A couple of quick rejoinders. First, it's the possible MINDSET--the anti-government, paranoic, conspiratist fantasizing mindset that Lanny ably describes--of the person who takes an assault rifle to go hunting, rather than the weapon itself, that would concern me if I were a game warden. Second, non-hunters have proposed excise taxes similar to Pittman-Robinson, to pay for non-game conservation and land-acquisition programs; taxes on binoculars, cameras, camping gear, and other "non-extractive" outdoor equipment and products. I know of at least three instances, once when I served on the Open Spaces Task Force, and twice when I was in the legislature, that such a tax was proposed. There were many supporters. The chief opponents were the NRA and its allies and Farm Bureau, abetted by some in fish & game at DNR. Their main issue was CONTROL. They weren't about to cede any of their power or influence to the birders and bicyclists. --BW > Use of assault rifles to hunt deer is a very minor issue. Really, there > just are not that many of them out there. For those that are, very few > have a capacity of just 6 shots; most have bigger clips. I would bet > that the DNR will require the use of special soft point hunting ammo, > rather than the military, solid, armor piercing type they normally > shoot. Toying with numbers, I might guess there would be less than 100 > hunters out with those kinds of guns. They are fairly worthless for > hunting. They make far better guns for hunting. > > I have used a shotgun for all my deer hunting in Iowa. It holds five > rounds and is a semiautomatic shotgun, like the assault rifles that are > semiautomatic (shoot once each time the trigger is pulled). With some > of the newer shotgun ammo I can kill deer at 200 yds; although they have > lower velocity and hit the ground sooner than centerfire rifle bullets. > Idoubt that the deer cares which he was hit with. I doubt that a game > warden thinks there is much diffence in approaching me with my 5 very > rapid shots and someone with a very rapid 6 shot assault rifle. Game > wardens generally know how to take care of themselves. Really, the use > of assault weapons on deer is kind of begging the question. > > Bill is right to a certain extent about entrenched gov't employees with > political schemes and muscle. I might come out on the side of > scientific deer management with scientifically determined carrying > capacities. But, I realize there are sociopolitical carrying > capacities. I talked to the head of our DNR deer managment (Willie > Suchy?) and he said that Wisconsin just has a greater tolerance for high > deer numbers than do Iowans. > > Bill speaks of hunter fantasies with assault weapons. But, we all have > our fantasies. I might think it idiotic to fantasize about the perfect > golf club that might allow me to make holes-in-one. But, we worship our > fantasies. Animal rights people fantasize on how awful it must be for a > deer to die by being shot with an arrow. In fact, most people that hunt > with bow and gun report that deer die more quickly and less stressfully > when shot with an arrow. So, I think, let those very few have their > fantasies with their assault guns hunting. Tolerance folks. > > There certainly is some role for the "special interests" of famers and > insurers and nature lovers and hunters. The politicians should be > listening. We do wonder these days if legislatures are totally for sale > to the richer special interests. What is unique is the very successeful > role of the special interest of the NRA. Federal and state legislatures > certainly dance to their tune. I have been waiting for an expose of the > NRA. Although they have several million dues paying members steeped in > the view of the government coming to take their guns, there seems to me > to be more there. My question, do they receive financial support from > gun and ammo manufacturers such as Remington, Winchester, Browning, etc? > > So, wolves would solve our problem or maybe mountain lions? As Bill > note, people would be outraged. Some back of the envelope > calculations-- If a wolf or lion kills one deer per week and we want to > reduce the deer herd by 200,000; we need about 4,000 of them in the > state to do the job. Talk about the sociopolitical carrying capacity! > > The dove hunting controversy of a few years ago was a classic conflict. > DNR type agencies have always tended to be pro fisherman and hunter. > Why? Because all the money for virtually all game and nongame wildlife > comes from those who buy licenses and pay Pittman-Robinson taxes. Let > those that said we were going to kill the "dove of peace" put up > millions to promoate their interests, and then they would have a > legiitmate voice. I bought over $100 in licenses last year in state and > $550 out of state. I contibute thousands to the economy by my hunting > and fishing. > Lanny Schwartz > >> >> > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Join us at Sierra Summit 2005. For information go to: > http://www.sierrasummit2005.org/ > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship > e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's > latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent > editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Join us at Sierra Summit 2005. For information go to: http://www.sierrasummit2005.org/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/