paparock

Yes, we do have some anti-hunting members that have been quite vocal on the forum.

Rack Of 1,000 'Points' Even in a room filled with extraordinary whitetails, Ohio's unique "Barnacle Buck" still would stand out. One look at him is all it takes to know why! By Gordon Whittington Read the story here http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/weirdwhitetails/wt_ww1201barnacle/ along with a lot of other great Whitetail Tales.

Don't forget the lot of my hungry ancesters that liked a little venison with their taters now lad. ;D

Rarest Whitetails Of All? Even snow-white deer are fairly common in comparison to those that are abnormally dark in color. By Gordon Whittington In terms of coloration, which whitetails are the rarest of all? Most hunters would claim that distinction belongs to albinos, which lack any pigment in their skin or hair. But as unusual as it is to see a whitetail that's far too light in color, it's even less common to see one that's far too dark. On the continent as a whole, "melanistic" or "melanic" deer - so named because their bodies produce far too much of the hair, skin and retina pigment known as melanin - are definitely the rarest of the rare. While millions of whitetails have been harvested across the continent in modern times, only a token number of cases of melanism have been documented. In fact, it's safe to say that most whitetail hunters have never even heard of melanistic deer, much less seen one. For that matter, only a few research biologists ever have observed one in the flesh. Among those who have are Dr. John T. Baccus and John C. Posey of Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos. Their school's location between San Antonio and Austin gives them handy access to melanistic whitetails for research, for as it turns out, most of the world's supply of these animals lives within an hour's drive of the campus. The eastern edge of Texas' Edwards Plateau region and adjacent areas of the Blackland Prairie region are the epicenter of the world's population of melanistic whitetails, for reasons not well understood even by the two researchers. In going over the scientific literature, Baccus and Posey have been unable to find any record of melanistic deer being documented anywhere prior to 1929. The odd "black" deer has shown up here and there, from the East Coast to the Great Lakes to the northern Rockies. In fact, below you'll find a photo of a striking melanistic 8-pointer shot in southeastern Pennsylvania in 2002. But it's safe to say that at any given time, there are now more melanistic whitetails alive in Central Texas than in every other part of the planet combined. Melanism is actually fairly common in all or parts of eight counties: Hays, Travis, Comal, Williamson, Blanco, Guadalupe, Burnet and Caldwell. Why would this be the case? The researchers admit that they aren't sure, but they say the mutation likely has been perpetuated because it offers a survival advantage. Melanistic deer are concentrated along the region's drainages, where cover is thick and a dark-colored prey animal would have an edge in avoiding detection. This trait also would serve them well in the upland juniper thickets found in the same part of Texas. The biologists say that they don't know if the circumstances that produced this genetic trait are even still in existence. Nor, for that matter, does anyone know if a single gene is responsible. Regardless, the trait seems to be in no eminent danger of disappearing. By no means are all deer with melanistic traits totally black. Indeed, there's a wide range of shades, with some being quite black and others being more of a dirty brown or dark gray. This has led some biologists to wonder if a single gene controls hair color or if instead multiple genes combine in a variety of ways to display a wide range of forms. There's no middle ground with albinism; a deer either does turn out to be an albino or doesn't. But the same can't be said of melanism. According to the SWTSU researchers, some deer are semi-melanistic, meaning they display coloration and markings somewhere between those of normal and melanistic specimens. Semi-melanistic deer have the dark overall coloration of melanistic deer but retain the white areas of normally colored deer. Melanism is easily seen even in fawns, as those with too much pigment are sepia, seal brown or dark gray. Only rarely do they have spots of the sort seen on normally colored fawns; most have only traces of spots or none at all. Albinism is a recessive trait, and current thinking is that melanism is recessive as well. What leads researchers to draw this conclusion is that dark fawns often are born to does of normal coloration, and vice versa. Indeed, as with albino and piebald fawns, does sometimes bear one fawn normal in coloration and one abnormal in coloration. None of the research done to date suggests that melanistic bucks have inferior antlers. The velvet on their racks tends to be brownish, but the SWTSU researchers note that they have seen one melanistic buck with gray velvet. Given the rarity of melanism in whitetails on a continental basis, you might be wondering if it's possible to gain hunting access to these strange deer on any of the Texas lands where they thrive. Unfortunately, there are at present no public hunting opportunities for melanistic deer, as most of the animals live on large, leased ranches with tightly controlled access. Nor are any outfitters currently advertising hunts for these unique animals. (Bobbie Fain did shoot a big semi-melanistic whitetail on a guided hunt at Rancho Encantado in Dimmit County in 1997. However, this ranch lies far outside the normal area for melanism, and Bobbie's trophy appears to have been an isolated case. Ranch owner Jack Brittingham says he's seen no other "dark" deer on the property since he began managing the land in the early 1990s, though he recalls having observed some deer of "toffee" color.) Melanistic whitetails make beautiful mounts, and they definitely rank among the rarest of all deer trophies. But unless the animals become far more widespread than is currently the case, anyone wanting to admire a black whitetail probably will have no choice but to do so through photos. Check out the Black Bear below. It is not an albino as it does not have pink eyes, etc. but is a rare but true white color phase black bear. It is called by many names Spirit Bear, Kermode Bear, and Ghost Bear that lives in British Columbia. It is also totally protected from hunting as it is the rarest color phase of black bears.

