where this lead is coming from’? No, they are mismanaging endangered species like they have the resources — the hunted and fished species — that could make them a mint in license sales if those populations of game and fish were optimized. A total ban on hunting with lead ammo goes into effect on July 1, 2019 The NSSF surveyed California hunters after AB 711 passed and found that nearly 40 percent said they will either have to stop or severely reduce their hunting due to the much higher costs of non-lead ammunition. This goes for 22 rimfire ammo also, probably the most widely used ammo of all. So far the best they come up with for 22 rimfire is a powdered copper X poly pressed bullet that shoots like crap and costs 10.99 for fifty. And “widely available?” Forget that. The Fish and Wildlife Service has an approved list of non-lead ammunition that has less than 40 manufacturers on it. Further, due to local restrictions in densely and highly populated Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco, ordering ammo by mail is nearly impossible—if not all together forbidden.The NSSF report says the ban could lead to a loss of $20 million in revenue for the state. I won’t name names here, but there was once a do-nothing biologist I knew in the 1980s (an anomaly back then, because the biologists with the DFG then were mostly hard-working, dedicated troops) that became the butt of a joke. I used to say, ‘Put him in charge of desert tortoise if you want to assure they go extinct.’ He pretty much represents how the entire agency functions today. There are a lot of biologists (excuse me, they are all now ‘environmental scientists’) who would love to get back in the field and do good things for wildlife, but they are handcuffed today by bureaucrats and supervisors who don’t want to fight the good fight. They are handcuffed by decades of regulations and rules that no one questioned when they were implements. They are handcuffed and lack of funding (read that ‘lack of funding’ line to mean, ‘misappropriated funding spent elsewhere on something that doesn’t really benefit anyone or anything in the state’). In a recent press release, the DFW director hailed one of the top accomplishments of the agency: Wildlife nanny. He didn’t use that term, but he was proud of the time his biologists and wardens wasted on problem wildlife calls. Mountain lions, bears, and other potentially dangerous critters would enter urban California and need 100s of man-hours of time to be tranquilized, caged, and relocated. For many animals, they would end up in the same situation a week or two later. That is an accomplishment? Wildlife nannies: That’s what the DFW has become, a feel-good agency all fuzzy and warm and politically correct. The wildlife nannies (aka DFW) don’t have the gumption to tell the public that those critters should get a load of 00-buckshot and a necropsy. Potentially dangerous wildlife coming into urban California is a problem we don’t want to give another opportunity to hurt someone. They come because they are looking for food; because the population is saturated, and they can’t find food or a home range outside of urban California. They come because we’ve mismanaged the lion, bear, and other wildlife populations beyond all recognition. They keep coming because we want to do the feel-good thing instead of the right thing. But it’s one of the agency’s key accomplishments? They have lost their way. And only a handful of us remember or care what the agency should be doing or why. Hunting and fishing license sales are the big picture they refuse to see or address.

Larry like you my feet can be a problem without the right footwear and like you I try everything and anything when it comes to having boots that are comfortable. If your feet are not happy the day is done. The biggest problem I find with footwear today is the sizing, the overseas companies that make today's boots have them all under sized and too narrow compared to American made stuff of a couple of decades ago. If I am going to be doing any amount of walking I want boots especially made for walking and I have found that upland style bird hunting boots work the best for me. They are usually the lightest boots most comfortable to wear and they have soles that are not heavily lugged which work fine for most situations from now until the snow starts flying. I have several pairs of this style and just bought another pair, Wood N Stream Kangaroos American Heritage that are actually American made and for a change sized right and they fit right. I have been wearing them to break them in but they fit so good there is no break in. Right now they are my favorite boots as far as comfort, the proof in the pudding will be how they hold up over the long haul. Now these boots sure are pricey but shopping around I found they will go on sale at times for a substantial savings, that is what made me pull the trigger and I am glad I did. Al https://www.amazon.com/Waterproof-Breathable-Stream-Kangaroo-Boots/dp/B00DMBDFZ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471436083&sr=8-1&keywords=kangaroo+hunting+boots

A consideration that would save you substantial money is buying a good used hunting rifle. At a well stocked gun shop or a gun show you can find rifles and shotguns that are without a mark and just like new with very few rounds put through them that will save you big because they are pre owned. Make sure you bring someone that has knowledge about firearms to make sure of condition. Al

