Apathy describes many anglers and hunters

What would spring fishing be like without steelhead?

Apathy is killing our outdoor heritage activities. Speak UP for hunting and angling activities. If we don't we'll loose them.
photo Dave Richey ©2012

Does apathy adequately describe many of Michigan's anglers and hunters? I think it does. For those who haven't visited a dictionary, apathy means a lack of emotion or feeling or a sense of indifference.

An election in 2006 proved that most hunters didn't care much about a Michigan dove hunt. The measure got whipped in a bad way, and few hunters seemed very upset about it. No one seemed to care.

Folks, believe it or not, but that vote for a Michigan dove season went much deeper than keeping state sportsmen from shooting mourning doves. It was the first big step in a long parade of other items that can and one day will be stuck on the ballot. The next one might directly affect something you feel strongly about.

Would apathy keep people from fighting for their country?

How would you feel if it was put to a vote to end archery hunting. Or,  the next vote may be to prohibit firearm hunting for deer and/or other game species. It might come to a vote to outlaw dogs while hunting which would affect most bird hunters and bear, bobcat, coyote and fox hunting. Don't think so? Dream on!

Does anyone out there understand that the anti-hunters whupped us on the dove issue? Why, because many hunters are apathetic. They don't care enough to get involved. They wait for others to fight their battles for them. Read again the definition of apathy. It's present here.

I know a guy who whined about the dove season being defeated. The man has never voted for anything (including presidential elections) in his life, never discussed hunting issues with anyone other than his buddies, and he was most upset when I told him he didn't deserve the opportunity to whine and gripe. That behavior is reserved for those who have enough courage and gumption to vote.

People who don't vote on issues of importance to anglers and hunters should have no say in how a democracy is run. And trust me on this: anti-hunters know that sportsmen are unwilling to take a stand, and many folks claim to be too busy to vote. Say what?

Who among these unenlightened sportsmen is willing to wake up and see what goes on around them. They gripe and complain about a possible raise in license fees, but when the sporting segment of this country needs help to fight anti-hunting measures, where are these folks? They are too busy to care. Apathy reigns supreme.

Many avoid the voting booth as if the curtains were coated with asbestos. The day of letting others fight our battles is over. People who want to hunt, now and in the future, had best realize that forces are underway to eliminate all types of hunting. Wake up!

The deer kill was down last year. It also was down the year before last, and likely will be down again this year. Do you care? As a hunter, aren't you concerned about a declining deer herd? You should be

Will the same people who are against legalized hunting want to ban ownership of firearms? What will happen to our wildlife if the DNR has no money to manage it, which has already happened. Will the United States become neutered like Australia and Great Britain? Does anyone care? People need to get a grip on reality soon.

An out-of-control deer herd is entirely possible. The state has worked hard for years to reduce the herd size, and in many areas, they did their job too well and the deer numbers are way down. We saw the results of this problem the last two years. Each person can make a difference but they must get off their backside, learn what the really important issues are and get involved.

Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the state's largest conservation organization, is trying to fight the good fight. They keep people posted on what is happening, but MUCC membership rolls have shrunk dramatically from their highs of 20-30 years ago.

Why? The short and ugly answer is public apathy. Sportsmen no longer care about joining groups. They often say they don't have time or money to be a member. And for some that is probably true.

Others have different priorities. Where fishing and hunting was once their good time, bowling and golf may have replaced some of the leisure time activities. Others simply are not joiners, and care little about joining Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, National Rifle Association, Trout Unlimited and many other excellent organizations that are trying to fight for all sportsmen.

Where do we go from here? I'm one man, preaching to the choir and to those who enjoy reading about the outdoors and who has nothing against hunting, but I'm only one man. I'm not a one-man army.

Speak up and show some true American spirit

Others must stand up and be heard. They must stand and fight the good fight. Are you willing to step up to the plate for our fishing and hunting and wise management of those resources?

I've heard it many times at a conservation club, Kiwanis meetings, or in other places. People actually ask me to fight their battles for them. I'm just one man with one voice, but they must make their voices heard. Sportsmen must become involved before it is too late.

