Virginia's Spring Turkey kicks off this weekend. Good luck to all my fellow Commonwealth hunters!

The edition of The Hunting Wire has a Voice of Leadership Panel submission from Michelle Scheuermann entitled -Pour Decisions: The Correlation Between the Case Against Cigarettes, Wine, and Firearms. It's an investment of your time to read it in its entirety

because what she says, why, and how all matters to educating or at the very least reminding you of the much more strategic game the anti-hunters and anti-gun crowds are playing with our 2nd Amendment Right.

Speaking of education. Virginia's wild turkeys gave me a robust one last season so I am champing at the bit to put my skills to the test soon.

No time to waste - see you out in the woods.

— Jay

By: Michelle Scheuermann, BulletProof Communications

You might not follow wine industry news—and frankly, I don't either—until one of my favorite wine podcasts (Wine for Normal People) featured an investigative journalist. In this episode, Felicity Carter was introduced as probably the only journalist doing vital investigative work on wine, health, and the neo-prohibitionist movement.

After listening to this podcast, I went down a rabbit hole about how the wine industry's struggles now are eerily like what the hunting, fishing, and shooting spaces are seeing—a slow, global movement against us.

It all started with cigarettes.

I'm sure we all can agree cigarettes are not good for us – but this is also America, and if you like to smoke, whatever, don't do it around me. But do you remember the slow ban on cigs? How it was removed from planes (I still can't believe people smoke on an airplane), it was banned from the workplace, it was banned from bars, and finally, in many places, you can't smoke within X feet of the building. Smokers are ostracized and demoralized. And then, let's not forget the warnings, labels, and taxes. The labels on a pack of cigarettes in the UK are borderline throw-up-in-your-mouth pictures. However, it can be argued that humans don't read or pay attention to labels. I mean, have you read the ingredients of a bag of Cheetos? No. You want the orange stuff. We might be shocked to see the label at first, but then our brain (which is made to do this) will begin to ignore it.

Okay, what does this have to do with wine – and our industry?

I'm getting there.

In 2009, The Guardian (yeah, I know) published an opinion piece called "Alcohol is Worse Than Cigarettes." (First of all, the author of that piece didn't see anything yet with pandemic levels of alcohol consumption 11 years later, but I digress.) The piece draws attention to the detrimental effects of alcohol in comparison to cigarettes. It argues for similar approaches to banning alcohol advertising, as has been done with cigs, citing a study in France (France! Of all places…) where this ban was implemented successfully. The article goes on to target young people, citing a YouGov poll that showed 62 percent of the public supported banning alcohol-related ads.

In 2019, the BBC published "Is Drinking Red Wine Still Good for You?" In this piece, they talk about past studies that have shown red wine, in moderation, has been associated with potential cardiovascular benefits. However, the article flips and talks about how, potentially, cancer is linked to drinking alcohol, which they got from a 2019 research study in The Lancet.

The Lancet study establishes an association between alcohol consumption and the risk of all-cause mortality, as well as the specific risk of developing various types of cancers.

The Lancet research tries to conclude that the level of alcohol consumption that minimizes health loss is zero. The report suggests that from a health perspective, abstaining from alcohol is associated with the least amount of health loss, aligning with public health guidelines and recommendations for alcohol consumption.

Do you see how I got into a rabbit hole with this? Let me repeat that last part for you – they are claiming ZERO alcohol consumption should be the public health guidelines for optimal health, just like the marketing behind cigarettes.

Like how some people claim zero gun tolerance, zero hunting?

This, my friends, is just the beginning of banning all good things, which is how it led me to think of our industry.

I wanted to know more. Who is behind this? What is their motivation?

Would you believe the World Health Organization (WHO)?

Back to the Wine for Normal People podcast episode. In that podcast, Carter pointed out the WHO's SAFER initiative, which aims for "a world free from alcohol-related harm."

Sure, aren't we all for that?

The "R" in SAFER stands for "Raise prices on alcohol through excise taxes and pricing policies." (Just like what they did to cigarettes. Geez, original.)

The WHO states, "Alcohol taxation and pricing policies are among the most effective and cost-effective alcohol control measures. An increase in excise taxes on alcoholic beverages is a proven measure to reduce harmful use of alcohol, and it provides governments revenue to offset the economic costs of harmful use of alcohol."

What is the WHO's goal? To "turn down the flow of alcohol." I can see them saying next they want to "turn down the flow of guns," can you?

You guys – it gets even more interesting.