If one is hunting big woods for the most part shots taken at game are under 100yds. I know there are many proponents of scout type guns with their sight or scope mid mounted but personally I never cared for that type of setup. The idea is to shoot with both eyes open for quick target acquisition and I guess with practice it works. The old Ithaca Deerslayers had their rear sight dovetailed to accept rings and a long eye relief scope scout style and back when I worked in a gun shop I mounted quite a few scopes on those Deerslayers and sighted them in. What I did not care for was the relatively small field of view the long eye relief scope have so target acquisition was not so quick for me personally. For short ranges in heavy cover I like a low powered traditional rifle scope with a big field of view, and when mounted properly I can shoulder my rifle or shotgun and be on target instantly. Again on the other hand there are those who swear by the scout setup so I guess in the end it is a matter of personal preference and what you are comfortable with and of course how you actually shoot after trying both styles and practice, practice, practice. Al

Jaeger, even though the Leupold 2.5 compact is short physically the eye relief it has is almost 5 inches, it should work well on just about any standard mounting situation. If you can find a store that has one in stock and take a look through it you will be impressed. Al

I have a Russian SKS that was my Dad's, I bought a bunch of the cheap military ammo and some stripper clips and played around with it. Actually had quite a bit of fun, not the most accurate but is totally reliable. As for your Uncle's SKS I can tell you some of the military stuff with documentation like you have may increase the value of that gun substantially with certain collectors. I don't have any idea what it may be worth but at a big gun show like the fall one coming up in Syracuse there are many collectors dealing with military weapons that may be able to give you an accurate estimate of it's value. Al

Yes that was a real nice head of hair 35 years ago, a real pompadour, today I buzz what I have left right down to the scalp. Dan some might say I am a little weird at times but I can assure you my last name is not Yankovich. I believe there may be a direct correlation with hair and horns, back when I had the mop I was taking some pretty nice bucks, these days the points have become a lot fewer. But like my hair today I am not nearly as fussy as I was when I was a young buck myself. Al

Back when I purchased the Leupold 3X it was a regular cataloged scope in their lineup, it is just about perfect for the shorter ranges Foster slug firing shotguns are normally used. For me it has a plenty wide enough field of view for short range, all the deer I have taken with slugs have been under 100 yards, some almost on top of me. This guy almost ran me over and I put him down at about 25 yards. Back then I had enough hair to keep my head warm. I have recently purchased a couple of the current Leupold 2.5 compacts, they have the same style but they are lighter and shorter, I like them a lot. They have a long eye relief and a huge field of view which makes them great to use on slug guns also I think. I have one currently mounted on a little Marlin 94 44 mag, when this weather cools off a little I will be putting it to the test on the range. Al

He is a dandy! Al

I believe those Greyhounds are coursing-hunting dogs not racers. Al

I screwed around with some Tinks many years ago, I applied it on felt pads that were worn on the bottom of rubber boots. The idea behind the instructions was when you walked to your stand a horny buck would hit your track and come in to you. Never saw any bucks but I had two Coyotes and one black Lab follow the trail to my stand. Al

For me it is always the leaves. Al

A 12ga Winchester Super X1, had the slug barrel made by Lefever Arms Rome NY back in the late seventies. Had them cut the choke off a plain barrel and install Browning sights. This gun would put the old Remington 7/8 ounce foster slugs on top of one another at 60 yds. It shot so good I ended up having it drilled and tapped for a scope and put on this Leupold Vari X1 3X (all my get serious guns have Leupolds) which had saw previous duty on an Ithaca 51 Deerslayer. I killed quite a few Deer with this outfit including the best buck I ever took. Don't hunt the southern zone or shotgun only areas these days so the old Winchester has not seen any action in some time. With the rifled barrels and sabot slugs of today she is not in the same league as the slug guns available now when it comes to long range. Al

Nice outfit you got there, it will handle all the big game we have in this country in just about every scenario it comes up against as long as you do your part. I will say it again you will never go wrong with a Leupold scope. Al

Nothing would surprise me, I have been around long enough to remember when it was common knowledge that there were no such thing as Moose or Coyotes present in NY State. People were just seeing things. Al

