Categories
Category: “Aw shucks
Categories
Oops!
Categories
ETHICS OR ELITISM? BY DAVE WORKMAN
DAVE MAKES THE MISTAKE OF SHOWING A GROUSE PHOTO
Dave posted this photo, which Insider readers have seen before,
to introduce himself to a group of grouse hunting devotees recently.
It ignited a lively debate because, well, he didn’t use a shotgun.
It was an innocent-enough mistake — well, not really a mistake; perhaps an error in polite judgment — but it provided an opportunity for some folks to examine their principles, and maybe their perspectives, on a question for which there may be no satisfactory answer.
This started with an invitation to join an online group devoted to grouse hunting. It’s one of my favorite early-fall activities. It was sheer coincidence the invitation somewhat coincided with my work on last week’s column about working on my classic Ruger Standard .22-caliber semi-auto pistol. I’ve killed grouse with this pistol, and with my much newer Ruger MKIV, and it was the posting of an image of me with the newer pistol and a dead grouse, to sort of introduce myself which ignited the fireworks.
Considering a handful of reactions, you’d have thought I punched the Pope. I sensed there might be a problem when one guy remarked, “Not how I would ever shoot a grouse short of being starving.” Ooookay!
Another fellow chimed in, “Shotgun & bird dog more sporting.” A third stated, “They would stand a chance if you let them fly.” A fourth gent sneered, “Try wing shooting them like a grown up.” If everyone agreed all of the time, I wouldn’t have anything to write about.
There were ample defenders of my plugging a fool hen with a handgun — dubbed “ground swatting” and it’s not a compliment — including the very diplomatic group administrator, who sagely observed, “It’s not my preferred method of harvesting them, nor do I believe I (or anyone else) am entitled to be condescending of your methods. We are all part of the hunting community. Congratulations on your successes with your preferred method of harvesting! Shoot straight & often in your upcoming season!”
In my defense, one guy wrote, “I’ve always enjoyed the holier-than-thou faction of the grouse hunting community.” Another observed, “Head shooting spooky grouse with a pistol is more of an accomplishment than with a rifle or shotgun on the wing.”
In all, more than 185 comments were generated, and it reminded me of my days as managing editor of a monthly publication about hunter education. Frequently, somebody would bring up “ethics,” and as one might guess, one person’s ethics sometimes turned out to be another guy’s definition of elitism.
In this case, I found myself up against some folks who religiously hunt over dogs, using shotguns, and anyone doing it differently is apparently … something less.
Elmer Did It, Too!
My guess is that the purist dog crowd never heard of Elmer Keith, whose name is hardly strange to American Handgunner and GUNS Magazine readers. Keith was the father of long-range handgunning, and his 600-yard shot on a wounded mule deer buck with a .44 Magnum is the stuff of legend. On page 126 of my revised 1961 edition of “Sixguns By Keith” is a photo of Elmer taken in 1932. He’s holding three dead blue grouse in his left hand and a Smith & Wesson .38/44 in his right.
During my online discussion with the grouse group, I and a couple of other people explained to the crowd how shooting grouse with handguns is completely legal and something of a tradition in western states, which seemed to surprise some of those folks. To prove it, I contacted wildlife agencies in Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah and Oregon. They all allow shooting grouse with rimfires, and it is safe to conclude birds taken in such a way are shot on the ground or sitting on a stump or tree limb.
Is it ethical? Here’s where the fun begins. Wingshooting purists don’t care for it, while everyone else seems to at least understand it or embrace it. Last year, I wrote an Insider column about using pistols for small game which seemed to have been read by many of my pals. It’s hardly a “lost art,” and it takes more than mediocre skill to maintain consistency.
Balance shooting a grouse off a tree limb with a pistol at 20-25 yards or farther against walking in on a bird holding tight to cover because of a good dog hovering close. When the unfortunate fowl finally explodes from cover, it will be facing a spreading payload of birdshot, as opposed to dodging a single projectile. Which is truly more “sporting?”
Yes, Dave does hunt fool hens with a shotgun.
Here’s proof he’s not a complete ogre.
What is ‘Fair Chase?’
People talk about “fair chase.” What is that, exactly? According to the Boone and Crockett Club, fair chase “is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals.” Okay.
Straight from the B&C website come these tenets:
1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
5 .Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter’s experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.
Well, whaddaya know, items #1 and #2 apply directly to my situation, as well as #3 and #4. Evidently #5 is subject to some dispute (I’d suggest taking it up with Elmer!), and #6 seems open to personal judgment at the end of the day when the game bag may be full or not.
Here, again, sportsmen and women do not necessarily concur on the finer points. I know guys who have stalked game over considerable distances in order to get close enough for a clean, humane shot. Is that different than someone who may be on wide-open ground, and who takes an accurate shot at several hundred yards, using a rifle chambered for a long-range caliber?
Yet there are some in the outdoors with a “my way or the highway” approach. They tend to look down their noses at others who do things differently. This may be where “ethics” becomes “elitism.” Not everyone can afford a hunting dog, nor do they have the time or a home big enough, and neither can they afford a hunting lease.
