Never Enough Knives

by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, November 14, 2009.)

I think there’s a connection
between a keen edge and a sharp mind

A long time ago, my dad told me a small knife is better than a big knife for field dressing a deer. He was right. And, being a budding outdoorsman who thought his dad was the greatest hunter in the world, I asked him if I could have his knife. Maybe I thought having it would make me the hunter that he was.

I reckoned it would suit a six-year-old just fine – it was small, light, and looked kid-sized compared to some of the knives I’d seen. It had a white celluloid handle and was made by the Western Knife Company of Colorado. Dad didn’t give it to me then, but assured me by carving my name in the back of the sheath that it would someday be mine.

Many years later Dad kept his promise. I have better knives, but once in a while for old time’s sake I take his knife deer hunting. It’s a knife that will always be special, even though he almost wore it out by sharpening the blade countless times.

Today I have more knives than I actually use, but I don’t have enough. Hunting knives, pocket knives, fixed blade knives, folding knives, Swiss Army knives and homemade knives. My favorites are the knives that once belonged to someone else.

Besides Dad’s hunting knife, I have an old Ka-Bar “fighting knife” with USN stamped on the tang. It came home with my uncle, a patriot and a World War II Navy veteran. It’s big – 12 inches long – because its user is likely to ask a lot of it.

At the other end of the spectrum, I have a couple of old miniature knives that you wouldn’t ask to do much more than a manicure. They were a gift from a long-gone friend. I also have a handsome W. R. Case knife commemorating the bicentennial anniversary of my home town, a gift from a newer friend. That knife is too beautiful to ask to do anything.

One more knife I’ll mention. Dad once gave me an interesting knife brought home from a friend’s trip to the Far East. It appears to be a home-forged knife with a bone handle, perhaps the leg bone of a dog. It has two folding blades, and both blades feature engraved characters in some language I’ve never been able to identify. I use it only for a conversation piece, and in doing so maybe someday I’ll find out something about it. I just hope the words on the blades don’t say “Death to the infidel!”

Although women use knives, knives are definitely “mantiques,” or collectibles for men. Knives are as simple as tools get – blade and handle married as one. A knife is the original multi-purpose tool, useful for countless tasks.

And whether they’re old and rusty, shiny and artistic, fixed blade or folder, knives often speak if you’re listening.

Sometimes you’ll see a man take a knife out of his pocket and examine it closely, then put it back. That’s one more use for a knife. “What’s that,” you ask? It might have told him a story. Or maybe he used it to focus his thoughts. I think there’s a connection between a keen edge and a sharp mind.

It’s a sad fact of today’s world that a knife in someone’s hand raises suspicion. I’d rather not part be of that world. I’d rather be part of a world where a knife is a sign of trust – especially when you give someone that knife. Give a man a knife and you’re telling him you believe in him.

Somehow, the gift of a knife strengthens a relationship like nothing else can. If you want to cement a relationship with a man, give him a knife. It’s the perfect gift for the man you think has everything, because no man ever has enough knives.

The Fifth Participant

by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, October 31, 2009.)

The hunter is part predator, part spectator.

Today is the day. It’s what I think, what I feel, every time I enter the woods in pursuit of whitetail deer. It’s a premonition that the day will bring something special.

I picture an 8-point buck walking into an opening and my arrow disappearing into its chest. But the kill never seems to happen just how I picture it.

No, the kill usually doesn’t happen at all. Every day cannot be a day for death. On most days no buck steps into that fatal shooting lane. No deer presents the correct shot angle. I go home empty handed.

Yet I always believe that today is the day, the day for a new adventure, a new insight, a new opportunity to participate in nature’s drama.

On one October afternoon, loaded with optimism and a quiver of arrows, I headed to my treestand anticipating that day’s unique experience.

At about a hundred yards from my stand I began laying down a scent trail around the perimeter of an abandoned apple orchard. I aimed to intercept the nose of any deer passing through, and direct it to a spot 15 yards from my ladder stand.