It's over, folks. A North Carolina jury has acquitted two PETA employees of Animal Cruelty and Obtaining Property By False Pretenses. Guilty verdicts were handed down for Littering, in connection with PETA employees Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook's improper disposal of their furry victims' bodies. Hinkle and Cook were each given suspended 10-day jail sentences, 12 months' probation, 50 hours of community service, a $1,000 fine, and nearly $3,000 in restitution. And PETA's "death van" has been confiscated by the town of Ahoskie, NC. While we certainly didn't see these "Not Guilty" verdicts coming, we'll give PETA's highly paid lawyers credit for blowing enough smoke and sowing enough confusion to confuse a jury. (That's their job, after all.) But it has now been established in court that PETA, in fact, kills animals. Inevitably, more and more of PETA's naive supporters will get a clue.

If enough people sign them then sometimes they can bring about change but I guarantee they work better than wishing someone else would do something about the problem. I think of it kind of like voting. Will your vote really make a difference? When you cast your vote you are never sure but then some elections have turned on only a handful of votes. But if you do not care enough to cast a vote then for sure yours was wasted.

Here is a link where anyone interested can sign a petition to have PETA's tax-exempttion status removed. Be sure to pass it on. http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=154 You will also find more infromation at the linked site.

You may be surprised by this fishingJ but "Yes" I would and will be fine with the bear killing me if that happens. I accept that as part of the risk when hunting an animal capable of hunting me back and killing me. Any hunter that has not made that decision has no business perusing dangerous game. In fact, a friend on mine from Colorado (whose name I will not post publicly but if you really want to know so you can check to see that I am telling you the truth, I will PM you) was killed and partially eaten by a bear. Unfortunately, he was more of a naturalist and not a hunter or he probably would still be alive. Yet, I do not hate bears as that bear was just being a bear but the Game Wardens did kill it. I posted the bear education material so those two 14 and 15 year old boys that posted might at least try to read more about bears. Too many schools now teach PETA material that is about as accurate about bears as "The Three Stooges" is accurate about human psychology and behavior. They need facts in order to make intelligent educated decisions rather than emotion based propaganda based decisions. If the management of the game such as bears and fish were left solely up the Mother Nature then most bears, deer, and many fish species would be near extinct over much of the USA. Canada still has a lot of wilderness but the USA does not. That is why biologist mandated management plans have brought back many species like the black bear and dear here in Arkansas from near non-existence to huntable populations. These same plans by artificial reservoirs of enormous size have given us some world-class fisheries from trout to walleye that were never possible via Mother Nature. Therefore, sometimes Mother Nature needs a helping hand but then she takes over.

Join the Polar Bear club and go anyway. ;D

There is a lot of great information on this site in the Fishing Articles section at the top of the page. here are some additional sources of info. http://www.float-n-fly.com/ http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/fishing/bass/article/0,19912,553024,00.html http://members.aol.com/ladoz2/may05.html http://www.smallmouthspecialty.com/float.pdf I am just learning it myself, so good luck and thight lines.

