Dear HCN,
I am glad that Ali
Macalady and her family are devoted to hunting. I share with her
the belief that “there is something important about harvesting my
own food,” and a love of early mornings spent waiting for game. But
it is disappointing to read that an outdoorswoman such as Macalady
considers it a politically moderate position to throw the Second
Amendment open to re-interpretation. She is certainly correct in
her assumption that the hunters who share the woods and plains with
her each fall would see her position as both radical and
unsettling.
In criticizing James Baker’s address
to the Outdoor Writers’ Association, Macalady apparently does not
realize that the taxes on firearms and ammunition, paid through the
Pittman-Robertson Act, bankroll millions of dollars’ worth of
wildlife-conservation efforts every year. Whether you buy an AR-15
or a “socially acceptable” (for now) .270 deer rifle, 11 percent of
the money goes to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – all handgun
purchases, and ammunition, contribute 10 percent of their purchase
price. Yes, most of it goes to making life better for big game and
game birds, and some of it goes to promoting hunting and shooting,
but it is still a fantastic treasure chest benefiting non-game
wildlife and habitat for all creatures.
That is
what Baker was talking about when he stated that the gun-control
agenda was also a war on wildlife conservation. Nowhere in the
essay does Macalady say what type of “gun control” she and her
father would support. In rejecting the “Hunter Myth,” the Macaladys
have merely bought another myth, hook, line and sinker – the myth
created by frightened urbanites that says absolute safety is
preferable to liberty, and that extreme and horrific occurrences
like the Columbine massacre should be the basis for the taking away
of freedoms which they personally do not cherish anyway – such as
the right of responsible citizens to be armed in the manner that
they judge will best meet their needs for hunting or defense of
self, family and principles.
I hope that “Hunters
for Gun Control” will remain only a concept, written on a sign, a
testament to a well-meaning hunter who simply didn’t think it
through.
Hal Herring
Corvallis, Montana
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Gun controllers need to think again.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
