I recently got a nice email from a new blog reader, Jan, and thought her comments were well worth a post. She was citing the 2006 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Associated Recreation conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which had found a healthy growth in the number of female hunters, and she said, 

     "We've come a long way baby," from the days (in my case) begging my Dad to take me along with my brothers on a week-long deer hunt only to find out (when he finally DID agree to take me) that I was along primarily to serve as camp cook.
     He (my Dad) is in his 80's now, and couldn't be prouder of me. All four boys stopped hunting years ago, and since Daddy is no longer able to take to the woods in the Fall, he lives those hunts through me. I take lots of pictures, and have even called him from the stand to tell him about the monster I just shot, or from Africa to replay the plains game hunt at the end of the day. He carries pictures around and will show anyone who asks -- and most who don't -- HIS daughter, the huntress.

     I was on a Wyoming hunt a few years ago, when the guide asked if we felt like shooting a few prairie dogs, and proceeded to pick one off with  a 30-06. Not pretty.
     I remembered that when I saw this Casper Star Tribune story about the upcoming May 31 "There Goes the Neighborhood" prairie dog killing contest in Wyoming's Carbon County. According to organizers, the event is intended to, "provide a voice for prairie dog shooters," and the entrance fee includes four cans of food to donate to the "Hunters for the Hungry" program. 
     Of course, in addition to participants, the event draws a fair amount of moral and environmental criticism from outraged opponents seeking to ban it.
     I've never shot a prairie dog (that time with the guide was my only experience to date with prairie dog shooting -- no big surprise being from New York) but I know plenty of women who plunk off a few of the 'pests' now and then. Do you shoot the occasional prairie dog, or just not bother with the rodents? -K.H.

     I apologize for going off topic again, but this is serious. I was just sitting down to start a blog post when I checked my email, and found a chain letter from a close friend. I now have 3 hours to forward the message to 10 people or someone I love could die in a freak accident.
     So here I sit, with 180 minutes on the clock, facing a terrible choice. Do I -- a person who's already debilitatingly superstitious -- give into the e-paranoia, drop what I'm doing and send the email to 10 other addresses? Bear in mind that forwarding the message could save lives. Or, do I tell myself these emails are mere spam that prey on the insecurities of the recipient and should be deleted on sight? Not forwarding the message could spare 10 unsuspecting people from having to face this dilemma themselves. I still can't decide. And I'm down to 170 minutes.
     Do you delete chain mails the minute you get them, or obediently send them along? Say you're late for an appointment when one of these emails pops up saying you have one hour to forward it to 15 people. Doing so would ensure a beautiful 16-point that fall. Not doing so would mean a meatless season. Would you sent it just in case? Or would you take a stand against e-superstition, declare "This chain stops with me," and boldly hit delete? It's a moral test of the highest order, and I, for one, am still struggling through it.
     And I have 160 minutes to go. - K.H.

     It's not hard to find anti-hunting messages on the Web. But the logic -- or lack thereof -- presented in this Adirondack Daily Enterprise letter to the editor caught my eye. The letter was written by Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting president Joe Miele, whose name pops up quite a bit at the end of such anti-hunting rhetoric here and there.
     Citing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data, Miele celebrates a decline in youth hunters, then claims that "nonviolent forms of outdoor recreation" such as bird watching are on the rise. He suggests that state conservation agencies take advantage of the situation to sever their budgetary dependence on the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, by instead putting a surcharge on binoculars, cameras and other equipment used by wildlife watchers. "By making these changes," he concludes, "both wildlife and people would benefit and we would bring about a less violent world."
     Interesting.
     While I concede the letter is barely worth acknowledging, I couldn't help but be amused by the flawed logic behind it. Just goes to show that it would take a far and blinded reach indeed to discredit the overwhelming contributions sportsmen and women make to resource conservation. -K.H.

I'm excited to be kicking off a new Q&A series on the blog! I'll be interviewing women from all corners of the outdoors industry, and posting a new conversation about twice a month.
     First up is author Laura Browder, whose most recent book, Her Best Shot: Women and Guns in America was reviewed by F&S deputy editor David E. Petzal a few months ago. Released in 2006 and out in paperback in March, it's a history of women and shooting from the interesting perspective of someone who is relatively new to guns.
     Laura was happy to make time for the blog to talk about old ads, President Theodore Roosevelt, and turn of the century trap shooting.-K.H.

FSHUNTRESS: I understand you weren't raised around guns. How did you first get interested in firearms, and what was your first experience of shooting a gun like?
LAURA BROWDER: Yes, I grew up in Providence, RI, where the guns laws are much stricter and where I was very ignorant of gun culture. Moving to Richmond, VA, was a real eye-opener. I guess my interest in guns began developing my first New Year's Eve in my new home, when everyone on my block -- kids, middle-aged homeowners, and even the senior citizens in the old folks home across the street -- fired their weapons into the air at midnight. I quickly realized that I was no longer in New England -- and that I had a lot to learn about guns and gun owners. When you grow up in a Northern city, it's easy to demonize gun-owners. In Richmond, I began to realize that many of the people who I liked and respected a great deal were very attached to their guns. That's when my research began.
     The first time I shot a gun, I was incredibly nervous -- it was such a taboo for me. I really enjoyed the adrenaline rush it gave me, though.

FS: What gave you the idea for this book?
LB: I started thinking about how closely gun ownership and American identity are tied together in our popular culture. Yet guns and masculinity are closely associated as well. So where did that leave women? When I began doing research, I had a couple of people ask me where I thought I was going to get enough material to write a whole book. On the contrary, the problem I had was in paring down the incredible wealth of stories I found about gun-toting women on both sides of the law.

FS: In your research, what were one or two of the most surprising things you learned about the history of women hunters?
LB: I was amazed to learn how popular hunting was among women at the turn of the twentieth century. If you look at gun ads from that period, many of them feature a woman out alone in the woods with a rifle and hunting dog. My website has some wonderful ads from this period. And I was surprised to learn that President Theodore Roosevelt publicly urged women to hunt -- he saw it as a great antidote to the city living he thought was making women sickly and was weakening their characters.

FS: How have the ways in which advertisers market firearms to women changed over the decades?
LB: Advertising in the 1880s through the early part of the twentieth century assumed that women were competent with guns. Ads from the 1950s included women only as adoring bystanders, if at all. Then we got the bimbo ads of the 1960's and 70's. Since then, many gun ads have promoted the idea that good mothers and responsible single women needed guns to protect their families and themselves. My favorite ads really are those early ones, though. They even feature little girls out hunting -- something I can't say I have seen in any recent ad.

FS: What accounted for women's enthusiasm for hunting and the shooting sports at the turn of the twentieth century?
LB: Actually, trap shooting was the first sport that was open to women and men on equal terms. In its early years, the National Rifle Association worked hard to change the image of shooting from a macho, drunken activity to something that anyone could enjoy. There were even all-female trapshooting clubs at that time. And hunting was seen as a great way to get some exercise and enjoy nature. Annie Oakley did a great deal to popularize shooting for women at the end of the nineteenth century.

FS: Do people tend to be surprised when they hear about that historic involvement?
LB: Always.

     A big congratulations to blog reader Judy Black, whose story about a memorable bear hunt with her husband is currently in Bear Hunting Magazine's May/June issue. Here's an excerpt and photo on the magazine's website. Judy actually told us her hunt story on the blog a few months ago, and she's beyond excited to see it in print as well. She's also excited about an upcoming September elk hunt in Wyoming, and I know we look forward to hearing about that too! - K.H.