Travel Advisory for Hunters: The Unanticipated Pitfalls of Flying with Firearms

The author poses with his troublemaking 50-caliber Genesis muzzleloader and the 7-foot, 2-inch Canadian black bear he took with it. Both the bearskin and the muzzleloader eventually wound up reaching their final ultimate destination.

If you’re fortunate enough to be flying across the country, or to another country, for a hunting trip, take heed: Make sure that you’ve done all your homework with regard to taking guns on airlines and doing what you’re supposed to do to stay on the right side of the rules.

Hauling shotguns or rifles and ammo somewhere via commercial airline is not the same as putting your shotgun and shells in the trunk of your car and driving to Arkansas for a duck hunt. When you travel via public conveyance, you must abide by various requirements that are not always clear and don't always make sense. If you don’t, it can get you in trouble.

I’ve run afoul of the law various times, albeit inadvertently and inconsequentially. It’s not difficult to do, but it’s also not illegal for a U.S. citizen in good standing to fly firearms for a hunting trip anywhere in North America. The first step of any such adventure should begin by boning up on the rules applying to the transport of firearms as they’re listed on the airline’s website, the Transportation Security Administration or otherwise the country where the hunt will occur. I’ll admit that there have been times when I get so caught up in the particulars of a hunt that I didn’t pay enough attention to the getting-there-and-back part.

BAD LUCK IN DENVER
Of course, no matter how meticulous and law-abiding a hunter is, stuff happens, without rhyme or reason, and you or your gun might part company. Consider my experience when I returned from a spring bear hunt to the Canadian province of Alberta.

Following the hunt near the Northwest Territories, I overnighted in Edmonton, the provincial capital, and went to the airport early the next morning for the trip home. I checked in with the airlines and had labels slapped on my clothes duffel and my gun case that indicated I was cleared to fly the friendly skies. I was told to keep the luggage and walk around the corner to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection check station, and then the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) check station.

The Customs guy looked at my paperwork, asked a few routine questions, then directed me to the CATSA checkpoint. There, I slung my duffel on one conveyor belt, where it passed in front of an X-ray and was viewed by an agent. I was told to take the gun case to another CATSA agent with another conveyer-belt X-ray setup. He checked everything and the gun case disappeared into the bowels of the airport where, I presumed, an attendant snatched it up and placed on the proper airplane.

Then I headed over to the personal security check line. Showed my boarding pass and passport. Did what I was told. Emptied my pockets, took off my belt, took off my shoes, placed my sunglasses and anything else with metal in a tray. Put my jacket in the tray with my cell phone. Walked through the X-ray when directed. No alarm. Showed my boarding pass again. Grabbed my stuff, put my belt back on, put my shoes back on, put my jacket back on, put stuff back in my pockets and went to the waiting room.

After flying to Denver, and transferring to another flight, I arrived home on time. When the plane reached the airport building, the door was opened and a gentleman in an airlines uniform came onto the jet. He spoke to the attendant, who pointed back toward me. The gentleman walked back to my row. He asked me who I was and then directed me to accompany him. I did. Other passengers looked at me and thought: oh-oh, this guy’s in trouble. Or so I thought. I started getting nervous.

“What’s this all about?” I asked him. “You’ll find out when we get in the airport,” he answered. “Who are you?” I asked. “The ground crew chief,” he answered.

When we walked through the door into the airport building, I saw a uniformed policeman and two guys in coats and ties. Something bad wrong at home, I thought.

The policeman introduced himself, and the plainclothes pair turned out to by TSA agents. “Did you take guns into Denver, Colorado from Canada,” one of the coat-and-tie guys asked me. “Sort of,” I said. “My slug gun and muzzleloader were on the same airplane that I flew on.”

“Why didn’t you check them in when you got to Denver?” the guy asked me. “Was I supposed to?” I answered. “Nobody told me to; is that something new? I was going home the same day, with an hour layover in Denver. I checked the guns in at Edmonton, through to home.”

“You checked them in at Edmonton? In Canada?” he asked. “What do you mean you checked them in at Edmonton?” I told him what I did in Edmonton that morning, right down to visiting with guys in uniform who had CATSA patches on their sleeves and everything. CATSA’s security procedures are accepted by the TSA, and vice versa. It was sort of the reverse of what I did going to Canada. I showed him the Canadian Non-resident Firearm Declaration form I filled out to take the guns into that country in the first place. They were inspected when I got there.