Hair Jigs FOR WINTERTIME Smallmouths http://www.punisherjigs.com/Hair_JigsFOR_WINTERTIMESmallmouths.pdf In the near future we will be offering productcs from nearly every major manufacturer in the industry. Until they are on our system contact us at information@punisherlures.comfor your needs. If we don't have what you need in stock we'll order it. http://www.punisherjigs.com/

I love topwaters when you can get them to hit them just because I love the visual, sound, and overall experience of any fish but especially a smallmouths agressiveness smacking the heck out of surface lures. As for numbers then I settle down to LC Pointers, white spinnerbaits if the conditions are right, hula grubs, and either a micro munch or eakins jig.

PETA Trial, Day 6: Turning the Corner The prosecution called its final three witnesses today, and then rested its case. A defense motion to dismiss all charges was argued fiercely and then shot down by the judgefor now. And the defense's first witness was more prosecution-friendly than expected. http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/535593.html Animal-rights group employees charged in dumping of dead dogs, cats Kristin Collins, Staff Writer WINTON - All around this struggling farm town, chicken houses stand in the fields as a testament to the way many here earn their living -- raising, slaughtering and processing chickens. It is an unlikely locale for an unlikely criminal case. Today, two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a radical animal-rights group that opposes meat-eating, are on trial for the strangest of charges: killing animals. PETA is based in Norfolk, Va., but its work has international scope. The group, which raises more than $25 million a year from 1.6 million supporters, opposes any human use of animals, whether for food, fashion or research. In the more than two decades since its founding, it has become a major threat to medical researchers, meatpackers, fur sellers and others. Now, two of its employees stand accused of tossing garbage bags full of euthanized cats and dogs into a Dumpster behind a Piggly Wiggly in Hertford County, 130 miles northeast of Raleigh. Adria J. Hinkle and Andrew B. Cook, both of whom work in PETA's Norfolk office, are charged with 21 counts each of animal cruelty, a felony that can carry prison time, along with littering and obtaining property by false pretenses. It is a strange turn of events for PETA. The group's supporters have often been prosecuted for their radical efforts to protect animals -- breaking into fashion shows to throw blood on fur-wearing models, liberating lab animals, showing gory videos outside the circus -- but PETA has never been accused of hurting animals. Those who oppose PETA are seizing on the trial. The spectacle also has drawn a gaggle of lawyers, PETA staffers, reporters and curious onlookers to this rural county seat, where the small brick courthouse resembles an aging elementary school. They sat through two days of jury selection -- longer than for many murder trials -- during which lawyers struggled to find jurors who weren't close friends or business associates of any of the more than 60 witnesses. Several potential jurors were thrown out after saying they had read about the case, gossiped about it at work or formed strong opinions about PETA. Defense attorneys threw out a handful of farmers and avid hunters but left three people on the jury who work for a Perdue slaughterhouse a few miles from Winton. Now, jurors will decide whether Hinkle and Cook were, as PETA argues, providing humane deaths to animals that would otherwise have been painfully killed in gas chambers -- or whether, as several local officials say, they were taking animals on the promise of finding them homes and secretly killing them. A PETA spokeswoman, Kathy Guillermo, said PETA never wanted to get into the business of euthanizing animals. But she said the group couldn't ignore the horrible conditions in animal shelters around Norfolk and in northeastern North Carolina. The group now euthanizes thousands of animals a year. "Euthanasia is a better alternative to sitting in a stinking pound," Guillermo said. PETA opponents are drawing attention to this little-known facet of the group's work. On Monday morning, the Washington D.C.-based Center for Consumer Freedom, an anti-PETA group funded by restaurants and meat producers, drove a mobile billboard truck reading "PETA: As Warm and Cuddly as You Thought?" past the courthouse. David Martosko, research director for the group, described the case as a gift in his fight to discredit PETA. He plans to monitor the entire trial. "Most people would not believe, if you told them two years ago, that PETA kills animals. They'd say, 'What? They're the bunny huggers,' " Martosko said. Martosko and Stephanie Maltz, a lawyer with the Foundation for Bio-Medical Research, a Washington, D.C., group that lobbies for animal testing, paid a visit Monday night to the trash bin where the animals were dumped. It was dark, and a man with a flashlight was rooting through the garbage, but Maltz was undeterred. She jumped out of the car and took a picture of the grime-stained container for her group's Web site.