Having hunted on public and private land, and a couple of times by invitation at a “hunting club” or “preserve,” I’m not sure there is a pat answer about fair chase, despite what B&C says. It’s not clear whether anyone at B&C ever hunted blue grouse, a bird of such remarkable stupidity at times that it will freeze in place or run along on the ground rather than take wing. Birds that dumb might deserve getting plugged by me, or Elmer.
Question: Is “fair chase” going without a professional guide? If you hire a guide, is that somehow less “fair” than hunting on your own? Maybe there is no correct answer, so we each do what, in our hearts, is the “right” thing; what you’d do if grandpa was watching. Maybe that’s ethics, and in some ways, it might be tinged with a bit of elitism.
And Then There’s This
My state’s wildlife agency encourages hunters to:
• Be considerate of non-hunters’ sensibilities and strive to leave them with positive images of hunting and hunters.
• Do not flaunt your harvested animals.
My reaction on social media was to be as considerate of non-hunters’ sensibilities as they are to mine (I’ve had people yell how they wished I’d get shot). I recall “big buck” contests held at local sporting goods stores in the days of my youth, when hunters were encouraged to show off their successes. There’s noting wrong with this. Yet nowadays hunters are encouraged to cover up their game, as if to hide what we do.
Back On Target
Last time I lamented one of my Ruger .22 pistols was shooting low and left. Practice pays off because a couple of hundred rounds has gone downrange since our last visit, and my pistol is back on track.
Dave’s classic Ruger appears ready to rock after return visits t
o the range. More than 40 shots went into this target from 15 yards.
Small game hunting ought to be fun this fall!
It still shoots a bit low, so all I’ve got to do is raise the front sight just a bit, or gently stone it down a bit. Windage seems to be fine — I didn’t do a thing to change it — so maybe I was just a bit rusty.
The great thing about practicing to shoot small game with a rimfire sidearm is being able to afford lots of ammunition and having the time to leisurely burn it up.
At some point, I may have to change my bullet weight from 40 to 36 grains, or simply switch brands of ammunition. I doubt there will be an effort to drift the rear sight slightly to the right (I’ve got a sight adjustment tool from Brownells for this purpose), but at least the equipment is at hand.
I was using different ammunition to punch the target in the accompanying image; 36-grain lead hollowpoints, where previously I was shooting 40-grain RNL ammunition.
Learn from my experience. Even with all the years I’ve had shooting handguns, my skills can suffer without regular range visits. You are no more or less prone to share the same experience at some point. Don’t throw in the towel, find out where the problem is and adjust accordingly.
Shoulda Known Better
You might think a fellow in his early 60s would know better than trying to break into a home, with a gun in his hand, especially in Missouri.
Recently, Fox News reported an incident in which an older guy — who probably should have been enjoying his senior years in a lounge chair or on a porch somewhere — entered a home in Missouri’s McDonald County. Only too late did this guy discover he had picked the wrong house. The residents were there, and both had guns of their own.
According to the narrative, the suspect in this caper fired at the homeowners. Probably to his surprise, they shot back. He missed, they didn’t. He wasn’t killed, just wounded in both legs. The homeowners held their unwelcome guest for the local sheriff’s department.
No News is Good News
Rasmussen is a seasoned polling firm, and their survey results are typically spot-on, so when they recently did a poll on media trustworthiness, it was worthy of attention.
Turns out 25% of likely voters don’t think the major news networks are reliable. Another 25% like Fox News, 13% favor CNN, while 12% trust MSNBC, Rasmussen noted. The “big three” are in single digits: NBC and ABC (7% apiece) and CBS (6%).
“Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters believe the problem of bias in the news media is getting worse,” Rasmussen said, “compared to just 13% who think the problem is getting better. Twenty-six percent (26%) say the media bias problem is about the same as usual.”
The Pentagon announced Monday that it had finished withdrawing U.S. forces from a $110 million military base in Niger, Africa, as the nation’s ruling regime takes over.
Niger’s Air Base 201 previously hosted hundreds of U.S. troops who have now evacuated at the request of the country’s military junta. The Pentagon said in a statement on Monday that all remaining forces and assets at the base have been withdrawn as final evacuation efforts come to a close.
“This effort began on May 19 following the mutual establishment of withdrawal conditions and coordination will continue between U.S. and Nigerien armed forces over the coming weeks to ensure the full withdrawal is complete as planned,” a statement from the Pentagon reads. “The effective cooperation and communication between the U.S. and Nigerien armed forces ensured that this turnover was finished ahead of schedule and without complications.”
American soldiers in front of military vehicles that they are preparing to board a cargo plane in Niamey on June 7, 2024 during the ceremony for the first departure of American troops from Niger. (Photo by BOUREIMA HAMA/AFP via Getty Images)
Some U.S. troops will remain at the U.S. Embassy in Niger while final withdrawal operations are completed in the coming weeks, according to The New York Times. Some equipment from Air Base 201 was shipped out, such as weaponry, but other equipment was left behind.