I didn’t have a U.S. Customs Form 4457, which is supposed to help you to get out of the U.S. and back in with firearms and ammo, because Canada doesn’t require it. At the time, U.S Customs didn’t enforce the 4457 rule for the return trip, though it does nowadays, I’m told.

At any rate, I showed the TSA guys my baggage claim receipts too. That was good enough for the policeman. He rolled his eyes and said, “This is some kind of mixup.” He walked away. All clear. When I asked about my guns, the TSA agent told me that they had been turned over to the Denver police. “I would like to have them back, sir.” “Can’t help you there,” came the reply. “That’s between you and the police now, but here’s a number to call.”

I left. I never argue with a TSA guy or anybody else who can make bad things happen to my guns or me. That’s rule number one. That evening, I spoke with a Denver detective who explained to me that I would either have to return to Denver and get the guns, or have some one with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) pick up the guns and then mail them to an FFL holder in my hometown, from whom I could reacquire the guns. Not desiring to return to Denver at that particular time, I chose Option 2. The gun department manager at a local sporting goods store faxed the FFL to Denver. A couple of weeks went by. I kept checking with my buddy at the store to see if the guns had arrived. Nope. I got a card from the Denver police that notified me that all property not claimed within 30 days would be disposed of, which means my guns might be destroyed.

I got nervous. I called one of the two TSA agents who met me at the plane, and asked if he could do anything to buy me some time. He commiserated; we talked about what a dirty, rotten shame it all was, and the unfortunate fact that it was out of the TSA’s hands. “Try the airlines,” he advised. “I don’t see that happening,” I told him. “It doesn’t have a horse in this race.”

I called the property release unit at the Denver Police Department and spoke to Pam, the nice lady who runs it. I was given the wrong information originally, she informed me. Denver Police doesn’t send guns to an FFL holder; guns are sent to a local police agency, and can be picked up there. I called the Shelby County (Ala.) Sheriff’s Office a little more than a week before D (Disposal) Day and asked if they would accept the guns. Sure, no problem, I was told.
The deputy called Pam, to whom I had just faxed copies of the Canadian Non-resident Firearm Declaration so she could be certain I wasn’t a gun smuggler. That established my bona fides with Pam, and the deputy assured her that I would be checked out thoroughly before anybody put guns in my hands.

Finally, a few days later I drove to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department and picked up my guns, a 12-gauge Remington 11-87 and a Remington .50 Genesis muzzleloader. To this day I don’t know why or how the guns wound up in the Denver Police Department’s property room. The TSA didn’t waste its time trying to find out for me, and nobody else was in a position to know. Pam did say that the same sort of thing befalls a lot of hunters who pass through Denver, usually during the fall and winter seasons. Hunters travel to and from Canada or Mexico, and the Denver Police Department sometimes winds up babysitting their guns at the behest of the TSA, according to Pam. 

The moral of the story is to do your part to make sure you’ve crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is with regard to airline requirements, TSA rules and another country’s laws relating to the transportation of firearms, ammo, hunting knives, percussion caps, Pyrodex, lithium batteries, etc. If you don’t, bad things can happen.

And even if you do, bad things can happen. No joke.

A head for huge heights! Daredevil adventurer Bear Grylls abseils down giant skyscraper in Shanghai as he prepares to launch his own brand of survival TV in China

He’s known for his daring feats of survival, and pushing his celebrity friends to their limits.

But Bear Grylls took his daredevilry to new heights on Sunday, as he fearlessly abseiled down one of China’s tallest skyscrapers in a daring stunt.

Giving the thumbs up after making a terrifying descent down the length of the Shanghai Media Group’s base in the Chinese city, the former SAS hardman and world-famous survival expert, 41, appeared to have barely broken a sweat in the vertigo-defying feat.

Read more

Fishing Tips: Why and How to Use Barbless Hooks for Pike

It typically doesn’t take a whole lot of convincing to persuade a trout fisherman to use barbless hooks, but I’ve always felt that trophy pike are special creatures in their own right and deserving of special care when fishing for them.   

With any pike release, the species’ aggressive nature and excessively slimy exterior often makes hook removal a challenge and potentially hazardous. Protecting your hands while also striving to ensure the fish’s well being is no easy task.

To facilitate the process, many lodges that target trophy pike, like those of Northern Saskatchewan’s Cree River system, often implement a barbless hook rule. You may lose a fish now and then, but the benefit of working with barbless hooks is undeniable.