Kodiak Brown Bears by Victor G. Barnes, Jr. National Biological Service Roger B. Smith Alaska Department of Game and Fish Mark S. Udevitz National Biological Service Jay R. Bellinger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brown bears (Ursus arctos middendorffi) on the Kodiak Archipelago are famous for their large size and seasonal concentrations at salmon streams. Sport hunting of Kodiak bears has been popular since World War II. Their value as captivating subjects to observe or photograph is a more recent development that is increasing rapidly; visitors from around the world come to experience brown bears on Kodiak, adding substantially to Alaska's economy. Adult brown bear on Dog Salmon Creek, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak Island, AK. Courtesy D. Menke, USFWS An equally important contribution of brown bears is their value as an indicator of ecosystem vitality. Despite high population numbers, Kodiak bears are vulnerable to the environmental effects that have seriously depleted brown bear populations in Europe and parts of North America (Cowan 1972; Servheen 1990). They are long-lived mammals that require large expanses of land to meet biological needs, and their low reproductive rate limits population recovery. Energy development, depletion of salmon resources, and recreational growth are factors that can adversely affect bears and, in doing so, signal a loss of environmental quality affecting many species. Management of Kodiak brown bears is directed at maintaining current density, distri-bution, and habitat-use patterns. This goal is challenged by growing levels of commercial and private use throughout the region. An immediate concern is cabin and lodge development on 121,500 ha (300,000 acres), formerly part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, that were deeded to Alaska Natives via the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Much of that Native-conveyed land is coastal or riparian habitat especially important to brown bears during summer and fall. Concurrently, recreational use of the Kodiak refuge is increasing about 10% annually (USFWS 1987). Sport fishing, bear photography, and deer and elk hunting often put bears and humans in direct conflict (Smith et al. 1989). Timber harvest on Afognak Island, uncertain trends of salmon populations due to natural or human-caused events (e.g., Exxon Valdez oil spill), and hydroelectric development (Smith and Van Daele 1990) could impose additional long-term effects on localized bear populations. Population Monitoring Sport harvest records, available since 1950 (Troyer 1961), provide the most comprehensive information on Kodiak brown bears. In addition, biologists use aerial surveys to monitor population and habitat-use trends of brown bears on southwest Kodiak Island, an area that supports the highest bear densities and approximately 15% of Kodiak Island's bear population (Barnes et al. 1988). We assessed status of the Kodiak bear population from estimates of density for representative study areas on northern, southwestern, and eastern Kodiak Island. We radio-collared a sample of bears on each area and estimated bear density using ratios of marked and unmarked bears observed from small aircraft (Miller et al. 1987). Brown bear abundance on other geographic units of the Kodiak Archipelago was estimated by comparing those units with the study areas. Status and Trends Sport Harvest Records Excessive and localized harvest of brown bears in the mid-1960's (Fig. 1) prompted biologists to impose restrictions (season length, area closures) that dramatically reduced harvest. A sharp rise in hunting in the early 1970's produced another increase in harvest. In 1976 the Alaska Department of Fish and Game began an area permit system that distributed hunting more equitably throughout the archipelago. Since 1980 the harvest pattern has been relatively stable, with an average annual take of 163 animals (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. Annual sport harvest of Kodiak brown bears, 1961-93. Sex composition of the sport harvest has remained relatively stable despite fluctuations in yearly harvest. From 1987 to 1993 the female portion of the harvest has ranged from 32% to 38%. Age and skull measurements of harvested bears provide further evidence of population stability. Mean ages of males and females taken during 1981-93 (7.3 and 7.4 years, respectively) were slightly higher than during 1969-80 (6.3 and 6.8 years, respectively), but we attribute this difference to sampling variation (Fig. 2). Skull measurements (length plus width) of harvested bears, which generally indicate bear size (Glenn 1980), have remained consistent over time. Fig. 2. Mean age of Kodiak brown bears harvested by sport hunters, 1969-92. Collectively, sport hunting records point to a stable bear population on the Kodiak Archipelago. A comparison of average annual harvest and estimated population size indicates that harvest is at or near the maximum sustainable level (Miller 1990), and managers should closely monitor additional effects on the bear population arising from increased mortality or other factors. Aerial Stream Surveys Adjusted maximum counts from stream surveys ranged from 47 to 87 bears per survey over the past 12 years, but there has not been any consistent trend in the counts during this period (Fig. 3). The stream survey counts are used as an index to population size, but they are affected by many other factors such as timing of the surveys relative to peak bear concentrations and strength of salmon runs. Fig. 3. Maximum counts from aerial surveys of brown bears concentrated along salmon-spawning streams on southwest Kodiak Island, 1982-93. We consider estimates of composition based on the stream surveys more reliable. Annual estimates of the proportion of maternal females have varied little from the overall mean of 24% during this period. Taken together, the count and composition data suggest that the brown bear population in this area remains relatively stable. Population Abundance Estimates of brown bear density on three study areas on Kodiak Island ranged from 0.29 to 0.35 bears/km2 (0.75 to 0.91 bears/mi2). Habitats represented by the areas included precipitous mountain terrain, shrub-covered slopes, riparian zones, coastal habitat, and extensive bog and heathland flats. Extrapolating those density estimates to comparable habitats on other geographical areas provided an estimate of 2,842 bears for the Kodiak Archipelago or about 0.23 bears/km2 (0.60 bears/mi2). Bear density was highest at Karluk Lake (0.42 bears/km2 [1.09 bears/mi2]) and lowest on small, isolated islands (0.04 bears/km2 [0.10 bears/mi2]). Management Considerations Available information suggests that the status of the Kodiak brown bear population is better now than in some earlier periods. In the early 1900's bears were commercially hunted for their hides or indiscriminately killed as competitors of fisherman and ranchers (Troyer 1961; Smith et al. 1989). During the 1960's bears were killed in a controversial control program undertaken to reduce conflicts with livestock on northeast Kodiak Island (Eide 1965), and excessive sport harvest occurred on parts of southwest Kodiak Island. These events undoubtedly affected bear distribution and abundance in local areas. However, future management of brown bears and their habitat will face new problems, including accelerated timber harvest, construction of cabins on bear habitat, and additional hydroelectric development. Added to all these threats is the long-term problem of expanding recreational use. Effective management of the bear population in upcoming years will depend on inventory methods that can detect population change in a timely manner. For further information: Victor G. Barnes, Jr. National Biological Service Alaska Science Center Kodiak Field Station Kodiak, AK 99615 other sources of educational material to learn about bear managemnet are below. http://www.birding.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/federal_aid/survey_inven/98brnpm.pdf http://wc.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/mbr01_sc.pdf http://www.soundswild.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/federal_aid/survey_inven/02brnpm.pdf http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/regs/pfindx.php http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/regs/PoliciesIndex.pdf

