Barbara Baird is a freelance writer in outdoor and travel markets. A former small-town newspaper editor and reporter, she constantly hunts for news headlines you need to read. Barbara also publishes Women’s Outdoor News online and pens columns for the National Wild Turkey Federation and Shooting Sports USA. Hailing from the Ozarks of Missouri, this avid hunter is now mentoring the second generation of hunters - her own little bevy of Realtree-wearing grandchildren.
Brow Tines and Backstrap
Realtree Outdoor News
Meitin's Bow Blog
Turkey Blog with Steve Hickoff
The Realblog with Stephanie Mallory
The Duck Blog with Joe Balog
From One Woman Hunter to Another: Do Your Homework on the NRA First
April 30, 2012 | By Barbara Baird
You’ve got to hand it to the New York Times to find a pro-gun control hunter to write an Op-Ed piece for its newspaper. Last week, Lily Raff McCaulou penned a poison piece for The Opinion Pages titled “I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me.” She gave it her best shot, but she needs to pattern her gun, as she completely missed the target.
In her editorial, McCaulou tries to make the point that although the National Rifle Association (NRA) is pro-Second Amendment, it doesn’t do much for hunters. Boy, is she wrong.
We all know that hunting is a privilege, whereas the Second Amendment is a right. And that’s where she does a belly flop off into the deep end of anti-NRA sentiment. McCaulou even makes the egregious error of equating gun control with crime control. She proudly states, "I’m a hunter and a sportswoman. I own guns, but not for self-defense. I support gun control laws. I would happily vote to repeal the Stand Your Ground law in my home state of Oregon. In other words, the N.R.A. does not represent me."
In short, McCaulou seems to oppose the use of firearms by private citizens for purposes beyond her own narrow use in hunting. Throughout the piece, she scatters her entire agenda that covers the waterfront of “progressive” ideals, too: global warming, evil oil companies, sprawling evil human occupation of wildlife habitat. You get the idea.
She writes, “Even if the N.R.A.’s worst nightmare were to come true nationwide — expanded background checks, mandatory waiting periods, limits to the number of guns purchased by an individual per month — hunting could continue as it has for more than a century with rifles and shotguns.”
Such “reasonable” laws have been in effect in the UK for some time. How has that affected hunters across the pond? Well, I lived there in the 1990s. My husband was the commanding officer of the local Royal Air Force Station’s shooting team. With a single phone call, he could summon up machine guns, assault rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. But, when I bought him a vintage double-barrel shotgun so he could hunt hares with some of our friends in the country, the paperwork began … after a visit to our home from the local constable who knew of my husband’s job, but whose task was to ascertain in one sitting whether anyone in our family was crazy, or if we should be allowed to have a vintage, exposed hammer shotgun – and to keep it in the RAF Station armory under lock and key. Whenever my husband wanted to hunt, he had to get permission to get his gun out. And even then, it was only with that one gun. Too bad if he had wanted a gun that held more than two cartridges. That was verboten!
Can you honestly tell me, Ms. McCaulou, you don’t see that coming your way? If not, take another drink of the Koolaid.
But, returning to that “NRA doesn’t do much for hunters” argument, McCaulou writes, “Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that every N.R.A. member is also a hunter — which is highly unlikely, considering that the most comprehensive national survey of firearm ownership to date found that only 35 percent of gun-owning households say they hunt. Even then, the N.R.A. would represent only about one-third of all hunters in the United States.”
One phone call could’ve knocked the steam out of that paragraph. I contacted J.R. Robbins, Managing Editor of NRAHuntersRights.org, and asked him about it. His response? “Eighty percent of NRA members hunt, and after personal protection, hunting is the main reason NRA members own a firearm.” Robbins added that no one he knew received a call from Ms. McCaulou before she wrote the piece.
McCaulou adds, “To hunt, yes, we need guns. We also need wildlife. We need healthy habitat that is protected from development and pollution. We need land that is open and accessible to hunters.”