Wade Babcock of Cree River Lodge offers a handful of tips for making your pike baits more release-friendly:

—For starters, replacing stock treble hooks with single J hooks decreases the number of pinning points.

—If you opt to keep those trebles, completely mash the barbs with sturdy pliers. Mashing J hook barbs is also a good idea.

—Some companies, such as legendary spoon maker Len Thompson, package baits with treble and single hooks. Some days you might need the trident; other days the single shot works just fine.

And to show some love to the walleyes, Babcock suggests removing the front hook on crankbaits. Not only does this facilitate release, but it also minimizes bottom snagging. Flattening barbs further benefits the release effort.

Gun Test: Browning BLR Takedown Rifle

The rails on the forend can be used to mount lasers or lights for personal defense use or low-light predator hunting. Photographs by Bill Buckley

I’ve always liked guns with personality, and this new iteration of the Browning BLR 81 Takedown certainly qualifies. Browning refers to this as the Black Label model, and even a cursory glance will tell you this is a different animal from the first BLRs that rolled off the production line back in 1969.

There’s a whole lot of Picatinny happening here, with a two-part rail that runs along the top of the rifle and two rails positioned at the 3 and 9 o’clock positions at the front of the forend. Flip the rifle belly-up and you’ll see a couple of flush-mount cups for sling attachments. And, of course, there’s the sleek flash hider sitting at the end of the 16-inch barrel. What’s going on here?

A cynical observer might say that Browning is trying to cash in on the tactical fad by slapping some black-rifle accoutrements on a stodgy old lever gun. However, I don’t share that assessment. In fact, I think these enhancements, though they could benefit from some refinements, fit this rifle rather well. 

Performance
▶ The BLR I evaluated impressed me on many levels. First off, its craftsmanship is top notch. The satin-black finish on the metal is smooth, even, and lustrous, and contrasts nicely with the gray laminate stock. The fit and finish throughout the rifle is quite good. The butt pad, for instance, has been affixed to the stock expertly.

Mechanically, the rifle operates as nice as it looks. Removing, loading, and inserting the box magazine are intuitive operations. The action cycles in a smooth and positive manner, making for fast shooting. The rifle fed, extracted, and ejected all of the 200 rounds or so I put through it without any issues—though on long shot strings the rifle heats up considerably and you need to keep your fingers out of contact with the barrel and barrel band. My BLR was chambered in .223, but it is also being offered in .308 Win.

Perhaps the most pleasant surprise the rifle had in store was its accuracy. It shot really well, especially for a rifle that is both a takedown and a lever action—two characteristics that aren’t usually associated with tight groups. 

The rifle showed a distinct tendency to group with four tight shots and one flier. Part of this might be attributed to the trigger, which broke at an average of 7 pounds 4 ounces on my sample and required a lot of effort to trip cleanly. Mechanically, this was the one sour note the BLR struck during the test. 

Even so, group sizes averaged 1.696 inches with bullets weighing between 50 and 60 grains. I also shot some 77-grain loads from Nosler, but the barrel’s 1-in-12-inch twist rate wasn’t fast enough to stabilize those projectiles, which keyholed through the target. 

The best groups came from Winchester’s 55-grain Varmint X load, which averaged 1.117 inches. 

Given this type of performance, there isn’t much this rifle can’t do within the scope of a .223’s capabilities.

Sight Options
▶ I topped the rifle with one of the new Weaver 1–7x24 Tactical scopes that has a mil-dot reticle in the first focal plane and an illuminated central dot in the second focal plane. This optic is a good match for this rifle, as it can be dialed down in magnification for fast shooting up close, while at 7X (and with the benefit of the reticle’s holdover marks) it had no problem ringing steel plates at 300 and 400 yards. 

But the benefit of that full-length Picatinny rail is that the shooter can configure the rifle many ways. A scout-style scope with a long eye relief, a red-dot sight, a traditional variable-­power scope, a ghost-ring setup—this BLR can accommodate them all. 

Refinements
▶  As far as the rifle’s limitations go, the list isn’t long, but here’s what I’d love to see changed. First, it needs a better trigger. The rifle’s accuracy would doubtless improve, both when shooting for precision on paper (or at game) and during speed drills on steel at short yardages. A faster twist rate on the barrel would be helpful as well, in order to take advantage of some of the great heavy-for-caliber .223 loads on the market.