The U.S. relationship with Niger began to unravel after the country’s military regime toppled the democratic system in mid-2023, sending the nation spiraling into chaos. The regime was adamant that it did not want the U.S. to maintain a presence in Niger and demanded its immediate withdrawal.
Attempts to negotiate with the military regime largely failed as the country became increasingly hostile to troops stationed in the country. Officials issued a formal order in May to begin evacuating U.S. forces over the coming months, with the last of troops expected to depart from Niger by mid-September, according to the Times.
Some prominent U.S. defense officials argue that not having forces in Niger limits the U.S.’ ability to conduct counterterrorism operations against extremist and terrorist groups in the Sahel region.
TOPSHOT – Niger’s security officers stand guard as supporters of Niger’s National Council of Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP) gather oustide Niger and French airbase in Niamey on September 3, 2023, to demand the departure of the French army from Niger. (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)
“This does make safeguarding U.S. security interests in the Sahel that much harder,” Maj. Gen. Kenneth P. Ekman of the Air Force, tasked with overseeing the withdrawal, told the Times in July. “The threats from ISIS and Al Qaeda in the region are getting worse every day.”
However, some defense experts and former U.S. officials who previously spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation believed that withdrawing forces from Niger was the right decision, given that they were falling under an increasing amount of danger from the country’s hostile government and population. Boots on the ground are not necessarily needed to conduct counterterrorism operations, as the U.S. has other extensive military and intelligence capabilities, experts told the DCNF.
“What the [Biden administration] was not understanding, is that these guys are cold-blooded. This new government in Niger? They don’t care. They do not want the United States involved in their country,” Michael DiMino, a former CIA official and senior fellow at Defense Priorities, told the DCNF. “There was this denialism for several months that, ‘We can salvage this, we did fix this.’”
The Pentagon and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Categories
“Don’t give a shit”
The United Nation’s Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects (PoA) is now almost 23 years old. With a lack of any meaningful measurables and reporting remaining steady at around 50%, it should come as no surprise to anyone that follows the logic of the United Nations (UN) that expansion, not compliance, remains its priority.
That drive to expand was on full display during the PoA’s Fourth Review Conference, which concluded on June 28th after two full weeks of negotiations. As the only American firearms user group attending in a sea of anti-firearm nations and Non-Governmental Associations (NGOs), the NRA fought fiercely to stem the PoA’s growth and preserve the rights of American firearms and ammunition users against increased international standards meant to destroy those very rights afforded to us by our Second Amendment.
The arguments for expansion this year mirrored many of those from the past, especially in regard to including international regulations on ammunition under the PoA’s terms, synergizing its language with that of other legally binding UN instruments such as the Arms Trade Treaty and Firearms Protocol and establishing international regulations over personally manufactured firearms, or as the UN calls them, craft-built weapons.
There were also call to expand the PoA into new areas, such as the environment, technology, and gender dominions. The most notable of these were calls for the creation of an Open-Ended Technical Expert Group to study and develop international regulations and oversight on what the UN considers “new technologies” (polymers, modular weapons, and 3D printing), as well as the inclusion of language calling for the exploration of the relationship between firearms, “masculinities” and “genders in all their diversity.”
The justification for expansion of the PoA is transparent, as the inclusion of new language and regulations not only hamper the ability of civilians to use and possess firearms, but also allow for the PoA to continue to exist. It is hard to debate against the continuation of a body that has shown no real impact on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, or that only 50% of its members even bother to report to; however, if one can show continued growth an argument can be made that life still exists. Accordingly, expanding into ammunition, creating a new technical group, and arguing that firearms have a disproportionate impact on diverse genders ultimately creates a case for increasingly tailored interventions by the UN. This in turn calls for the expenditure of funds on more regional meetings in developing countries and fundraising opportunities for NGOs to continue producing junk-based academic “studies.” It’s the financial lifeblood of many, and the circle of life in general at the UN.
Fortunately, by the end of two-weeks of negotiations, and considerable efforts working friendly delegations, most of these calls for expansion were either removed from consideration entirely or watered down with limiting language leaving them barren of any real-world implications. In particular, the multiple references to international ammunition regulations included in the initial draft of the outcome document were watered down to a single paragraph that accomplishes nothing more than recognizing the existence of the Global Framework for Through-Life Conventional Ammunition Management. In addition, any regulations pertaining to private manufacturing were edited to include limiting language pertaining only to those manufactured illegally under national laws.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group was established, and membership was limited to governments and invited “experts” only. The Group will also meet informally, which in UN parlance means that unless invited, we will be unable to attend. It is no surprise that this is the format agreed to, as it has always been the goal of the UN to exclude any real experts that could dispel their ideological views and instead fill their seats with anti-firearm academics that feed off the questionable science of their colleagues. Again, it’s the UN’s circle of life.
The next meeting of the PoA will be in the early summer of 2026, during which the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group will hold their first meeting. Until such time, we will be working to find a seat at the table so that we can continue to fight the UN from interfering with our national sovereignty.