Hunters of all stripes, whether bird hunters or a bear and deer hunter, must unite under one common banner to endorse all forms of legal hunting and be prepared to vote on critical issues. If one method of hunting is lost, as happened on the dove issue, anti-hunters will go after the next least defensible hunting method. Will it be bow hunting as many believe?

It could be dog ownership which would hurt hunters who use a pooch for their sport. If they don't support bear and deer hunting, and treeing coons with a hound or chasing bunnies with a beagle, than it is quite likely their lack of action will help future anti-hunters win.

The past issue was supposedly about dove hunting. That's nonsense. It was simply the first nail in the coffin of legalized hunting in this state, and hundreds of thousands of hunters stood by and watched it happen.

How sad. And who will feel sorry for you when your favorite fishing or hunting sport comes up on a ballot, and one by one, our outdoor pleasures and heritage are taken away from us because apathetic sportsmen don't care enough to become involved?

Or because they are too lazy, and cannot comprehend what is happening to them. It's time for many people to wake up, smell the coffee brewing, pull on their boots and fight for our hunting heritage.

It really is worth fighting for. Grow up, wake up, and fight. And if we lose part of outdoor heritage because of apathy, don't come whining to me to fight even harder. I've fought this battle for more than 50 years.

What exactly have you done?

Posted via email from Dave Richey Outdoors

On Your Own Or With Someone: It’s The Big Question

One man -- me -- and my muskox.

A good case can be made for fishing or hunting alone. Let's face it: sportsmen are a gregarious sort by their very nature, not by necessity.

They love the camaraderie and excitement of the hunt, the sharing of nearby campsites or putting a canoe sneak on a bunch of bedded bluegills. Two or more sportsmen make a big deal out of planning their next deer drive, their next bear hunt or their next trout fishing trip.

There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it is the preferred fishing or hunting choice for most sportsmen. Many would feel lost if their friend or neighbors were not along to share in the outdoor fun and good times.

Gregarious sportsmen are more common than those who go it alone.

They enjoy sitting around a table, mapping out strategies, discussing who will do what and when it will be done, and everyone involved in the planning has a voice in how it will be accomplished.

This is democracy at its finest. Or perhaps, at its worst. There are some bold sportsmen who feel joint fishing or hunting ventures breed a form of outdoor mediocrity, and this may be true. Who can't argue that the more voices that are raised in discussion or disagreement over who will fish which trout-stream hole will do anything except cause massive indecision?

I've spent 45 years writing magazine stories, newspaper articles, 25 outdoor books, and countless weblogs, and for most of those four-plus decades, I hop-scotched across North America pretty much alone. Many were the times when I'd be the only English-speaking bear, caribou or moose hunter in a far-northern Quebec hunting camp.

Years were spent driving or flying here or there to fish or hunt. There might be other sportsmen at the end of the trail, but when it came time to fish or hunt, I'd go it alone or go with a guide.

Countless times in camp people would ask if I wanted one of them to accompany me, and the answer was always a sincere but polite refusal. You see, going it alone had become a habit and as a result it also was something I looked forward to doing. Being alone didn't bother me.

I've always enjoyed the solitary fishing and hunting scene.

In fact, I enjoyed it. Even the travel was fine, and the long hours on the road allowed me to write stories in my head. Stories would be fleshed out on paper before bed, but people often asked how it was possible to write so many stories during my career, and the answer was always the same.

"I write while driving," I'd say. "I also write things in my mind while glassing distant alpine meadows for elk or rocky tundra for caribou. If a good fish was caught, it's image and memory is captured in my mind, and recorded on paper later on for an article."

What are the benefits of fishing or hunting alone? The benefits far outweigh the disadvantages of spending time with another person.
The advantages of being alone are many. Solitary sportsmen never have to consider another person's opinion when making decisions. They just act.

If we are fishing the Boardman River, fishing together means one of us goes upstream and fishes down while the other fishes downstream and walks back upstream. I'm not selfish, but what happens if both of us want to fish downstream? Or perhaps upstream? What if it is mmutually important for both of us to fish the same stretch of river?

A decision must be reached. One person may be miffed. Of course, both anglers could fish together but to what purpose?

The late Robert Ruark, he of the time-honored book, The Old Man And The Boy, "One boy is all boy; two boys is half a boy; and three boys is no boy at all." It's an easily understood philosophy.