A higher comb height, or an adjustable cheekpiece, would be a smart addition, too. The stock’s geometry was configured for iron sights placed right on top of the receiver. With the additional height created by the rail, rings, and a scope, the shooter’s cheek tends to float high above the stock while establishing a good sight picture. That said, because of the mild recoil of the .223, I never had much issue maintaining the sight picture from shot to shot. 

The manual safety is one of the more clever features on the Model 81. With the hammer at half-cock, pushing up on the underside of the hammer causes it to pivot forward in such a way that it no longer makes contact with the tail of the firing pin. 

The takedown mechanism is simple. Open the action enough to disengage the floating bolt head from the barrel, pull down on the takedown lever in the forend, and pull the rifle apart. Once this is done, the rifle transports easily, either in a vehicle or a bag.

Scores & Stats

Antlerless Deer: Which Ones, How Many, and When to Harvest Does

Photograph by Charlie Alsheimer

From state to state, and sometimes even county to county, America’s hunters tend to not agree on very much. However, we seem to be in agreement that deer numbers across the board aren’t what they were just a few seasons ago. In some places, we have fewer antlerless tags to fill. But where antlerless tags are still readily available, hunters wonder if they should continue with their established doe management strategy.

“There’s a rule of thumb that if you want to maintain the number of deer in a population, you need to take two thirds of adult does each year. If you want to grow the herd, you take fewer,” says QDMA biologist Kip Adams says. 

“In some areas, it might be advisable to scale back on doe harvests. Does that mean that you shouldn’t target any antlerless deer at all? No,” says Adams. “If populations are at the desired levels, you want to keep them there. And the way to do that is by continuing to harvest antlerless deer in a sensible manner.”

Pick the Right Doe
What if you hunt in an area where deer numbers are down? How many does should you take? Are there specific antlerless deer that should be targeted? If so, when do you target them?

“If you go from taking 10 does a year to five, there probably isn’t going to be a big change in your strategy, ” Adams says. “Take the does that offer the best opportunity. I’m a big proponent of taking antlerless deer as early in the season as possible. It reduces the overall stress on the population and the food sources. 

“It also means that following that disturbance, bucks will have an opportunity to calm down well before the rut, and I can focus on hunting them. Some guys think that if you have all the does during the rut, you’ll have all the bucks. Study after study has proven that simply isn’t true.”
For hunters who feel the need to scale back on antlerless harvests in an effort to regrow deer populations, Adams recommends targeting young deer.

“If you are trying to rebuild a population, I think it makes a lot of sense to protect your best fawn-producing deer. And those are adult does. This makes sense particularly in areas with high levels of predation. Adult does are better at protecting fawns from coyotes than yearling does are. So if you are going to greatly scale back your antlerless harvest but still want to take a few does, those young ones are the ones to take.”

Gun Stories of the Week: New Jersey Gun Laws Turn Legal M1 Carbine Owner into Felon

TOP STORY
Does ‘victory’ in Heller III open door for Supreme Court challenge of watershed 2008 ruling?

On Sept. 18,  the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down four components of D.C.’s onerous gun control laws — including requirements that gun owners re-register firearms every three years and a prohibition on registering more than one pistol per month — but upheld six gun registration provisions challenged by the National Rifle Association and other parties.

The 2-1 ruling in “Heller III” was hailed as a significant triumph by the NRA, which called the decision “a victory for Second Amendment advocates who describe the District’s gun laws as the most restrictive in the country.” 

However, in upholding six of D.C.’s provisions, the Court may have left the door open for gun-control proponents to mount a Supreme Court challenge to the watershed Heller v. Washington DC ruling in 2008, which, in essence, clarified that the Second Amendment states it is a fundamental individual right for a non-exempt citizen to own a personal firearm.

In fact, as Georgia State University professor federal courts and constitutional law professor Eric Segall writes in a Sept. 23 column for The Daily Beast, “gun reform advocates should welcome” the ruling because it don’t completely dismiss D.C.’s gun regulation regime as unconstitutional.

“Although it may sound surprising, gun control organizations and those in favor of gun reform legislation, should use all efforts to convince the Supreme Court to review this case,” he writes.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2008 rebuke of the D.C. Council’s prohibition against an individual lawfully keeping and bearing arms, the District imposed a 17-step process to legally own a firearm within its jurisdiction. The Sept. 18 ruling in Heller III was a challenge to those stipulations, including $465 in fees, five hours of mandatory training outside the District, multiple trips to D.C. Metropolitan Police Department headquarters during business hours for fingerprinting, expiration of registration after three years, passing a test on D.C. law and a prohibition on the same person registering more than one handgun during any 30-day period.