What is up with the anti-hunting crowd on the forum lately making nasty comments? Hunting is just as legal as fishing and a bear is an animal just as a fish is. Wildlife biologist for the betterment of the species manages both. The reason why larger male boars are targeted is that when bears be they brown, grizzly, or black reach close to carrying capacity in areas the larger older males will kill and eat the cubs of the female bears as that is mother natures population control. I love bears and those that hunt them on a regular basis go to great extremes to help maintain their environment and the health of their species. If it were not for the fees and money, spent by hunters just like fishermen there would be no game or fish management and we would not have the balance of population and harvest as we now enjoy. I always feel sad at the death of any animal because it gave its life for me as my American Indian Brother taught me. Some need to understand that running down others rights will some day come back on you when yours are in jeopardy. Maybe you should educate yourself about the subject before offering criticism. If hunting is not for you then that is fine and that is your right but why belittle those that do as they are fellow sportsmen that fund your Game and Fish Managment? http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bears.main

Ronnie, my wife had both her knees replaced and now I cannot keep up with her. I have Arthritis in my right knee that I had a blown ACL repaired back years ago from playing basketball. They don't tell you when you are young and dumb how those sports injuries you seem to come back from so fast are going to revisit you later in life. She had both knees done at the same time because both were so bad the doctors did not understand how she was walking on them at all. The key for her was two fold. One was the machines they put her legs in immediately after surgery to keep the knees moving at least a little at first and then they increase the range of motion slowly. Second was when she healed enough to get into the heated pool so she could walk with the waters help. That really helped and made a huge leap in progress. I call her the bionic woman now. I'm sure they will make a huge improvement for you. Let us know when you are going in so we can hold you up in prayer my friend!