She’s right about that, but perhaps if she had called, she would have learned that the NRA does support hunters—her included—as well as numerous land-use and conservation efforts. How? Take a look at these facts from the NRA publication “NRA – Fighting for Hunters’ Rights”:
- Preserves motorized access for hunting and game retrieval on federal lands
- Supports “Open Field’ programs that encourage private lands to be opened to the public
- Pass No-Net-Loss legislation for public hunting lands, ensuring that those lands remain available
- Delivers support to programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program
- Supports apprentice hunting license laws and eliminate unnecessary age restrictions that act as barriers to hunting
- Overturned needless bans on Sunday hunting
- Engages in high-profile litigation to ensure that scientific wildlife management prevails over emotional pleas of anti-hunting extremists
- Opposes legislation, regulations and government policies that restrict or prohibit use of traditional ammunition for hunting
- Promotes the use of hunters to reduce over-populated game species in national parks
- Works to keep hunting a priority in the National Wildlife Refuge system
- Protects against attacks on hunters that regulate ownership and use of hunting dogs
- Ensures that hunters may continue to travel freely with their firearms and trophies
- Passing laws in all 50 states prohibiting “hunter harassment”

Robbins added, “Also – her point that a lot of gun owners DO NOT belong to NRA – even if they are not members, the average gun owner in this country learns to shoot from an NRA instructor, shoots on a range that operates under NRA guidelines, follows safety rules written by NRA and was able to buy a gun in the first place because NRA fights for their rights to do so. They may not be members; they just take advantage of everything NRA does.”
From there, McCaulou delves into the usual progressive talking points that don’t have much of anything to do with the NRA, but do further illustrate that she doesn’t bother with research if it doesn’t support her own opinion.
For example, she writes, “If Americans’ hunting traditions are threatened, it isn’t because of bans on rifles and shotguns. The more likely culprit is the oil and gas drilling proposed in the San Juan Mountains of New Mexico — a beloved destination for elk and antelope hunters. Or the devastating effects of global warming on migratory game birds like snow geese and sandhill cranes. Or the fact that thousands of acres of United States farmland — and deer habitat — are lost to sprawling development every day.”
She’s pouring it on now. Snow geese are at such record high numbers that they’re destroying their own nesting grounds. And there are likely more deer here now than at any time in recorded history. Could part of the reason be that human sprawl into rural areas has created the mosaic of small wood lot and field habitat that whitetails prefer? Quite a few biologists think so.
It’s obvious Ms. McCaulou had her mind made up and was focused on politics when she penned this piece. Maybe she would’ve changed her attitude had she educated herself on the facts of the NRA and its work for hunters ahead of time.
California Considers Banning Hunting with Dogs
April 26, 2012 | By Barbara Baird
At last count, 600 hunters who advocate using dogs to hunt bear and bobcat showed up for a hearing in Sacramento, Calif., on April 24 regarding the practice. About 200 antis, mainly from the Humane Society of the United States, also arrived on the scene. Hounds are used to chase bears and bobcats – tiring out and often treeing prey until a hunter arrives and then, kills the animal.
In a state where hunting always is called into question, this is just the latest hurdle thrown by anti-hunters – as legislation. In fact, you may recall when recently the president of California’s Game and Fish Commission, Dan Richards, hunted a mountain lion legally in Idaho and then came home to calls from the antis for his resignation. He is still the president.
The state’s wildlife department estimated that last year hunters with dogs killed fewer than 450 bears. In reference to bobcats, the state issued 4500 tags. Bobcats number around 70,000. Hunters with dogs killed 11 percent of bobcats in the state.

Said dog-hunting advocate Jess Cook, “The Department of Fish and Game does a better job managing the bear population than the Humane Society.”
What is the Humane Society of the United States up to in your neck of the woods? Do you know?
Who Let the Cats Out?
According to our pal, outdoor writer JR Absher, urban coyotes mainly are living off cats. JR, over at his blog titled “Slugs & Plugs,” writes, “The American Bird Conservancy, one of the principal conservation groups that fully grasps the irrationality of some cities’ feral cat trap and release programs, reports this week that studies indicate that as coyotes move into urban areas, their predominant prey is outdoor cats.” Of course, the ABC likes the fact that coyotes are leaving birds alone.
I agree with JR. The Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR) programs exacerbate this problem – of providing easy dinner for coyotes and thus, encouraging them to hang around neighborhoods longer. I wonder – will bowhunting for coyotes become an urban opportunity soon, as a result of domestic cat owners' and feral cat do-gooders' ignorance?
Is there a coyote problem in your neck of the woods, and what is your neighborhood or city doing about it?