I glanced to my right and noticed some scattered feathers near a thicket. Large feathers. A big bird had met its executioner and left its plumage to mark its passing. Closer inspection revealed the feathers of an owl, distinctive because of the rounded tips with softly frayed ends, an adaptation that silences the wings for surprise attacks.

I finished the scent trail, climbed into my stand and turned to look over my shoulder. Dangling from a dead snag, about 20 yards away and six feet high, was more evidence of the demise of the magnificent bird.

The right wing of a barred owl, complete with all its primary feathers, quaked in the gentle breeze. It was dark on top and creamy on the bottom, with distinct chocolate brown bars. I wondered how it got there.

As I waited for a deer to become my own prey, I considered the mystery of this great bird’s ending.

A half dozen industrious squirrels mined the bounty of nuts in a hickory grove adjacent to the apple trees. I enjoyed watching their antics and hearing them scurry in the forest litter. Surely the abundance of squirrels would draw predators to this lively spot.

I pictured the owl, whose wingspan had been nearly 50 inches, perched in the treetop eyeing a squirrel and waiting for it to let down its guard. Two participants, but there must have been a third. What preys on this large airborne predator?

I remembered the coyote I saw pass through a few nights earlier, and imagined him lying in the thicket, watching the same squirrel work its way close enough to become a quick, easy meal.

Oblivious to the coyote, the big barred owl plunged to the earth on silent wings and sank its talons into the careless squirrel’s spine, hardly allowing it time to know it had been attacked.

The assault surprised the coyote and triggered his split second response. He struck, sinking his teeth into the owl’s round head and taking two prizes at once. Before the wing beats subsided, he began reducing the owl to dinner. When finished he carried the squirrel away, satisfied but soon hungry again.

The executioner was executed; the predator had become prey. Scattered feathers and a wing were left for me to discover.

One question remained. How did the wing of the owl get to the top of the six-foot snag? The call of a crow answered my thoughts. Because owls suffer endless harassment from the black scavengers, I surmised that the wing was lifted to this perch to be plundered by a crow, the fourth participant in this drama.

After the crow had stripped the wing of its flesh, he left what remained as a totem – a reminder that every day is indeed a day for death, and that the hunter is part predator, part spectator.

I envy the efficiency of the full time predators, yet I’m glad that my life does not depend on killing something every day.

Yes, today is the day. Today is always the day.

What Stinks?

by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, October 17, 2009.)

Think of the surface of your skin
as a rut zone for bacteria.

What stinks? If you’re a deer hunter, the answer is probably you!

It’s not necessarily body odor. We normally take precautions against body odor in order to avoid being offensive to our own species, and that often means overcoming natural odors with soap, shampoo, underarm deodorant, cologne, lotion, mouthwash and other personal hygiene products.

But those are offensive if we use them when pursuing species with well-developed noses such as whitetail deer. I remember following a hunting partner up a hill many years ago. I could hardly stand his aftershave. No wonder we didn’t see a deer that day.

The truth is that we often sabotage our hunts if we use the same personal preparations as we use before going to the office or out to dinner. Most hunters have too little respect for the sense of smell a deer has. Deer live and die by their noses, so we need to give much more attention to our hunting preparation than we do for social situations.

Few deer hunters realize how many ways we distribute odor in the woods. We cannot enter the woods without leaving part of ourselves there, and deer will notice.

Here’s an example. I wear a watch with a nylon fabric band. It appears to be dusty. What I’m looking at is dead skin cells that my long sleeves channel down my arms where some of them are caught by the fuzzy fabric on my watch band.

What that tells me is that even without a dandruff problem, I’m shedding skin cells all the time, and if I’m out in the woods some of them drop off wherever I walk. When a deer comes by, he’s on alert because he can smell the part of me I’ve left behind.

Many times we’re careless at the gas pump or step in oils on the garage floor where we pick up odors that we deposit in the woods. Besides skin cells, we leave scents in the woods in the form of body oils, personal hygiene products, breath odors and perspiration.