The bear was taken in a managment plan to help the species devised by game biologists just as fishing limits are. For everone else here is another pic.

I have mostly a mixture of Daiwa and Shimano.

Welcome to the Broken Fin or Tail Club. Yes, we all have to learn to laugh at ourselves sometimes in order to get a better lease on life. You seem to have a really good handle on yours already. Hey, like Dirty Harry said "You have to know your limitaions!" I sure have them before and after all my disease problems. I'm part Irish and you know what they say about the Irish? God created wiskey so the Irish would not rule the world. ;D I don't drink so I guess he had to keep me humble thru other ways. : Thanks for sharing and best of luck.

Using my BPS card is how I got my new rod rack. Go for it!

Someday you will be able to get even. ;D

Fern Spaulding-Rivers With Her Trophy An urban legend about a young lady and a world-record brown bear has been circulating on the internet. Here is one version: "This 9 year old girl from the Yukon killed the new world record brown bear on the Alaskan Peninsula in October, 2006. Skull size 33 1/16", 11' 9" nose-to-tail. Estimated weight of 1,800 Lbs. No, this bear had not killed anyone. It was the girls first-ever bear hunt!" No, she was not from the Yukon and no, it was not a world record, but the true story is just as fascinating: From "Biggest Bears Of 2006" in the March/April 2007 issue of Bear Hunting Magazine, due on newsstands late February 2007: If the "biggest bear" is determined as a ratio of the size of the bear to the size of the hunter, Fern Spaulding-Rivers is probably setting records that will never be broken. The 10 year-old from Talkeetna, Alaska has already harvested great trophies of most of Alaska's major game species, and she is a handloading fanatic as well. Fern's larger caliber rifles have a muzzle brake and a recoil pad and she also wears a custom-made padded shooting vest from McCoy Shooting Armor to help her withstand big bore recoil. Fern was carrying her Remington 700 Stainless chambered in .375 H&H while brown bear hunting on the Alaskan Peninsula with her father and mother on May 10th, 2006 (when she was 9 years old). As the day progressed she and her father saw 11 bears. At one point, they were charged by a pack of wolves, and they had to dispatch some with the nearest at only 8 paces! Later, they spotted a big bruin in a gully at 32 yards. With all the excitement of the day beginning to show, Fern asked Larry to hold her legs steady while she shot because her knees were shaking. Fern rolled the bear with her first shot, but the bruin regained it's footing and tore off across the tundra. Shooting again from a prone position, Fern dropped the behemoth for good with a second 270 grain Barnes Triple-shock at 112 yards. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service measured the bear's hide at 11'4" from nose to tail. The skull has been officially scored at 29 1/16" Boone and Crockett. What does Fern think of bear hunting? "Do you know how big an 11' bear looks at 30 yds? It's kinda scary! They are about the size of a Volkswagen bus and when they swing their head to look your way they remind you of a T-Rex in Jurassic Park!" Her trophy brown bear now puts her in an elite class. Fern is a tremendous example to young hunters everywhere, and she is a great hunter regardless of her age.

I don't know who will win but I will be pulling for the Colts.

