Posted by on Nov 16, 2012 in |

Your Money Is No Good Here

According to Mike Piccione of the Daily Caller, Bank of America no longer wants to do business with McMillan Firearms Manufacturing. The Phoenix, Ariz., company manufactures a wide variety of hunting, competition, and tactical rifles and has been banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Kelley McMillan, the Operations Director for McMillan Firearms, which also owns McMillan Fiberglass Stocks and the McMillan Group International, said McMillan has never been late on a payment and has never bounced a check. The outstanding debt on its line of credit is at 61 percent.

The company received a personal visit from a representative of the bank.

“A bank representative spent five minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last five years and had become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories,” McMillan said.

“At this point I interrupted him and asked, ‘Can I possibly save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my business.”‘

The banker’s response according to McMillan? “That is correct.” The McMillan group of companies would soon be paying off its credit line and closing its accounts with Bank of America.

Conservation Efforts Benefit from Record 2011 Excise Taxes

The National Shooting Sports Foundation reports that wildlife conservation efforts got a boost in 201 I thanks to excise taxes paid byAmerica’s firearms and ammunition industry. Excise tax obligations for firearms and ammunition manufacturers were up 27 percent in the fourth quarter and up 14 percent for the 2011 calendar year when compared to the same periods the previous year. Obligations for the full 2011 calendar year were the highest for a calendar year to date. Excise tax collections are a key economic indicator for the industry. These 10 to 11 percent excise tax dollars, collected since 1937 under the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, are specifically designated to be used by state wildlife agencies for conservation. Collectively, purchasers of firearms and ammunition and hunters are the single- largest source of wildlife conservation funding.

Canadian Long Gun Laws Loosen Up

Overjoyed Canadians are celebrating the recent overturning of the Firearms Act. According to Tony Bernardo of the Canadian Shooting Sport Association, “The Firearms Act has been a thorn in the side of hunters, sport shooters, farmers, and heritage firearms enthusiasts for 17 years .” The law required Canadian citizens to register shotguns and rifles , which Bernardo said sportsmen considered to be frustrating to honest, law-abiding firearms owners. “The anti-gun fact ion had to torque statistics and align themselves with the unions and politically  motivated left-wing advocates. We thank the Harper government and those who have worked tirelessly to put this legislative mess out to pasture.”

U.S.citizens entering Canada with a firearm will till need to get a temporary license, but they will no longer need a temporary registration for long guns. Canadian gun registration laws still allow American sportsmen to pre-register their shotguns and rifles. For advanced firearm registration info: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc/ca/cfp-pcaf/information/visit/index-eng.htm .

Pheasants Galore

Every cloud has a silver lining, and there is a big one for South Dakota pheasant hunters. While many hunters considered the 2011 hunting season to be poor by recent standards, more than 1.5 million pheasants were harvested. Those numbers are only down about 300,000 birds from the estimated I .8 million roosters that were taken by hunters in 20 10. South Dakota’s reputation as a leading state for pheasant hunting is still intact. According to the Game, Fish and Parks Commission’s Chad

Switzer, the smaller bag was expected for two primary reasons. First, the tough winter of 2010-2011 negatively impacted the birds. Second, there was a temporary loss of habitat as farmers converted grass acres to crops. Despite those two hurdles, the 2011 harvest was still the ninth highest in the past 20 years. “Even with that decline, things were still good from a large-scale perspective,” Switzer said. Hunters again turned out in large numbers despite the lower expectations. Non-resident hunters totaled 95,077, down from I 00,189 in 2010, while South Dakota hunters numbered 69,120, down from 72,465.m Seeks to Increase Hunting License Sales

Kalkomey Enterprises, the official provider of recreational safety education products for all 50 states and the parent company of hunter-ed. com, believes that fine-tuning hunter education programs could result in an increase in the numbers of licensed hunters.

According to Tammy Sapp, Communications Director, Kalkomey Enterprises, conducted a study to assess the best ways of encouraging hunter education graduates to become regular hunters and license buyers. Focus groups and pre- and post-hunter education course telephone surveys were conducted of students in Alabama, Georgia, and Kentucky.