District officials justified these requirements on the basis of “protecting police officers” and “promoting public safety.” Significantly, according to the NRA, “the court of appeals found that ‘the District has not offered substantial evidence from which one could draw a reasonable conclusion that the challenged requirements will protect police officers’.” 

“While these developments will bring substantial benefits to those who wish to lawfully own guns in D.C.,” the NRA concludes in a press release, “the court still upheld the balance of the registration procedure. If history is any guide, moreover, the District may seek further review of the court’s decision.”

Segall notes that the Supreme Court as now composed has been reluctant to consider challenges to existing gun laws. Since 2010, he says, the Court has not taken a Second Amendment case though it has had plenty of opportunities to do so. In 2014, for instance, the Court refused to review three gun cases involving laws pertaining to the selling of guns to consumers across state lines and a Texas law prohibiting 18-20 year olds from carrying guns in public. 

However, Segall cites a oft-repeated adage by Professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School, who once said that a reasonably good way to predict Supreme Court opinions is to imagine the holding of the case as a front page New York Times or Wall Street Journal headline. 

“In light of all of the gun tragedies that have been in the news over the last few years, and tragically are likely to be in the news for the foreseeable future, will we see this headline anytime soon: ‘Supreme Court Justices strike down gun reform law?’ Seagull asks. “I don’t think so.”

As AWR Hawkins writes in Breitbart News, longtime gun control voices are claiming the partial ruling provides just the venue needed to challenge the 2008 Heller decision.  On Sept. 23, he notes, the Los Angeles Times editorial board restated the paper’s position that the individual right to keep and bear arms was created by the Supreme Court via District of Columbia v Heller (2008). 

“The board then made clear their belief that SCOTUS ‘erred’ in doing this and reasserted that the Second Amendment was meant to cover a collective right, not an individual one,” Hawkins writes. “The fact that some gun controls related to the District’s gun registration scheme were able to stand (in the Sept. 18 ruling) leads the Times to conclude that while Americans now have a right to own guns individually, this does not topple ‘the government’s right to regulate ownership’” and that it opens the door for the “further review” Segall describes.

For more, go to:

The Case That Could Refine the 2nd Amendment

Third Time's the Charm: Federal Appeals Court Voids Provisions of D.C. Gun Control in Heller III

Appeals court strikes down parts of D.C. gun registration requirements

Partial Win in “Heller III”: Federal Court Rules Some DC Gun Laws Unconstitutional

Is it Time to Amend America’s Gun Control Policies?

LA TIMES: SUPREME COURT ‘ERRED’ IN CREATING INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO GUN OWNERSHIP IN 2008

Editorial: Where are the boundaries on owning guns?

---

FEAR OF THE FEDS 
Americans horrified by shooting rampages, but still fearful of federal gun control

A Rasmussen Reports poll released on Sept. 23 finds that only 34 percent of “likely voters” think gun laws regarding the ownership of guns should be the responsibility of the federal government — down from 38 percent in December.

The fact that an ever-growing percentage of the American public distrusts the federal government as an arbiter and initiator of gun control measures is particularly significant since the poll was conducted in the wake of the horrific Aug. 26 on-air murder of a reporter and cameraman by a lunatic. 

“In fact,” according to Richard D. Baris in a Sept. 23 column in The Daily Pundit, the poll string states that “voters say the federal government should not have the final say on gun ownership and don’t even like a country in which guns are only widespread within the government.”

According to Rasmussen, 69 percent of likely voters think it would be bad for the country if only the government had guns, up seven points from 62 percent in December. Moreover, 68 percent of likely voters—nearly 7 out of 10—would feel safer living in a neighborhood where they can own a gun rather than in one where a gun ownership ban is in place.

Rasmussen, which gleaned these results from a national survey of 1,000 “likely voters” on Sept. 20-21, also found that 36 percent of those questioned believe gun ownership is a state government responsibility, while 18 percent say local governments should have the final say. 

For more, go to:

Support for Federal Gun Control Laws after Virginia Shooting Falls

Demand for stricter gun laws keeps Americans divided when dealing with gun ownership laws

POLL: 3 OUT OF 10 LIKELY VOTERS SUPPORT FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN GUN CONTROL

Support for Federal Control of Guns Continues to Drop

Poll: Majority says ‘No’ to federal control of guns; Nat'l H&F Day Saturday

GUN CONTROL

---

THE FREE-ZONE REALITY
John Lott restates fact: Gun-free zones are ‘magnets for murderers’

In an editorial penned by economist John Lott and, yet, not published in many prominent newspapers that claim to be forums of intelligent discussion, the undeniable reality that “gun-free zones” generate gun violence rather than diminish it was exposed in a factual, rational manner once again.