Glenn, I am a registered "independent" and agree that bashing any one party here serves little purpose. It is however notable that the anti-gun legislation does come primarily from one party but not exclusively. I, as I hope other's that enjoy the outdoor sports will take the time to call, write, or otherwise let the elected representatives know their stands on gun issues. It is already against the law for "criminals" (those with criminal records) to buy firearms. It is also a crime for anyone who has been convicted of a felony to be in possession of a firearm. These elected officials proposing these new laws know that. It is their stated purpose to make the mere ownership of more and more firearms illegal for those not having a criminal history or in other words the average law abiding citizen that can presently own said firearms legally. That is why I posted links to the proposed bills so anyone could read for themselves the actual proposed legislation and thereby make up their own mind as to it's worthiness. Take for example the new 2007 bill H.R.256 "The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007" It will make ownership, the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a person who is less than 21 years of age, even inside their own residence, and cannot be used even in self-defense against an intruder. Also despite being a soldier coming back from Iraq if you are under 21 years old you will not be able to own or have in your possession a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic "assault weapon", or large capacity ammunition feeding device. Under this bill:SEC. 5. RESPONSIBILITY OF ADULTS FOR DEATH AND INJURY CAUSED BY CHILD ACCESS TO FIREARMS. In this subsection, the term 'child' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years. Any person who-- '(A) keeps a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, any one of which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is under the custody or control of that person; and '( knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child is capable of gaining access to the firearm; and '©(i) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title) to the child or any other person; or '(ii) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that possession of the firearm by the child is unlawful under Federal or State law, if the child uses the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury to the child or any other person, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both. In layman's language if you have a gun with ammo and it is not in a safe or under lock and key then you are subject to 3 years in prison if it is stolen by someone under 18 and used in a crime on someone or the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept. Therefore, if you can prove you are innocent but if you read all the language you can charge most any average Joe depending on the prosecutors interpretation. All that is in but one bill. These congressmen and congresswomen know quite well, what their bills effects will be and it is their intent. The alternative solution is one that has been proposed since I was a child. Punish the lawbreakers not the law abiding. There should be a mandandory add on of 10 years for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony or injury to a person. The problem is those that passed anything like such a law did not make it mandatory and it became the bargaining chip to drop for reduced charge plea bargains. Gun use in crime needs a non-option mandated tack on of time to added to the sentence for the crime committed. There should be no option for plea bargains, drop charge, etc. but only if you do not want to do the time do not use a firearm in crime. The problem is that is not the agenda motivating the idealogs behind the scenes pushing to legislate the disarming of the American population in total. By definition, criminals are those that do not obey laws so how does passing a law to make ownership of a firearm for a whole age class of currently law abiding citizens going to solve the problem. Answer: It is not and our Congressmen and women know that but it will take the guns out of the hands of those that will obey a new restrictive law. Why are those that do the crimes of violence with firearms not locked up longer? Why is that not easy for them to understand? I can only guess since those such as I have been writing, speaking, faxing, and voting that answer for since I was able to vote and I am now 57. Could it be that those legislators do not care about that but in fact have a different idea in mind. There was a memo sent out from the DNC to the membership in which members were urged not to offer their views on gun control as it was not popular and might lose votes. What ever happened to share your true core values, let the people decide, and that goes for all parties on any subject. No party be it Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc. should be allowed to hide the truth of who they are and what they believe in. This is not about a party, or blame, but about us the American people losing or rights to and an ever-increasing State control of our lives. In the new Speaker of the House's district of San Francisco, there is now a proposed law against spanking a child under the age of three with prison time proposed. I wonder how long it will be before it comes before the Congress for possible national consideration. For only armed with knowledge of the truth can the people make an informed decision. In today's America, truth unfortunately has taken a back of the bus seat to politics!

As we all know, the House and Senate has a new majority, the Democrats. There are several bills coming up intoduced by the new majority I thought sportsmen and hunters might want to know about. H.R.256 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.256.IH: "The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007" This is a bill that destroys the rights of anyone under 21 to protect themselves. As if the banning of perfectly legal handguns to individuals 21 years of age weren't bad enough, this proposed law would ban otherwise perfectly legal semi-automatic hunting rifles as well! Has this bill's sponsors considered the brave 18 to 20 year old American soldiers who are fighting the war on terrorists in the Middle East with handguns and select-fire rifles as I write these words? Yet when they come home they will not be allowed to possess civilian versions of these pistols and rifles? H.R. 428 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.428.IH: To quote H.R. 428: "To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns." H.R. 297 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.297.IH: NICS Improvement Act The "NICS Improvement Act" would seem to be based on good intentions, since it pretends to keep criminals from buying guns. We have to push forward to regain the gun rights we've already lost, not step backwards! I doubt few criminals buy their guns legally. The JPFO knows what they're talking about when they say that "gun control" is a euphemism for victim disarmament! H.R. 96 http://thomas.loc.gov/beta/billView.jsp?&k2dockey=/prd/k2/bills/xml/110/h96.ih.xml@billmerge&numHits=1&currDoc=1&currentPage=1&110%3Cin%3Econgress%29&congress=110 "The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007" All firearm purchases at gun shows are already subject to the exact same Federal background check and state laws as firearms purchased in a retail store. So where is the loophole but note the provisions that would in essence shot down down shows? Links are provided for you to read the bills as offered for yourselves.