The study revealed that between 85 percent and 94 percent of hunter education students across the three states said they were very likely to obtain a hunting license after their course. However, a series of follow-up studies indicated that only 30 to 47 percent actually purchased hunting licenses after the course.

As a way to boost the hunting license sales and time spent in the woods, Mark Duda, the executive director of Responsive Management, the assessment firm, suggested that state agencies responsible for hunter education explore ways to immediately get hunting licenses into the hands of course graduates. Doing that would mean hunter education graduates would face one less barrier to active hunting participation.

“One way of accomplishing that would be to include the fee of an annual hunting license in the overall price of course registration, thereby guaranteeing that students leave the course fully licensed to hunt in their state,” Duda said.

Another suggestion to increase the number of hunter education graduates who purchase hunting licenses is to offer optional follow-up courses. Seminars or distance-learning options could be an additional source of revenue for agencies as well as provide new hunters with more information on topics such as scouting, hunting strategies, or field dressing game.

The study also shows that hunter education graduates are open to the idea of receiving emails that offer key hunting information. Agencies that develop a mailing list can remain in contact with course graduates and target them with oppo1tunities, events, and news items throughout the year.

Lead Shot to Be Allowed for Iowa Mourning Dove Hunting Season


Governor Terry Branstad has used his authority to veto a state agency rule so dove hunters will be able to use lead ammunition in September when the dove hunting season opens.

The governor’s Natural Resources Commission, after its chairman checked with Governor Branstad, voted last summer to ban lead shot, as critics say the lead that doesn’t reach its target poses environmental harm to both animals and humans.

But then Branstad said he learned the Iowa House had voted against the idea of banning lead shot when the bill establishing a dove hunting season was passed in 2011. “The law, I think, is pretty clear is that the responsibility of the Natural Resources Commission was to set the seasons, not determine what kind of shot can be used in hunting,” Branstad said.

A legislative committee that reviews the regulations drafted by state agencies put a hold on the rule banning lead shot, giving the full legislature an opportunity to weigh in on the issue. The Iowa House voted to nullify the rule, but the Senate didn’t take up the issue – which means the ban on lead shot went into effect. Branstad used his authority to veto the rule.

“I believe it is important – not only on this issue, but on other issues – that we intend to abide by the law and not let administrative agencies exceed their authority and do something beyond what the legislature has delegated to them,” Branstad said. “The determination of whether hunters should be forced to stop using traditional shot is something that should be decided by the legislature, not by administrative fiat.”

Senator Dick Dearden, a Democrat from Des Moines, is a long-time backer of the move to allow dove hunting in Iowa. Dearden attended the ceremony Branstad held to sign the executive order vetoing the ban on lead shot.

”I’m just happy with the result, not necessarily the process,” Dearden told reporters.

The Iowa House voted this past February to allow lead shot for dove hunting but the Senate never took up the measure. Dearden is unwilling to say whether the Senate’s inaction on the issue was intentional or accidental. Dearden intends to hunt doves in Iowa this September, using lead shot.

“Absolutely,” Dearden said. “You know, if you’re walking across a field pheasant hunting and a dove comes over, you don’t have time to change shot. The lead thing is more anti-hunting. It’s a way of, ‘if we make it more and more difficult to hunt, there’s going to be less and less hunters.”‘

Earlier this year the Sierra Club’s Iowa chapter filed a lawsuit to try to get a court to uphold the Natural Resources Commission ‘s decision to ban lead shot and require “non-toxic” steel shot for the dove hunting season.

“Not sure you can air my thoughts,” Neilla Seaman, a spokeswoman for the group, quipped when asked by Radio Iowa for her reaction to Branstad’s decision. “I’m very disappointed that this is happening like this.”

Seaman said Branstad’s reasoning doesn’t make sense. “You know, he said it was up to the legislature to make the decision about how to proceed with this and when he didn’t like what the legislature did – which was the Senate did nothing – now he’s issued an executive order that rescinds the ban on lead ammunition for hunting mourning doves,” Seaman said.

Governor Branstad argues his veto of the Natural Resources Commission rule makes the Sierra Club’s lawsuit “moot.” Seaman says she’s consulting with a lawyer to determine what the Sierra Club’s next step will be.