Cameras are a lot like guns for hunting it is pretty hard to come up with one that can handle all situations. Like my hunting arms which over the years have been purchased to cover most types of hunting I do I have done much the same with cameras, I have purchased a lot of them over the years. I still have my almost 50 yr old Polaroid 360 Land camera that I took a couple of photos with the other day for shits and giggles. When out hunting I go as light, small and as tough as possible and yet try to have a camera that can capture a decent shot. Cannon, Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic etc all make compact pocket sized cameras easily carried in the field that take decent photos. I have been using a Panasonic Lumix 16 megapixel that has a stainless steel body and a automatic lens cover that covers the lens when the camera is in my pocket. It is about the size of a deck of cards and it takes good photos in the field. When not carrying a gun I use a full size Cannon sx20is 12 megapixel it has a big zoom and takes beautiful photos but it is heavy and bulky. Today's cameras are easier than ever to use and the prices are good compared to just a few years ago. The main thing is to stick with a brand name and do a little research online and you can come up with something that will suit what you have in mind. Al

From a couple of years ago, I have a range out in back of my house and this young Turkey decided to roost on one of the targets.

The recoil from a slug firing shotgun is a real test for a scope's build quality, buy the best one you can afford. I see many of today's manufacturers produce dedicated shotgun scopes so something from those types should hopefully hold up to recoil and be reliable for your son's slug gun. Al

I have done business with the Sportsman Guide for many years, as for the membership fee it is easily recouped with one decent order. On common run of the mill outdoor sporting goods that other dealers carry their prices are pretty much the same as everyone else. Where this outfit really shines is with factory close outs, discontinued items and factory seconds along with military surplus merchandise. If the need is there a huge chunk of change can be saved by a smart shopper when this stuff comes up for sale. The stuff I have purchased has always been as advertised and worked out fine for me, never had to send anything back so I can not comment on customer service. Al

Natchez has the Leupold 3x9 on sale for 199.00 and free shipping. https://www.natchezss.com/leupold-vx-1-riflescope-386391.html Al

The 3x9 Leupold Vari 1 scope is an iconic classic that has a long unmatched track record in the field that can not be beat for performance, reliability or a company that stands behind it's product for the money. I go back to the sixties with Vari 1 Leupold scopes of both straight power and variables, always did their job in any conditions with Zero! issues. I am still banging away with them today and expect them to continue on for yet many more years after I am long gone. You will never go wrong with selecting a Leupold scope. Al

Boots are a lot like the rest of your outdoor clothing and gear it depends on the type of hunting, terrain, time of year and weather, are you a stand hunter or are you walking and stalking? So you end up with several pairs to fit the task of the day. Early season and for walking I like light boots, my favorite style are moc toe upland boots that bird hunters favor. I have three different brands right now and they are pretty much even in performance. The main difference are their soles and material they are made from, Cabelas Kangaroo are as the name states made from Kangaroo leather, they are light and comfortable with a sole that gets decent traction but not so aggressive that they get packed with crud, flatland boots. I also have a pair of older Rocky "Outbacks" that are a gore-tex-nylon construction, today' current Outbacks are only made in leather, they very light and have a more aggressive sole. The third pair are Bass Pro's Redhead "upland boots" a leather nylon combo with a waterproof membrane, the sole is medium aggressive like the Rockys. The pair I have is a few years old and I love them but I hear the current production is junk so I would not touch them at this time. For mid season cooler weather, a bit of snow and some stand sitting I like those Danner Pronghorns like you already have, I like them a lot. If I were to pick one pair it would be the Danner Pronghorns. When the snow gets deep and the temps get cold I go to rubber that have plenty of insulation, they are heavy but I do not do a whole lot of walking I am mostly sitting in a stand. Sorrels and Mucks have been good to me. Al

I only know that there is a lot of lead in the water so I have no idea of what the ultimate consequences of the Flint water fiasco will end up being because I have not really followed it closely. I am sure we will all know exactly what the real impact was over time once tests are eventually done and the dust settles and the lawsuits hit. But it would not surprise me to see concentrations of lead in people that actually drank and consumed a lot of that water full of lead over a long period of time, how could there not be? Still it is much different than eating a few meals of properly butchered game meat taken with traditional ammunition. Like playing the tobacco card not even close to being an analogy between the two. Al