Of course, what the thoughtful Lott cannot overcome in his sane, data-driven studies of the lethality of “gun-free zones” is the sad reality that such laws are, and will continue to be, a “feel good” knee-jerk responses by manipulative politicians capitalizing on an emotional TV-educated public’s demand that they “do something.”

Lott, who leads the Crime Prevention Research Center and directed the study “More Guns, Less Crime,” has long advocated disbanding gun-free zones, which he has proves makes victims “defenseless” as a response and preventative measure to violence.

In his mid-September editorial, Lott writes: “Those advocating gun-free zones raise a number of concerns. They argue that permit holders will accidentally shoot bystanders. Or that arriving police will shoot anyone with a gun, including the permit holders. At colleges, fears are raised that students will get drunk and misuse guns.”

Yet, he documents, “Out of the innumerable cases in which concealed carry holders have stopped shootings in malls, churches, schools, universities and busy downtowns, no permit holder has ever shot a bystander. Nor in these cases have the police ever accidentally shot a permit holder.”

Lott concludes: “Gun-free zones are magnets for murderers. Even the most ardent gun control advocate would never put ‘Gun-Free Zone’ signs on their home. Let’s finally stop putting them elsewhere.”

For more, go to:

John Lott: Gun-free zones are magnets for murderers

Gun-free zones are magnets for murderers

DEBUNKING THE GUN FREE ZONE MYTH: “MASS MURDER MAGNETS”

Gun-free Zones Called "Magnets for Mass Shooters"

Column: Gun-free zones provide false sense of security

Study: Stricter state gun laws keep firearms out of hands of youth

Tighter gun-control laws may lower chances that teens carry firearms

Youth Carrying Guns, But Can They

---

STATE ROUNDUP
Catch-22: New Jersey gun laws turn legal M1 carbine owner into a felon

A Sept. 15 New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruling determined a man’s World War II vintage M1 carbine, inherited from his grandfather, is an “assault weapon” and will not be returned after being confiscated by police two years ago because of a temporary restraining order. 

“Worse yet,” writes Sam Rolley in Personal Liberty on Sept. 23, “the state is stripping the resident’s Second Amendment rights because he possessed the firearm.”

According to the Associated Press, New Jersey State Police confiscated Danny Burt’s M1 carbine and 20 other firearms in April 2013 in compliance with a temporary restraining order lodged against him. When the order was dropped, Burt attempted to retrieve his property, but was informed he’d committed a felony by owning the M1 and was no longer eligible to own firearms.

Burt appealed the decision, explaining that the rifle was handed down to him in 2006 by his grandfather and he didn’t know it was in working condition because he had never discharged. According to court documents, Burt also explained that he held on to the firearm because it had considerable sentimental value.

“The court, unmoved, sided with prosecutors,” Rolley writes.

The Court ruled “that the M-1 carbine is an illegal weapon and is therefore improper to possess” in New Jersey. Further, the court charged that since Burt was guilty of a second-degree felony under the state’s laws for owning the so-called assault rifle, the state will keep his remaining firearms and bar him from future gun purchases.

For more, go to:

New Jersey gun laws turn resident into felon, strip 2nd Amendment rights over M1 Carbine

Will N.J. lawmakers override Christie on gun bill?

Michigan: U-M — We decide campus gun laws, not State of Michigan

Michigan: Lawyer says judge catered to Ann Arbor voters in dismissing gun lawsuit against schools

Gun-friendly West Virginia eyes adding new Capitol security

New Hampshire: Gun safety measures can succeed

Tennessee Gun Laws Leave Permit Holders Confused

Montana city leaders consider background checks for all gun sales

Illinois: Gun Control vs. People Control

California: Last gun shop in San Francisco confirms closure due to new law

Pennsylvania: Toomey Walks 'High Wire' On Gun Control in Re-election Bid

Traditional Bowhunting Q&A: Is It Time to Switch from Your Compound to a Longbow or Recurve?

Is this the year you get the bug to hunt with a traditional bow? The year you become “infected” with the desire to replace your futuristic, metal wheel-and-pulley wonder, with a weapon more reminiscent of those flexed by native Americans some 300 years ago? Does this kind of swap really happen these days? Indeed it does. 

