Maryland Outdoorsmen caught a break Monday, when a Minimum Age Hunting License bill was withdrawn. If passed, the bill would have prohibited the Maryland DNR from issuing a license to anyone under the age of 13, according to a National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses press release. But, as it stands now, licenses continue to be obtainable by any young Marylander who has successfully completed a Hunter Ed Course.
     Of course, as this issue continues to come up from time to time and from state to state, a major argument against minimum age requirements is the concern that a youngster may already have developed a commitment to other activities before he or she is old enough to see what hunting is all about. They could very well be lost to the sport before even getting a chance to try it.
     I don't find myself quoting Ted Nugent very often, but when looking for a strong opinion on a decisive hunting issue, he's not a bad guy to turn to. I interviewed him for F&S a few years back, and asked what he'd do for hunters as governor of Michigan (he was talking about a future run for office at the time). One of the first things he said was (now, imagine this coming at you very loud and very fast through the phone as part of a streaming rant on the state of hunting in America), "...no minimum age - mom and dad will determine who goes hunting, unless of course the rest of the nation is dumber than Texas and Kansas and Louisiana!! ... by the time they're 14 it's too late!!..."
     Later, after he'd calmed down some, he elaborated on the issue, "First of all, hunter safety must be maintained, and I do wanna salute all volunteers - I happen to be one ... There's gotta be entry-level parental determination for the introduction to the great outdoor shooting sports."
     Granted, Nugent's comments are a little old, but the issue certainly isn't, so where do you stand on it? Do parents or state policymakers know best? -K.H.

 After two previous hog hunts that ended without meat for the freezer, blog reader Judy Black and her husband went on a mid-February hunt in Texas. She's thrilled to report that the third time was definitely the charm, with some nice harvests for both of them plus a friend who went along. -K.H.

     We had a blast. From the first night hunting to the last night we were covered up in hogs. The biggest harvested was 240, taken by a friend of ours who went with us. I probably took the smallest, but that's OK.
     Never let anyone tell you that taking a hog with a bow is an easy task. I shot at 5 and harvested one. I was really beating myself up over it as I know I shoot better than that, but they have to be hit in the right place and if you don't, they have enough fat to close off the wound and they get away. The thick brush really makes it tough to track them and the picker bushes will eat you alive.
     We had a great time and already told the outfitter we would be back next February. Saw lots of wildlife. I had the chance to take a beautiful bobcat but let it walk. It wasn't 20 yards up the road and I regretted letting it go. Lots of javelina, cardinals and many other birds.
     There is no better therapy than sitting in a tree or a blind listening to the world wake up -- and it's free. Wish more people took the time to appreciate what we have been given to enjoy. They are missing so much.

     To get right to the point, where do you stand on the Bush administration's announcement to end federal protection for gray wolves in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho? According to a New York Times article on the decision, the deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior told reporters, "Gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains are thriving and no longer need protection."
     Of course, wildlife and environmental groups have something to say about such a confident statement. According to the same story, a senior wildlife advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is participating in a planned lawsuit to fight the government's decision, said of the removal of protections, "The numbers are inadequate and the state programs are too."
     The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, for its part, has wasted no time in taking advantage of the development. Even before the federal government made its decision public Thursday, the FWP planned for a 2008 wolf hunting season for Oct. 26 - Dec. 31 contingent on the the anticipated announcement. According to this story from the Missoulian, hunters will not be able to use dogs, bait, or artificial scents or lures, and no quotas have yet been set. And of course, any litigation could push that first season way back.
     So, where do you stand on wolves?  Is it too soon to hunt them, or is there no time like the present? -K.H.