Sweat would be odorless if the bacteria on our skin didn’t find it the ideal environment in which to thrive. And thriving includes propagating. This isn’t an accurate description, but it will help to think of the surface of your skin as a rut zone for bacteria.

The stuff that makes us give off odor is almost endless, so zipping ourselves into one of the expensive and heavily advertised miracle suits can’t possibly eliminate all odor. The best it can do is to help reduce odor.

And that means we need to do more than try to cover our scent. Cover scents can help, but the deer’s nose is able to distinguish that from other odors, so we need to do everything we can to reduce or eliminate human odors.

Showering before a hunt with scent-free anti-bacterial soap will not only eliminate accumulated odor-producing bacteria, but will inhibit its return. It will also wash off dead skin cells and loose hair that otherwise might drop off in the woods, and body oils that we deposit on anything we touch.

Use a personal deodorant that is not only odorless, but also retards the growth of bacteria. Wash hunting clothing frequently in baking soda or a soap that does not add any scent and eliminates the scents that accumulate on it – scents from our own bodies as well as the environment where our clothing is stored.

This season I’m adding a pill called Nullo (www.Nullo.com) to my regimen. It’s a chlorophyll compound that’s advertised to help reduce human odor from the inside, including breath odor. It’s been used successfully in the medical industry. It can’t hurt, and maybe it will help.

Finally, add a little extra insurance against being a walking scent bomb by spraying yourself with an odor-eliminating spray. Then, if you want to invest in scent-locking clothing, go ahead.

The smart hunter understands that we can’t eliminate our scent completely. Whether you try or not, be constantly aware of where you are and where the air currents are taking your scent. That should always be the capstone of your scent control strategy.

If hunting were banned: some ethical questions

Third in a series of three columns on the economic and environmental impact of banning hunting, and the ethical issues of a ban.
by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, October 3, 2009.)

Banning hunting would not be ethical;
it would be unethical.

Hunting has been legal and ethical since, well, at least since Cain and Abel roamed the Garden of Eden. And before that, “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21.) I don’t suppose he used banana skins.

Today we have some political activists who think hunting is unethical. The recently confirmed Cass Sunstein (head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, thinks animals should be able to sue people in a court of law. Maybe he’d sue God himself for providing Adam and Eve with animal skin loincloths. Apparently Sunstein and his ilk don’t think the legal system is jammed up enough.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying animals are never mistreated. But hunting is not mistreatment of animals. All throughout history hunting has been part and parcel of man’s survival.

Exactly when did it become wrong to kill an animal and use his meat for food, or his skin for clothing? I have to say it bugs me that people think we ought to somehow flip a switch and make an activity that has been ethical for eons suddenly immoral.

Show me any group of people who want to legislate against hunting, and I’ll show you political activists with little understanding of what it takes for wildlife to survive and thrive. I’ll show you people who think their feelings are worth more than the hard science behind wildlife management.

Here are some questions for them to think about:

• Is it ethical to replace wildlife management with management by activist political pressure? Should sentimentalists be permitted to trump wildlife scientists?

• Ban hunting, and more meat will have to be produced through modern farming methods – methods that are criticized by many in that same crowd. Is that ethical?

• Ban hunting, and venison donation programs in communities across the nation will end, robbing from people who need nourishing food. Is that ethical?

• Ban hunting, and more people will die in car collisions with deer and in attacks by predators. Who wants to tell the parent of a child killed by a mountain lion that it’s unethical to keep mountain lion populations in check through hunting? Isn’t it unethical not to?

• Usually, whenever regulated hunting is banned, poaching crimes increase. Is it ethical to pursue a policy that will increase poaching crimes?

• Deer favor certain foods, but when stressed, they’ll eat just about anything. Ban hunting, and huge herds of malnourished deer would denude the forests and clog our highways and our farms – even our yards would be overrun. Conflicts with people would increase. Public perception of this beautiful creature would turn from positive to negative. Is that ethical?