Carter investigated who was behind SAFER. One of the partners she found is a company called Movendi International. Who are they? Carter explains, "Movendi International is a rebranded name. They changed their name in 2020 because their real name was too weird for anybody. They were founded in 1852 in the United States, and their original name was the Order of Good Templars. They were a temperance movement that was a spin-off of the Freemasons. They were the people who were partly behind prohibition the first time round, and because they were so successful, their membership dropped."

The temperance movement is back. Or, you could argue, it never left.

Carter continues that you'll be shocked if you look at the WHO's guide for journalists and Google all the names (which she did). She found names from groups like The Noncommunicable Disease Alliance, which she said sounded great until she learned it's a member of the IOGT, the International Order of Good Templars. Carter continues to share that the folks from both NGOs give keynote speeches at Movendi conferences. She also founded the European Policy Alcohol Alliance (Eurocare), which she claims is a temperance group.

Like a wolf in sheep's clothing. We know a few things about that, don't we?

The podcast host, Schneider, asked us to re-listen to an episode from 2019 with Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics for The Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK. He saw this coming back then. It's eerie.

Snowdon shared many insights into the "why" behind this push for anti-alcohol, which if you replace "alcohol" and "wine" with "guns" in this quote – you can see the playbook that's already developed against us.

"What they want is to ban all alcohol advertising and to certainly have warnings, preferably graphic warnings, on bottles and cans to push the alcohol industry out of any policy making arena. They don't want the industry to be speaking to politicians; they want to really have the politicians to themselves to get their one-sided views across and to have very high tax rates. If you asked them how high it should be, they wouldn't have an answer; it's just higher than whatever it is now. It should be higher because that reduces demand, and if you reduce demand, then you reduce alcohol consumption." – Christopher Snowdon.

Snowdon also thinks we'll see a cigarette prohibition someday. Why?

Because the people who make laws today do not smoke cigarettes, it's funny because we could agree that lawmakers in the office now did not grow up hunting, fishing, or heading to the range on the weekend.

But what about the millions of happy wine drinkers – and the millions of content gun owners – who aren't doing anything about this slow rise against them?

As Snowdon shared, "Their lives (the alcohol industry) are being made worse in a fairly small way, and the cost to them of a tax rise or a ban on shopping online is just not big enough to justify the enormous costs to them of spending hours a week doing something about it. It's a pessimistic message…that small, very aggressive, highly incentivized people will tend to beat millions of ordinary people who don't have the time and resources to do anything about it."

Again, let me highlight that last part—a small, aggressive, and incentivized group of people will beat millions of wine drinkers. Can that happen to us in the outdoor industry, too?

Let's go back to Carter, who picked up on the correlation between what happened to that industry back then and what is happening to the wine and alcohol industry today. "If you think about cigarettes, you can smoke cigarettes, and there's no problem, right? You can't smoke them in restaurants; you can't smoke them in the theater; you can't smoke them in sporting events. It means that the idea of cigarette smoking has become abnormal now. I think we all agree that it's good for tobacco use, but the World Health Organization did that, and it worked so well that they're thinking about doing that for alcohol, which means if you can't have it anywhere, you're not going to have it."

When will this playbook of taking away all our joy be pointed at us?

Okay, this is getting long, but one more point.

As Schneider shared in this podcast, there are cultural issues at play. They are changing the paradigm of drinking. "The first thing was let's prevent binge drinking, and now they're saying literally all alcohol is bad at all times, there's no safe level of alcohol use. And everyone wants to know the acceptable level of wine glasses daily."

Does this sound different from the argument about how many rounds of ammo I can buy at one time, how many I can carry, or what my magazine capacity is?

It used to be just that unfiltered cigarettes were terrible – but now all cigarettes are bad.

It used to be no binge drinking – and now the WHO is saying abstinence from all alcohol.

I'll leave you with one more thought from Schneider that correlates to our industry: "What they are asking for is zero risk, right? That's one of the problems in framing this: nothing has zero risk; you could go out of your house tomorrow and get hit by a bus."

I'm not a policy person. The struggles the tobacco and alcohol industries face are similar to what I see daily in my work as a social media and communications strategist with clients in the outdoor industry. Lastly, as Schneider reminded me, causation does not equal correlation.

Congrats if you've read this far. I welcome feedback and recommendations for a good bottle of wine at Michelle@bulletproof-comm.com.

Further reading if this wasn't enough:

From David Morrison – The Wine Gourd

Who started the current WHO's utterly negative attitude towards alcohol?

Has WHO got it wrong with its new zero-alcohol policy? Probably.