     Interesting that I find myself going from Hillary Clinton to a drooling, staggering deer disorder, but anyway... 
     I've been wanting to do a post for a little while on Chronic Wasting Disease. Though, I guess talking about it is kinda like eating your Brussels sprouts - not particularly exciting, but something you really should do.
     Of course, Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy that occurs in deer, elk, and moose. It's believed to be caused by nonliving proteins called prions, which accumulate in lymphatic and nerve tissue and literally create holes in the victim's brain (hence the "sponge" of "spongiform"). Symptoms include weight loss, staggering, shaking, and excessive salivation, ending in death.
     The disease first showed up in captivity in Colorado in the 1960s, then in the wild in Rocky Mountain National Park in 1981, and then east of the Mississippi in 2002. And of course, the million dollar question has long been -- is it a health threat to humans?
     As the tentative answer remains, 'no,' a number of hunters remain largely unconcerned about CWD. For example, after that spooky 2005 New York incident in which 350 people at a sportsman's dinner ate chili and steak from a deer that tested positive for CWD, health officials set up a hotline for those who had attended the banquet. They expected a ton of calls from worried individuals -- they got two. And just casual conversations with any number of hunters will likely turn up people who think concern about the disease is overblown. I once hunted with a guide, who believed CWD didn't exist at all, that it was a tall tale spun by government conspirators trying to destroy the tradition of hunting in America.
     While I'm not exactly fearing for my life, I'd rather be safe than sorry, and take at least some precautions. How careful are you about CWD? Would you knowingly eat meat from a CWD infected animal? Of course, this has a lot to do with the area of the country in which you live, but do you go to great lengths to guard against CWD? Or do you not think about it much? Sure, there's also a high fence hunting component to this discussion (that ugly industry contributes to the disease's spread), but I think that's a whole other topic by itself. -K.H.

I know we already had our obligatory Hillary Clinton discussion, but considering that the words, "You may not believe it but I've actually gone hunting," passed her lips during a Wisconsin campaign stop this weekend, it seems high time for another talk. According to this Reuters report, she told a crowd of voters that she'd been taught to shoot by her father, and that she supported gun rights.

The topic of gun ownership apparently came up when Mrs. Clinton was asked by a voter what she would do as president to stop school violence such as the recent Northern Illinois University shooting. She answered that legislators needed to, "Protect the rights of lawful gun owners, whether it's hunting, collecting, target shooting, whatever the purpose is, it's a lawful right, period." But she added, "We've got to keep it out of the hands of criminals and terrorists and people who are mentally ill."

Gun ownership rights aside, a New York reporter just couldn't let that hunting claim go, and asked Mrs. Clinton if she'd ever shot anything. According to the article, she answered with a definitive, "Yes," adding that she'd shot a duck and, "A lot of tin cans and a lot of targets and some skeet."

Hmmmm... Veeeerrrry interesting... After a winning streak by rival democrat Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton's campaign trail lands her in the great orange state of Wisconsin, and conveniently, she has all this field experience to discuss with her fellow hunters.

What do you make of it? Are voters apt to buy it? I wonder if she shot the duck with a .270 caliber shotgun. -K.H.

     Valentine's Day means love, and love means weddings, and weddings mean a lot of fun and a lot of cold, hard logistics.
     Among my friends and family, weddings have come in waves. Right after college, there was an explosion of about 7 weddings in the space of a year and a half among my circle of friends. Things died down for awhile, with only sporadic nuptials here and there. And now 2008 has shaped up to be another year of union with three weddings in four months -- one for a very close friend, one for my cousin, and a third for my lovely sister.
     Based on my experience in various bridal parties, I appreciate that a wedding can be a complicated machine. From wardrobe and decor to catering and entertainment -- the money, planning, and support staff involved in even the humblest of "Special Days" can result in a significant boost for Excedrin stockholders. Relationships are tested, budgets drained, waistlines assaulted, and the will to overcome it all can be pushed to the very brink of human endurance.
     Yet, for the love of our family and friends, we plunge willingly into the scented fray of save-the-date mailings, dress fittings, hair appointments, and surprise shower tactics - knowing that it's all part of life among loved ones. Besides, whether you're the one to the left of the altar in the dyed shoes or the one dead center in the white dress, we all take turns being the supporter or the supported through the years.
     One aspect of the bridal experience that I have no knowledge of, however, is the wide world of theme weddings. Hunting, for example, has never factored into any ceremony I've attended. But it's a popular theme for sure, with a healthy little range of products from camo wedding dresses and garters to hunter-and-huntress cake toppers to support it.
     How much did hunting factor into your own wedding - or those of your family and friends?  And was your Special Day a triumph in large-scale party planning, or an intimate gathering of your closest loved ones? -K.H.