Every year, a percentage of compound-bow-toting hunters chooses to eschew all the many “latest and greatest” upgrades touting more speed, adjustability, and other gadgetry—and take an intentional performance leap backward. The new twinkle in their eyes? Far simpler, almost featherlight, hand-crafted wooden bows. Many will never look back; some will call it the best decision of their lives.  

What is it about the simple “stick and string”—recurves and longbows—that can be so alluring? And in the end, are they a help or hindrance to bowhunting success? And what about their impact on the total bowhunting experience? For a stab at some answers, I spoke recently with Minnesota’s Chad Holm, a compound convert himself. Holm, 44, is not only a strong traditional bowhunting advocate, he’s the owner/operator of cleverly named Holm-Made Traditional Bows, based in Brainerd. 

Holm has been making his own traditional bows for about 14 years, the past nine or so professionally. Currently, he builds about 60 to 65 bows per year, which amounts to a good-sized side business for the full-time physical education teacher of 19 years. We spoke just days after his 11-year-old son Jacob used a compact recurve to bag his first big game animal, a whitetail doe, the evening of the 2015 Minnesota deer opener. 

OL: Why get into building your own traditional bows at a time when compounds were (and continue to remain) the undisputed popularity king?
Chad Holm: At the time I just wanted to extend the bowhunting season, I didn’t want it to be done after three months, I wanted to have some involvement year-round. For me bowhunting has always been the focus, more so than archery; I have a real passion for the outdoors. I do enjoy archery too, but not target archery so much—for me the draw is bowhunting and 3-D archery. I really like the ‘hunter-gatherer’ lifestyle, and I like to use archery as a means for providing my family’s food.

OL: What are the big differences compared to hunting with a compound bow? 
CH: I started out with a compound, it took me several years to get a deer, then one season I shot three deer with my compound. The following year I switched to a recurve. There were a couple reasons; for one I just wanted more involvement, and to do something different, a new challenge. Also, I was introduced to a man in my hometown who shot a recurve, so I had a good resource. 

At that time I thought traditional archery was something almost spiritual, even mystical.  I also believed it was something that took an extreme amount of athletic ability, or special instincts. Then I found it was something everybody can do. I soon learned everyone has a different effective range, but anyone can do it.

When you hear the term "instinctive shooting," a lot of people get intimidated by that—they think it’s something you have or don’t have. And of course that’s not true.

OL: What are some advantages to hunting with traditional equipment? 
CH: The simplicity of the equipment, there isn’t much to go wrong; one of the only things to worry about is cutting your bowstring, so all you need to carry with you is an extra string. You don’t need an entire tool kit. You’re also never second-guessing your equipment, like some compound users will worry about whether their sight or rest has moved.  With traditional equipment, you know that if you’re not shooting well, it’s you.

OL: What are some disadvantages to traditional bowhunting? 
CH: It’s a shorter-range game. It doesn’t matter how much you practice, you’ll never reach the same level of proficiency as you can with a compound, and people need to understand that. Even if you commit yourself to it and practice regularly and religiously, it’s still going to be a shorter-range game.

OL: Can you quantify “shorter range?” What’s your own effective range and what should it be for most traditional bowhunters? 
CH: By and large, for the majority of people it’s a 20-yard or less game, and for some people less than that. My own preference is 10 to 12 yards, and if everything is right, I’ll shoot a deer at 20. 

For guys out west in the wide-open areas, especially chasing game like pronghorn, a traditional bow can certainly be more of a handicap, but in the big woods of Minnesota, a traditional bow is really no handicap at all. Up here, most of our shots are 15 yards and under, and if you interview bowhunters about their average treestand shot up here, even compound guys, the majority will say 15 yards—and many will say under 12 yards.

OL: What if a trophy buck walks by your stand at 30 yards?
CH: You have to be willing to let it go, you have to okay with that. You’re not ready to be a traditional bowhunter if you can’t let a big buck walk at 30 yards. If that’s going to bother you, you’re not ready for traditional archery. 

It’s like any equipment you choose, there’s an effective range. It takes discipline to stay within that range, whether you’re using a rifle, a compound, or a traditional bow. 