The Demise of the (Old) Wine Industry

Michelle Scheuermann (pronounced Sherman), APR, is the principal of BulletProof Communications, LLC, a marketing communications consultancy specializing in communication strategies utilizing both traditional and non-traditional avenues to increase awareness and participation in brands, events and more. Michelle is known as a podcaster, lecturer and founder of popular events and social media initiatives. The outdoors has always been in her blood; Michelle grew up on a working dairy & crop farm in South Dakota, not far from the famous Corn Palace. She stays active in outdoor activities – always trying to learn something new at the range or in the field, and volunteers with outdoor & veteran - related organizations while living in St. Paul, Minnesota with her husband, Wayne, and their cat, Harrison.

2023-2024 Voice of Leadership Panelists

Jon Zinnel, Federal Ammunition
Dan Forster, Archery Trade Association
Brent Miller, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
Rick Brazell, First Hunt Foundation
Mark Peterson, Worldwide Trophy Adventure
Michelle Scheuermann, Bullet Proof Communications 

Facilitators

• Peter Churchbourne, Director, NRA Hunter Leadership Forum
• Jim Curcuruto, Executive Director, Outdoor Stewards of Conservation Foundation
• James “Jay” Pinsky, Editor, The Hunting Wire & Archery Wire

The Voice of Leadership Panel is an appointed group of outdoor industry leaders who have volunteered to contribute their voices on crucial hunting and outdoor recreation issues to inform, inspire, and educate participants within our community.

The best duck hunters know preparation doesn't only happen the morning of; it's something we practice year-round. One of the best ways you can set yourself up for success is by honing in on your calling abilities by practicing in the off-season, because remember, there is no off-season! This week we’re going to break down the nitty-gritty “whys” behind calling and hopefully give you a deeper insight into duck communication.

Understanding Duck Communication:

Ducks, part of the Anatidae family, have well-developed auditory systems and a specialized vocal organ called the syrinx. These vocalizations are crucial for communication, mating, displays, territorial defense, and navigation. Ducks live in social groups, and communication is essential for maintaining group cohesion. They also use vocalizations for long-distance migrations and territorial defense. Ducks are highly attuned to auditory stimuli, particularly the calls from members of their same species. Ducklings are so attuned that they can actually learn the maternal sounds of their mother sitting on her nest and even the sounds of their unhatched siblings peeping away in their eggs days before they hatch!

Learning to properly mimic natural vocalizations, such as hen quacks or feeding sounds, can bring ducks a lot closer to hunters by triggering their natural instincts. So how important is it to truly master sounding “ducky?” Pretty important! While ringing some notes and calls can bring our feathered friends closer to the kill hole, the unnatural placement of sounds or unfamiliar sounds may elicit caution or even an avoidance response. We've all been there… Your buddy stands on their call a little too heavy, and the ducks flare like they were just shot at.

Matching Calls to Situational Contexts

You've probably heard the different types of calls ducks make broken down into different styles. Today we will cover a few basics and when they are most useful: the quack call, the hail call, the comeback, feed chatter, and the greeting call. Mastering these calls is crucial to communicate adequately with ducks, but equally important is knowing when to let them ring!

The quack is one of the most common and recognizable vocalizations. In the wild, the basic loud quack associated with ducks is the call of the female mallard. On the other hand, the male utters soft, raspy notes or short whistles. This makes the quack call irresistible for a drake searching for a hen. Everyone wants to know what the best callers “say” into the call to create a quack. I've heard all sorts of answers on this, but as the late legend, Butch Richenback, used to teach, just say “quack!”

The quack is the cornerstone of all calling; master it first. When you’re looking to purchase a duck call, find one that quacks clean and easy for you! Next, determine your tone board placement and how it works best for you. Then, every time you blow your call, do it that way! A lot of great callers prefer to keep the reed on the bottom, saying it helps them with some spit control. But figure out what works best for you and stick with it. 

The feed chatter: This one has a lot of nicknames. Call it whatever you want, but it is a series of rapid, quieter calls that resemble ducks feeding on the water's surface or on dry land. It consists of soft clucks and chattering sounds. This is the call you hear explained as “tukka tukka, or dukka dukka, tikka tikka, dugga, dugga.”

The feed chatter is tricky to get the hang of, but so much fun once you have it down! You can improve your sound by turning your call around in your hand and listening to the wind, pressure, and natural sounds without vibrating the reed.