The Real Elephant in the Room
April 20, 2012 | By Barbara Baird
Poor King Juan Carlos, the 74-year-old monarch of Spain, who recently broke his hip while on an elephant hunt in Botswana. He has angered the public for two reasons: 1) the economy is in deep trouble in Spain and Spaniards want to know who paid for his trip and 2) the antis appear to have the upper hand. In fact, King Carlos is the honorary president of the Spanish branch of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – a position he has held since 1968. Members of the WWF are considering whether to eject him from this position.
I checked on the WWF’s position on hunting, based on "What They Say About Hunting - Position Statements on Hunting of Major Conservation
or Preservation Organizations," from the National Shooting Sports Foundation: “The mission of WWF is to protect rare and endangered species and habitats all over the world. We therefore explicitly object to any activity that threatens the survival of any species or the conservation of wilderness areas that support these species. But, WWF does not, for example, oppose hunting by indigenous peoples to meet their basic needs for food and shelter. We do insist that hunting and trapping be regulated so that the survival of any species not be threatened, and we vigorously oppose any hunting or trapping activities that violate international, national or state law, which includes illegal poaching."
So, what’s the problem with hunting elephants in Botswana? According to a Reuters’ press release on the topic: “With a human population of 2 million, Botswana has the highest elephant-to-people ratio in Africa, at one for every 14 people.
“Conservationists and hunters say their growing numbers are contributing to fewer forests and growing deserts.
"'They have to cull them. That is the purpose of allowing people to hunt elephants,'" said Mike Cameron, a veteran South African professional hunting guide who has led many safaris to Botswana.”
They have to cull them
Just don’t send the king of an impoverished country to do the job.
By the way, a typical two-week elephant hunt costs $60,000-$70,000. That excludes air fair, tips, etc. In a country where half of the young people cannot find work, that’s the real problem. But the antis are jumping on this train and hoping it leads them to no-hunting-elephants land sooner than they expected.
If you were king, what would you do? This could be a teachable moment.
(By the way, the king has already apologized.)
Hooray for the House! Passes Sportmen's Heritage Act
April 18, 2012 | By Barbara Baird
Question: How do you eat an elephant sandwich?
Answer: One bite at a time!
On April 17, the U.S. House of Representatives approved what the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) calls “the most significant-pro-sportsmen legislation in 15 years.” Titled the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012, aka H.R. 4089, passed 274 to 146 (235 Republicans and 39 Democrats). It is a package deal that includes the following:
- Classifies Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service lands as open to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting unless closed or restricted based on scientific evidence
- Confirms that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot ban lead in traditional ammunition or in sport fishing gear
- Protects recreational shooting on BLM National Monument land
- Allows the import of legally hunted polar bear trophies now tangled in federal red-tape
One of the main benefits of the legislation is that it will make it more difficult and costly for lawsuits filed by anti-hunting organizations. As some of us suspect, anti-hunting groups often go to court first, often bypassing rules and regulations already on the books. It also protects fishing tackle and ammunition from these attacks.
USSA president and CEO Bud Pidgeon said, “H.R.4089 spells out in plain language that hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are legitimate uses of federal public lands and that these lands are open, as a matter of law, to these traditional activities.”
Supported by most conservation organizations, the bill now goes to the Senate. You might want to ring your senator’s phone or fire off an email – today! Let’s take a bigger chunk out of this sandwich.
Visit the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.
Sponsored by DataSport
- » Alexander: We Don't Need Big Brother Holding Our Hand While We're Fishing
- » RMEF Urges Full Transparency for Conservation Groups
- » 'Open Unless Closed' Pivotal Piece of New Hunting Heritage Act
- » TWRA Tells Corps of Engineers It Will Not Enforce Restrictions on Fishing on Cumberland River
- » Maine Asks Its ‘Intangibles’ to Keep Watch for LPDV in Turkeys
- » Pigs R Us: Why the Country Can’t Make Up Its Mind About Feral Hog Control
- » Illinois House Endorses Proposal to Criminalize PETA Drones
- » PETA Wants to 'Stalk Hunters' with Drones
- May 2013 (6)
- April 2013 (8)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (5)
- January 2013 (7)
- December 2012 (5)
- November 2012 (9)
- October 2012 (7)
- September 2012 (8)
- August 2012 (8)
- July 2012 (10)
- June 2012 (8)
- May 2012 (9)
- April 2012 (10)
- March 2012 (13)
- February 2012 (10)
- January 2012 (9)