H.R. 4089 Provides Fundraising Bonanza for Extremist Groups

From the U.S. Sportsmen ‘s Alliance:

Following in the footsteps of the nation ‘s most powerful anti-hunting organization, a quartet of environmental groups wasted no time firing off fundraising appeal to fight HR 4089. The bill, also called the Sportsmen ‘s Heritage Act of 2012, is the most significant pro-sportsmen legislation in 15 years. The funding requests are full of lies, mischaracterizations, and distortions.

Joining the Humane Society of the United States in this cynical attempt to cash in are the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, and the National Parks Conservation Association.

Opponents falsely claim that the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act will:

Allow motorized access, roads, logging, and oil / gas development in wilderness areas.

Prohibit the use of the National Environmental Policy Act in making hunting and fishing management decisions on public lands.

Mandate that hunting be allowed in National Parks. This could include hunting at historic battlefield, cemeteries, or other sensitive cultural sites.

Remove protection from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act for polar bears.

Allow unregulated hunting on federal public land.

Remove the authority of the U.S. EPA to regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle.

Bill Horn , federal affairs director for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), is one of the key contributors to the language in H.R. 4089. A former Assistant Secretary of Interior, Bill explains what is fiction and what is fact about the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012.

Fiction: “Provision undercuts the Wilderness Act: Section 104(e) should be called the ‘Motorize Our Wilderness Areas Provision’ because it could allow motorized access, road construction, and logging and energy development in  wilderness areas.” – The Wilderness Society.

Fact: H .R. 4089 does not open designated wilderness to road building, motorized access, or oil/gas industry development. In reality, Section 104(e)(l) states: “the provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational -shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on designated wilderness areas on federal public lands shall constitute measures necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the wilderness area.”

An additional subsequent clause in (e)(l) prescribes this language is “not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction or motorized recreational access or use.”

None of the language in this section would open designated wilderness areas to road building, motorized access, or oil/gas industry development. The “deem necessary” language was included to contravene three U.S. Court of Appeals rulings that ove1turned U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service determinations about the “necessity” of conservation activities and recreational access (via horseback) to satisfy the requirements of the Wilderness Act.

Section 104(e)(l) clarifies the interpretation of the Wilderness Act that the agencies had relied on for more than 30 years until the 9th Circuit stepped in. Just as was the case prior to these judicial actions, motorized access and road building would not be authorized in wilderness areas. The bill speaks of providing “oppo1tunities” for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and wildlife conservation, but does not reference ” motorized access opportunities” or “road access opportunities.” Land management agencies can satisfy the requirements of Section 104(e)( I) by making sure that traditional wilderness opportunities are available via access on foot or on horseback.

The allegations regarding section 104(e)(2) are even more off the mark. Please note that it merely reaffirms the ORIGINAL language in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Section 4(a) of the 1964 Act (16 USC 475; Pub.L. 88-577) provides the following: “The purposes of this Act (the Wilderness Act) are hereby determined to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park system and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered.” Pursuant to this 48-year old language – still in effect – wilderness areas are off limits to motorized vehicles, road construction, etc. However, the 9th Circuit (again) disregarded this language in a recent Arizona Refuge case holding that a wilderness area within a refuge unit had to be treated as a wilderness first and a refuge second; that elevated the plainly “supplemental” purposes of wilderness above the “primary” wildlife conservation purposes of refuges per the 1966 and 1997 Refuge Acts.

To correct the errant 9th Circuit, HR 4089 provides the following in 104(e)(2): “The term ‘within and supplemental to’ wilderness purposes in section (a) of Public Law 88-577, means that any requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented insofar as they do not prevent federal public land management officials and state fish and wildlife officials from carrying out their wildlife conservation responsibilities or providing recreational opportunities on the federal public lands subject to a wilderness designation.”

This provision is also subject to the clause about no commodity development, extraction or motorized use. The language is limited to wildlife conservation and hunting/fishing recreational opportunities – nothing in it provides any authorization for oil and gas, mining, grazing, road building, logging, or motorized access.

Claims to the contrary are just a willful misreading of the language.

Fiction: “Provision provides an exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Section 104(c)(l)(B) prohibits the use of NEPA in making hunting and fishing management decisions on our public lands and forests.” -The Wilderness Society.