Start slow when you’re learning! Similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat, there is no need to add speed until you’re comfortable and the sounds are coming out clean. Get used to the pressure and movements required to make these little chatters. Throwing in the occasional quack is as easy as just saying “gey” or "gah." So for example, you would go from “tikka tikka tikka tikka” to “tikka tikka gey, tikka tikka gah.”

The feed chatter is effective in situations where ducks are actively feeding or resting on the water. It creates an illusion of safety and abundance, encouraging other ducks to join in.

The hail call draws the attention of distant ducks with its loud, attention-grabbing sound. It consists of a series of loud, drawn-out notes.

Hail calls are effective when trying to attract ducks from a distance or in situations where ducks are flying high overhead. It's often used to grab the attention of passing flocks. In a hail call, the notes start high and ride down the scale with an even tempo. 

The comeback call bears a resemblance to the hail and finds its application in comparable scenarios. The comeback, however, is slightly more aggressive and should really only be used as a last-ditch effort to change their mind or to elicit an immediate response, such as hunting in the flooded timber. Similar to the hail, it is a series of loud quacks until the ducks either turn around and head in your direction or leave. The comeback call is usually a series of about 5–7 notes. With a comeback call, the first note is louder, longer, and more forceful, demanding attention. If it doesn't work, let them go, no need to overcomplicate it.

The greeting call is a friendly, welcoming sound used by ducks to communicate with each other when they reunite or approach one another. A greeting call is similar to a hail call, but with shorter, softer, more friendly notes. 

Greeting calls are suitable for situations where ducks are already in close proximity or approaching the decoy spread. It signals to the ducks that it's safe to land. Pick a duck, and watch their behavior when you're calling. Do they seem to like what you have to say? Change it up, and remember that sometimes less can be more. 

Adapting to changing conditions:

As hunters, we always have to be ready to adapt our strategies based on environmental factors completely out of our control. Being proficient and confident in your calling, as well as being willing to adapt as things change, will give you an advantage that a lot of other people won't possess. For example, if the wind picks up, you may need to change the volume of your calling. If you've been practicing all summer long, things like this will feel natural and easy when you're out in the field or water. Remember to watch the ducks' behaviors and always be ready to change things up when they aren't working the way you had planned! 

Mastering duck calling isn't just about showing off. It's about a deeper connection with nature—the ability to communicate in some way with a wild animal. As our world endlessly evolves around us, there is one thing we can count on as timeless, and that, my friends, is the pursuit of these wild ducks and bringing wild organic game home to put on the table and proudly share with those we care about. Remember, sharing this passion is what keeps the sport alive! Keep practicing your skills, and as always, keep talkin’!

Wildlife biologist, Jamie Utz, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, stands over beavers soon to be released in Idaho’s rural Treasure Valley. The animals were trapped from an irrigation canal near Boise. Capture, quarantine, and transport protocols developed by a wildlife veterinarian guide Utz and her colleagues. Photo Cory Mosby IDFG

By Craig Springer, USFWS, Office of Conservation Investment

All the wonders of nature are wrapped up in a 40-pound densely furred, oily creature with orange ferrous-infused teeth, webbed feet, and a scaled leathery tail. The American beaver possesses a fascinating way of life, always centered around water and a multi-aged family unit, always busy building dams and keeping up a lodge that houses them year-round. Beaver do not hibernate.

If ever there’s an example of successful uses of Pittman-Robertson funds and wildlife restoration, it would be the beaver. They are not the high-profile white-tailed deer or pronghorn or ruffed grouse. But furbearers, beavers among them, are beneficiaries of the excise taxes paid by the firearms, archery, and ammunition manufacturers. Here’s a brief, closer look.

Centuries of unregulated harvest and the expansion of civilization and water development such as canals and locks and dams that follow in its wake caused beaver numbers to plummet.  A market for the animal’s fur used in fashion and its castor oil for fragrant perfumes kept steady and eventually unsustainable pressure on beaver populations throughout the country.  Beaver pelts had long been a significant export to markets overseas, and the market for products coming from beaver exists today.

Beaver once ranged from Alaska to north Georgia, and Sonora to the Maritime Provinces. In short, where there was flowing water, beavers called it home. But by the turn of the twentieth century, much of the continental U.S. was depauperate of beaver colonies, particularly in eastern and midwestern states.

While beaver conservation got underway in the United States as early as the 1890s, Pittman-Robertson which became law in 1937 juiced restoration, as it did for many other depauperate species of wildlife, furred and feathered.  