     No matter how much I see it, or how many new products come out, I never get tired of novelty camo.  From marginally useful items like travel mugs, to total fluff like underwear and bed skirts, it's embarrassing how dazzled I am by every new camo-clad item that hits the market.
     Still, I'd put myself at the mild end of the camo crazy spectrum. Apart from actual gear items, I have a bunch of street wear, a hair scrunchie, a few picture frames, and a door mat. But I haven't crossed the line to any major furnishing purchases. That isn't to say that browsing the home decor at Cabela's isn't one of my guiltiest pleasures of any visit (usually to the New Hamburg, Pa., store). And I'm big on camo gift giving - like, I've bought a Little-Hunter-type bib and onsie set for just about every baby shower I've ever been invited to.
     So, where do you fall on the camo crazy spectrum? Are you obsessed with novelty items, or is most of your camo on your actual field gear? 
     And speaking of gear - are you pattern loyal? Does your deer hunting outerwear have to be, say, Mossy Oak® New Break-Up™, or are you just as happy in an old army jacket. Of course, after a point, a lot of camo is little more than field fashion -- but somehow, I just keep accumulating more of it! -K.H.

I wonder how many of us are diehard shed hunters, maybe already starting to devote some weekend time to the search for dropped horns. Certainly not a bad way to spend a February afternoon!
     I've posted the above photo before, but it's my favorite shed, so I'm posting it again. I found it on a Women on Target antelope excursion in Wyoming and it's signed by all the hunters in the group. I wasn't thinking about sheds at all when I glimpsed it out of the corner of my eye, but it was a fun accidental find!
     So, how much of a horn hunter do you tend to be? Are you a shed strategist, heading out on dedicated missions (maybe enlisting the help of a kid or two who are conveniently closer to the ground) to spot a prize and start developing a plan for next season? Or are you a casual browser, just kind of keeping an eye out during a walk or jog through the woods? Either way, happy hunting!  -K.H. 

     I know fairly little about Tasers, and even less about Taser parties, so feel free to jump in here. But a friend (actually, it was special projects editor Dave Hurteau) sent me a link to this TODAYShow.com report  about such get-togethers, and it seemed very worth a discussion.
     The TODAY story focused on a Phoenix-based entrepreneur named Dana Shafman, who sells Taser International's C2 personal protectors at what she calls ShieldHer Taser Parties. Following a kind of Tupperware party format, Shafman uses the gatherings to sell leopard-spotted or pink stun guns at about $350 a pop. Of course, the devices are being sold to women for the purpose of personal protection.
     "I think it's a more humane way to defend yourself versus choosing a knife or a gun or even a club," Shafman reportedly said of the Taser C2.
     Such devices are illegal in 7 states (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Hawaii), and condemned by Amnesty International. But Shafman points out on her website that they fit conveniently into a purse, and have no recoil.
     So, where do you stand on the idea of stun guns being the ideal form of personal protection for women? And would you go to a Taser party? -K.H.

     I don't know how many of us are from the great state of California, but the Orange Country Register has an item in today's edition that I found interesting. A reader wrote in to an apparent advice column asking about his wife, who had expressed an interest in learning to shoot.
     The columnist herself is a woman and her reply is ... well... 
     The fact that the writer refers to the man's spouse as "wifey" or "little woman," warns against the wife's intention to, "Hone in on your bubba time," and claims that, "Unless your lady looks like Siren from American Gladiators, she may not have the arm strength to pull back  the slide on a handgun," made it hard to keep reading. But the writer did, in her own less-than-flattering way, get around to some actual advice-giving and well-wishing. The whole thing is oddly offensive and encouraging at the same time.
     So I'm torn. Maybe the columnist meant well, but just couldn't overcome her own ignorance of the shooting sports? Check out the article if you have few minutes. The writer's phone number is listed at the bottom of the column if you'd like to share your thoughts directly. -K.H.