One boy moves quieter, picks his spots with greater patience and wisdom, and doesn't have to argue or defer to others. Two boys means both must make a decision, and that often requires time and discussion. Three boys confuse the issue so much they forget what it was they are trying to decide. Making joint decisions can create a big headache for all.

Going out alone eliminates decisions, arguments and distrations.

The solitary sportsman doesn't have this foolishness to consider or have to deal with. He reaches a fork in the trail, and doesn't have to consult with others about going left or right. Taking the high or low road is his decision.

How long one man hunts or fishes is a matter of personal desire. There's no reason why one should cut a fishing trip or hunt short just so another person can get home to a bridge game or whatever. Is this petty or selfish? Not really. It's being honest about personal wishes and being realistic about our expectations and how we wish to spend our leisure time.

Modern sportsmen have only so much free time these days. If it is shared with another person, and that person places undue constraints on our mutual time, it becomes necessary to decide the issue. Is it easier to give in to a buddy's needs or go about our outdoor activities alone?

I suspect the solitary sportsman will become more common in future years. Many who truly love the outdoors will decide whether to fish or hunt with someone or not. Conversely, if one fishes or hunts with another, and cuts the day short for personal reasons, how will the friend feel about giving up some of his valuable leisure time to make an unnecessary trip home?

My early travels were alone, by necessity. I could barely afford to go myself, let alone take anyone with me. It became easy to spend nights in camp, after dinner, writing notes rather that sitting with foreign-speaking sportsmen who didn't care for my company.

There are too many decisions to be made on fishing or hunting trips, and a discussions on which end of the lake we'll fish first is a classic example of wasting time. Two anglers spend 30 minutes arguing the merits of fishing the north or south end. It's senseless. That time could be better spent mapping out a lake and locating hotpots.

Two hunters share a blind during goose season, and one talks a big honker out of the sky with pleading tones. Who takes the shot? Will the caller be a nice guy and toll in the bird for his buddy to shoot or does he believe he did the work and deserves first shot?

A brown trout rises with the regularity of an adult fish. Every 30 seconds he tips up, rises in the water column, drifts downstream under the natural, and once his suspicions disappear, he sips the spinner off the surface with a head-to-tail rise that shows golden-brown flanks.

It is great fun to be the nice guy and let someone have the first shot or first fish. My son David with a walleye.

Do we flip a coin or will one or the other of the two anglers push the brim of his cap back, look at his friend, and say "Go get him." Offering the first chance is a wonderful thing to do, but many people will be selfish and elbow their way past the other gent.

Sometimes it plays out that way but more often it doesn't. All too often one angler or hunter has a wealth of natural angling or hunting skills while the other does not. This calls for some generosity and good will. The solitary sportsman is never faced with such problems.

Note that this is not written about taking children along. This is about two or more adults. I strongly believe that adults should always take children fishing or hunting. The loner role does not apply when it comes to kids.

I played the solitary sportsman for many years, without ever feeling selfish, and enjoyed myself very much. In recent years, as glaucoma robs me of ever more vision, I find pleasure in being the Nice Guy.

One reason why guiding was so much fun for me for 10 years with salmon and steelhead, and another 10 years with deer and bear hunters, was because I'd done it all so many times before. Once a person shoots a goodly number of black bear or deer, it's much more fun to be generous and help a first-time hunter bag a nice animal.

I love to put a kid into a situation where he/she will score.

It's fun putting an angler into his first steelhead, a first 20-pound king or a first 10-pound brown trout. There is something fulfilling about the light flickering in their eyes, the smile on their face, a warm handshake that makes fishing or hunting together a memorable occasion.

My wife and I hunt deer together. She goes to her spot and I go to mine, but I usually go to pick her up. It's become a bit of a hoot for me to take some of the things I've been good at, and put them to work for someone else. It's part of why Kay shoots a nice buck every year.

It's one reason I mentor outdoor writers. I can help someone else when it pleases me (which is often), and when I need to face the woods and waters alone for an hour or a day, I can still do it.

The solitary sportsman is still a big part of my personal make-up, and even though in recent years more time is spent with others, there are days when being alone and experiencing things anew still provides me with that same thrill I first experienced many decades ago.

Posted via email from Dave Richey Outdoors