The steady and reliable funding source is still used today for beaver management, and it is essential says Cory Mosby, furbearer biologist with Idaho Department of Fish and Game.  “Pittman-Robertson pays the way for population surveys in the field, trapper harvest assessments, data collection for season and harvest limit setting, and live-trap and transport,” said Mosby.  “We are restoring beaver populations where they once occurred, with strategic intent on gaining other management objectives.”

Southern Idaho is arid. Natural flowing water in “big, wet veins,” as Mosby calls them, is premium. Returning beavers to water courses in that area is a value-added habitat treatment. Beaver dams spread water, improve streamside vegetation, and make habitat for mule deer fawns, brood rearing sites for sage grouse, and forage for elk. Let’s not forget the fish.  Beaver dams catch sediment and improve spawning and nursery habitat for unique native Yellowstone cutthroat trout that persist along Idaho's southern border.  Mosby’s colleagues working in state fish hatcheries (funded by Dingell-Johnson excise taxes on fishing tackle) rely on those trout as a broodstock source for their own fish restoration endeavors. 

Approximately 2,000 people buy a trapping license in Idaho each year, and harvest 4,000 beaver, according to Mosby. And he knows what drives trappers:  Pittman-Robertson-funded surveys revealed that beaver trappers are motivated to be close to nature, by the challenge of trapping, and to participate in wildlife management. “Trappers spend more days afield than do hunters and anglers,” said Mosby. “They are dedicated to conservation—and it’s a lifestyle choice. Making money from pelts is a minor consideration.” 

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources issues twice the number of trapping licenses as Idaho, and Indiana trappers harvest half as many on an annual basis, according to furbearer biologist Geriann Albers.  Beaver management in the more populated Midwest has a slightly different complexion where concern for damage to private property and public health rise in importance. 

“Regulated trapping and harvest maintain beaver populations at a consistent, acceptable level,” said Albers. “Pittman-Robertson dollars fund our data collection and analysis, which informs future seasons and harvest limits.”  Trapping in Indiana enjoys a high level of public acceptance, according to Albers, because it is regulated and beaver management is guided by data. Paddlers augment data collection. Some 2,600 volunteer canoeists and kayakers observe and report on beaver sightings, revealing trends over time.

In the Land of 10,000 Lakes, Minnesota’s 1,200 beaver trappers harvest 60,000 pelts a year.  John Erb, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources furbearer biologist, says the beaver population is healthy, their numbers abundant. But that has not always been the case.

“Beaver numbers were down for a time,” said Erb. “Trapping season was closed from 1909 to 1919, at which time trapping was allowed to remove nuisance animals only, until 1938.  Trapping has been permitted every year since, except for a couple of drought years.” Science-based regulations have allowed a steady increase in sustainable harvest. Today, the season runs from October to May, and there is no limit on harvest. 

Pittman-Robertson dollars were used in Minnesota starting in 1958, paying for surveys of beaver habitat. Biologists flew over stream courses, counting lodges and dams from the air, and did this repeatedly year after year until 2001. The accumulation of data over a long span revealed trends and informed management choices through the years that allowed for tailored management. 

“In northern Minnesota, our beaver management focus is to minimize conflicts with road culverts,” said Erb.  “Beaver dams can confound waterfowl management and create problems for wild rice in the floating leaf stage. People harvest the rice, particularly some Native American tribes, and ducks eat it too.”

Busy beavers are always eager to form water courses to their innate liking. That might conflict with a landowner who enjoys the shade of an ancient cottonwood. On the other hand, beavers are a benison to biologists who endeavors to improve the lot of a litany of animals.

“Beaver are wicked cool,” said Mosby. “Nature endowed them with goggles so they can see underwater. They hold their breath up to 15 minutes and gnaw trees underwater with their front teeth—with their mouth closed. Their presence and the market for their fur essentially laid the foundation for westward American settlement. They have been busy for a long time—no pun intended.”

Check out this story map where you can see a circa 1950 video of parachuting beavers.

— Craig Springer, USFWS, Office of Conservation Investment

The edition of The Hunting Wire has a Voice of Leadership Panel submission from Michelle Scheuermann entitled -Pour Decisions: The Correlation Between the Case Against Cigarettes, Wine, and Firearms. It's an investment of your time to read it in its entirety

because what she says, why, and how all matters to educating or at the very least reminding you of the much more strategic game the anti-hunters and anti-gun crowds are playing with our 2nd Amendment Right.

Speaking of education. Virginia's wild turkeys gave me a robust one last season so I am champing at the bit to put my skills to the test soon. 

No time to waste - see you out in the woods.

Jay