• Nature’s anti-extinction strategy for most wildlife species is abundant reproduction – a principle that enables survival despite high mortality rates. Is it ethical to adopt a policy that artificially reduces mortality and increases prey populations beyond the carrying capacity of the land?

• Species thrive when predators remove the surplus. Man has always been a predator. In a civilized world many animals need him to play his natural role of intelligent, self-limiting predator. Is it ethical to remove that natural limit to animal populations?

• Do away with hunting for “politically correct” reasons, and watch animals and their habitat suffer. Where are the ethics in that?

• What about political strategy? Is it ethical to lie to force an activist agenda? It’s not true, for example, that polar bears are in decline. In most of their habitat, polar bear populations are higher than ever. Polar bear hunting has been banned because of a lie.

No one cares more about animals than hunters who work on their behalf. It may seem paradoxical, but hunters are more benefit to wildlife than non-hunters. Ban hunting, and we lose an army of wildlife beneficiaries. Banning hunting would not be ethical; it would be unethical.

Hunting works. Hunting has history on its side. It has ethics on its side. It has the law on its side. Let’s keep it that way.

If hunting were banned: the environmental impact

Second in a series of three columns on the economic and environmental impact of banning hunting, and the ethical issues of a ban.
by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, September 19, 2009.)

Man is a predator with a
critical niche in wildlife ecology.

Animals are a threat to their environment.

“How could that be?” you ask. “It’s man who destroys the environment.” Yes, that’s the conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom sometimes fails to tell the whole truth.

When it comes to hunting, man is a great friend to the environment. One man isn’t, however. He’s anti-hunter Cass Sunstein, who was recently confirmed as head (or “czar”) of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein has extensive authority over federal regulations, including those of the Department of the Interior (which includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and the Department of Agriculture. He is on record saying that hunting should be banned, and in his new position he could seek to eliminate hunting, fishing and trapping on all lands managed by these federal agencies. That wouldn’t be good for the animals that live there.

Sunstein is a radical animal rights activist, not a wildlife biologist or an animal scientist of any kind, yet he thinks he knows what’s best for animals. He’s wrong.

If he got his way in placing animals beyond the bullets and arrows of hunters, it would have tragic environmental consequences and spell trouble for many species.

In my last column I wrote about devastating economic cost of banning hunting. But the economic cost is small compared to the catastrophic impact a ban on hunting would have on our environment. Why? Because animals have always needed predators, and man is the only predator some animals have.

A ban on hunting would create its most severe devastation where animals live closest to man and where large predators do not live. In North America it would probably cause the worst damage wherever whitetail deer live because they are so prolific and usually central to the ecology of habitat.

Without predators deer can literally eat themselves into oblivion. The environment would groan under their weight. Yes, certain infestations eat oaks, rot maples, or blight beeches. But those pests cannot ruin the health of an ecosystem as quickly as deer can. When stressed, deer eat almost everything – and without hunting, they would be very stressed.

An out-of-control deer population inhibits regeneration of the plant species other animals need. Everything from trillium flowers to oak trees are affected, along with the animals that depend on them. Where too many deer live, habitat for every animal suffers.

In a few short years an unchecked population of whitetail deer would cause more animal suffering than a hundred hunting seasons. They would devastate the forest and rob other animals of food and cover.

Nearly every species that shares whitetail habitat from songbirds to Sasquatch (if he exists) would be subject to extreme, prolonged suffering far worse than anything hunters cause. More people would die too, as a result of more car collisions with deer.

Wild pigs are another large species that has no predator but man. They are rapidly expanding their range, and their impact is even worse than that of whitetail deer. They literally plow the soil, destroying the eggs of ground nesting birds and virtually every plant and animal in their path.