OL: What did it feel like to bag your first deer using traditional equipment? 
CH: I do remember that clearly, and there was a lot of doubt in my mind whether I could do it.  Back then in Minnesota we had two really tough winters back to back, in ‘95 and ’96. The deer numbers were way down,   and the following year I hunted over 60 times—counting both morning and evening hunts, and I only saw deer seven of those times while sitting on stand. That year I ended up getting a small buck at the end of October, and that was pretty exciting.

OL: Why should someone buy a custom bow? 
CH: You do it because you know the maker has been involved in every step of the process—it was all done by the same guy, and you get the maker’s "stamp" on it. The other thing is, a custom bow purchase is very important to the outdoorsperson, it’s a personal thing, and they have options they can choose: the types of woods, the grip, the length, and poundage. And in the end a custom bow really doesn’t cost that much more than a mass-produced bow.

OL: What’s the current “hot” construction for recurves and longbows? 
CH: It seems like every bowyer has a "reflex-deflex" longbow, those are really popular. Whereas a traditional longbow has straight limbs, when you put reflex-deflex into the limbs, we can stiffen those limbs, and use less material, and make the limbs lighter. The result is more energy from the bow will be transferred to the arrow, as opposed to moving the heavier limbs. So we’re putting recurve-like characteristics into a longbow, and the result is you get recurve-like speed, but still retain the simple characteristics of a longbow, but without the handshock of a more-traditional longbow.

OL: What are three tips for someone interested in traditional bowhunting? 
CH: Number one, search out a reference in your area, someone who has done it for a while and can offer advice; there are people out there if you look, especially in archery clubs. 

Number two, don’t set your expectations too high. Like I’ve said, there are people who think that if they dedicate themselves, there is no reason they can’t be effective at 30-40 yards, and that’s faulty thinking. You need to understand realistic expectations so you won’t be disappointed later.

Number three, realize that traditional archery is a journey, it’s a process, it’s something to enjoy and have fun with. It’s not about competition, it’s not about keeping score or shooting big animals, or recordbooks. It’s about enjoying the process.

OL. What should people who shoot compounds know about converting their draw length and weight specs to a trad bow?
CH: First of all, people who are converting will lose anywhere from one and half to 2 inches in draw length. And trad bows usually lose or gain two pounds for every inch of draw length. So you have to know your correct draw length. 

As far as poundage, if you go back to the 1950s and ‘60s, seven out of 10 traditional bows were 45 pounds. Then the compound came out in 1968, and people who shot 60- to 70-pound compounds, they eventually shot 50- to 65-pound recurves, and people really struggled with accuracy. 

Today, people are realizing you don’t need that kind of poundage, especially with modern bow construction, modern strings, and modern carbon arrows. Today a 40-pound bow will shoot right through a deer. 

OL: What’s your opinion on movies like The Hunger Games—are shows and movies with archers helping traditional archery grow?
CH: Personally I have not noticed much of a change over the last nine years, but I do notice that the National Archery in the Schools Program has had a tremendous impact on getting bows in kids’ hands. I run the NASP program for six different elementary schools and it’s just fantastic.

Conversely, I think the Outdoor Channel has promoted technology and trophy hunting so much that it has hurt traditional archery. They tend to promote the end result rather than the process, so the younger generation growing up with the Outdoor Channel, that’s what they see—that the way to hunt is to use as much technology as we legally can, instead of relying on our skills and woodsmanship. I have some concerns about where bowhunting is going for that reason.

OL: Your son bagged a deer a few days ago with some relatively lightweight equipment. For those who might think they can’t pull a heavy enough bow, what were the specs of your son’s equipment?
CH: My son Jacob is 11, and he shot an adult doe last Saturday night, opening evening. It was his first deer with a bow. He used an old, vintage Shakespeare recurve made in the ‘60s; he likes that bow, it’s a 46 pounder at 28 inches, but it’s about 33 pounds at 23 inches, which is his draw length. 

He was in a treestand about 12 feet high, and I was hunting about 100 yards away. Jacob has been shooting a trad bow his whole life, but his effective range isn’t very far.  I have encouraged him to use his cousin’s compound bow, but he wanted to use the recurve. I told him the shot had to be under 10 yards, and the shot ended up being about 8 or 9 yards. 

There is very little resistance in the ribcage of a deer, bear, or even an elk, and with a good two-blade broadhead it will zip right through there. Jacob’s shot not only went through the ribcage, it stuck in the ground. I couldn’t believe it; I didn’t expect that arrow to be sticking in the ground.

To have Chad Holm build you a unique custom traditional bow, contact him at (320) 360-4479; www.holmmadetraditionalbows.com