A surprising parallel to this exists in Africa. People believe Africa’s elephants are endangered, but in many areas populations are so high that they devastate the habitat. One elephant can destroy 1500 trees per year. A ban on hunting them makes no sense – neither from an economic nor an environmental standpoint. Legal, regulated hunting would make elephants valuable to the human community in their area, but absolute protection allows them to devastate the habitat other animals need.

Man is a predator with a critical niche in wildlife ecology. The evidence is overwhelming – every species that is subject to regulated hunting is thriving.

Animals need predators. Species without predators are sitting ducks for boom and bust cycles that impact every other species. Take away predators and you create an artificial environment. Wild animals are not meant to live in an artificial environment.

Man, as a predator, is capable of assessing the needs of his prey and planning his predation in ways that perpetuate stable, healthy prey populations. So, while hunters enjoy sport, fun and camaraderie of hunting, in the grand scale hunting insures the very survival of wildlife, and its environment, in a modern world.

Next time I’ll touch on the ethical issues that would be at stake if hunting were banned.

If hunting were banned: the economic impact

First in a series of three columns on the economic and environmental impact of banning hunting, and the ethical issues of a ban.
by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, September 5, 2009.)

Banning hunting is a quick slide down
a slope to many unintended consequences.

Hunting has many dedicated opponents today who would like to see it outlawed.

If this was once a hypothetical issue, it is no longer with President Obama’s appointment of Cass Sunstein head or “czar” of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Just two years ago Sunstein said, “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”

Fortunately the federal government does not make most hunting regulations. But since federal agencies are notorious for meddling in state affairs, Sunstein’s desire must be taken seriously. Because he’s the top federal regulatory officer, and because he says, “It’s time now,” I look for him to try some kind of action against hunting.

Clearly, the reason state agencies regulate hunting is not to provide “sport and fun.” They’re in the science business, not the entertainment business. They manage wildlife populations for society by licensing hunters to kill surplus game animals, a function that’s both challenging and essential.

Yet the aims of individual hunters differ from those of the game agencies. Hunters do hunt for sport and fun. Would Sunstein rather hire government agents to work as animal eradication officers? If so, he’d have to make dead level sure they don’t enjoy their work.

What would happen if hunting were banned? Two things, and both are big. First, the economic impact would be immediate and devastating. Second, the environment would suffer a tragic blow. The economic impact is the subject for today.

If Cass Sunstein got his way, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost and with them, money that sustains wildlife.

Take a look at the high visibility Cabelas catalog. A quick glance shows that hunters are passionate and willing to spend money. Not only that, enormous entrepreneurial energy exists within the hunting community. Hunters are constantly inventing gadgets to use in their pursuits – marketable ideas that spawn many small businesses.

These products are sold not only in the Cabela’s catalogs, but also in catalogs from Bass Pro Shops, Midway USA, and more than a dozen others, plus local shops nationwide.

If hunting were outlawed, Sidney, Nebraska (headquarters for Cabelas) could become a ghost town. Reverberations would reach more than 30 cities where Cabelas has retail stores. Add in more than 50 cities where Bass Pro Shops has stores. The damage to these communities would be dramatic and serious. Satellite businesses would suffer. Tax revenues would decline. Public services would shrink. Unemployment rolls would swell.

And that’s just the beginning. If hunting were banned, thousands and thousands of families who depend on hunting – from outfitters and guides to local taxidermists – would lose their livelihood.

The economic activity of thousands of photographers, artists, writers, wildlife biologists, forest managers, (the list is endless) would cease. Thousands of small family businesses would close up shop, affecting the economies of towns small and large.

The flow of billions of dollars to state wildlife agencies would be turned off like a faucet, as hunting license revenues diminish to zero. And the pipe leading to the faucet would be drained.

It doesn’t stop there. Pittman-Robertson funds – excise taxes paid by hunters on all sporting rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and archery equipment – would dry up. Those are dollars collected and distributed to the states to pay for the cost of wildlife management.

Animals would feel the effects because that money benefits all wildlife (plants and animals included), not just game species. So banning hunting would hurt the entire food chain, from egrets to eagles.

Not only that, receiving Pittman-Robertson money prevents states from diverting dollars raised for wildlife to other purposes. Without that safeguard, state budgets would be pressured to reduce further the investment in wildlife habitat.

Banning hunting is a quick slide down a slope to many unintended consequences. And I’ve barely scratched the surface of the economic side of the issue. The bottom line is that if hunting were banned people would suffer, and so would animals.

If the hunting economy is ruined, the environment will follow. That’s the subject for my next column.

What People Need To Know About Hunting

by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, August 22, 2009.)

Non-hunters who enjoy wildlife
have much to thank hunters for.

The question gets asked in a variety of ways. “Since hunting isn't necessary anymore, isn’t hunting just a way for people to express their cruel, primitive bloodlust?” “There was a time when man had to kill wild animals for protection and for food, but can’t we now just let animals live in peace?” The answer to both questions is “No!”

These questions are not merely hypothetical. Many people truly think that hunters are cruel. Many actually believe that hunting isn’t necessary. And some embrace the idea that animals will live in peace if we stop hunting them. None of that is true.

The truth is this – when wildlife thrives, hunters are usually in the picture. Why? The answer is because man is a predator.

Yes, that answer raises eyebrows. It’s even counter-intuitive. But man is a predator unlike any other. He regulates himself. He considers the impact of his actions. He times his predation for the benefit of the prey species. He improves the habitat that his prey needs. He plans for the future of his prey.

So it’s not true that wildlife do just fine if hunters step out of the picture. And it’s especially not true in an increasingly urbanized society. Modern hunting benefits wildlife. Wherever hunters take an interest, we have more animals and a wider variety of species.

And the idea that animals ever “live in peace” is a sentimental view – and untrue whether they’re hunted or not.

Hunting is not cruel, and hunters generally are not driven by bloodlust. Modern hunters are, in fact, the best friends modern wildlife has. An informed hunter will care deeply about animals, from songbirds, to turtles, to butterflies – you name it. Yes, we can even use the word “love.”

Hunters are not expressing a bloodthirsty Neanderthal urge. When a modern hunter kills a deer, he understands the implications of his actions better than any hunter in history.

Hunting is the front line of game management, and hunters are the primary tool for keeping animals in balance with their habitat. This is accomplished not only through license allocations and scientific measurements of game populations by wildlife management agencies, but through the cooperation of dozens of volunteer conservation organizations dedicated to the health of wildlife habitat.

Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Ruffed Grouse Society, the list is long even before you add the groups that focus on aquatic species, such as Trout Unlimited. All are made up of sportsmen and women who fund research and work for the benefit of wildlife.

When hunters commit their resources to improving wildlife habitat, they don’t isolate the species of interest. Every animal in the habitat benefits.

The sheer number of hunters who support wildlife by donating both their time and money dwarfs the number of non-hunters who do the same. When you see a group of people planting tree seedlings, or cleaning up a waterway, it’s probably a sportsmen’s club.

Hunting pays its own way, because hunters pour billions of dollars into the economy every year. We’re not just keeping gun manufacturers afloat and we’re not just filling state coffers with license dollars.

Few people know that when we buy sporting rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and archery equipment, the price includes an 11% tax that goes to the Pittman-Robertson Fund, which is distributed to the states for the support of wildlife. When the Pittman-Robertson Act was passed in 1937, hunters were its leading champions, so non-hunters who enjoy wildlife have much to thank hunters for.

Hunters are responsible citizens. When a game law violation is reported, it’s usually a hunter who reports it. When help is needed to rescue an animal, hunters are the first on the scene. When a habitat improvement project is undertaken, you can depend on hunters to volunteer. And when blood boils because someone abuses wildlife, the blood is as likely to be in the veins of a hunter as it is a non-hunter.

The bottom line is that hunters do for wildlife much that non-hunters don’t do. What would happen if hunting were banned? Some terrible things – but that’s the subject for another column. Stay tuned.