Fact: Section 104(c)(l)(B) does not prohibit adequate NEPA review as wrongly alleged. Let me quote the provision itself: “No action taken under this title (i.e., to provide for fishing , hunting or recreational shooting) or section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 USC 668dd) , as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, either individually or cumulatively with other actions involving federal public lands, shall be considered to be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and no additional identification, analysis, or consideration of environmental effects, including cumulative effects, is necessary or required.”

Since HR 4089 establishes that BLM and Forest lands are “open until closed” to fishing and hunting, no agency “action” per se is needed to keep these federal public lands open to anglers and hunters . If there is no “action ,” there is no need to do an environmental impact statement (EIS). However, federal courts do not like implied amendments to NEPA (and the EIS requirement) so this provision makes it plain that when BLM or Forest Service comply with this bill to provide fishing/hunting/ shooting opportunities, no additional EIS or NEPA review is necessary. How this language could “actually result in less hunting opportunity” as some have stated is beyond me. That charge is just another specious red herring.

The Refuge Act references in section 104(c)(l)(B) are designed to correct another errant court ruling. The 1997 Refuge Act specified that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for each refuge unit and make the decisions within the CCP to provide for hunting and fishing (which are designated “priority public uses” in the 1997 Improvement Act). Each CCP is accompanied by an appropriate NEPA document – an EIS or an Environmental Assessment (EA). Anti-hunters filed suit against FWS arguing that a series of CCP/EIS decisions to allow hunting on 51 refuge units were illegal because FWS had failed to consider “cumulative effects.” FWS defended its action saying that as there were no on-the-ground connections and no cumulative effects associated with deer hunting on the Bond Swamp NWR in Georgia, bird hunting on the Canaan Valley NWR in West Virginia, duck hunting on refuges in North Dakota, or caribou hunting on refuges in Alaska, a “cumulative effects” analysis was unnecessary and superfluous.

The court ordered this analysis anyway, and FWS spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of staff time producing this superfluous (but legally necessary) analysis. HR 4089 reverses the court decision, re-establishes the intent of the 1997 Refuge Act, and spares FWS from having to do costly, time consuming, factually unnecessary cumulative effects analyses regarding its decisions to open refuge units to hunting and fishing.

Most in the sportsmen’s community would rather have FWS spend finite dollars and personnel resources on genuine conservation work rather than useless paperwork. And by eliminating the court-imposed requirement to engage in useless paperwork, it facilitates action by FWS to open more refuges to fishing and hunting.

Fiction: “H.R. 4089 mandates hunting on public lands including National Parks.” – Humane Society of the United States. HR 4089 “could allow hunting at historic battlefields, cemeteries, or other sensitive cultural sites” according to the National Parks Conservation Association – E&E Daily, April19, 2012.

HR 4089 ignores “the millions of families who visit, value, and love experiencing and learning about our heritage in our National Park System, but its odd treatment of many National Park Service areas is highly arbitrary and wholly inappropriate.” – Craig Obey, National Parks Conservation Association senior vice president of government affairs.

Fact: It is evident that this is just more misreading of the bill ‘s actual text and willful disregard of existing (unamended) statutory authority and 35-year-old case law regarding hunting on NPS units. HR 4089 does not mandate hunting on National Parks, period. Nowhere can that language be found in the bill. In fact, section 104(h) specifies that nothing in the bill “requires the opening of national park or national monuments under jurisdiction of the National Park Service to hunting or recreational shooting.”

First, almost all designated National Park and Monument units are statutorily closed to hunting or closed in the Presidential Proclamation that creates the unit (in the case of monuments). Second, at the other end of the spectrum are statutorily designated Preserves in which Congress mandated in law that hunting be allowed. Third, in the middle are an array of NPS units that are not parks, monuments, or preserves including lakeshores, seashores, battlefield parks, historic sites , recreation areas, national rivers, etc.

In many of these units, Congress was never expressly clear about whether or not hunting was authorized on such units . In the late 1970s/early 1980s disputes arose regarding hunting and trapping on some of these units including a couple of lakeshores and a national river. NPS initially adopted a policy that units were closed to these activities unless the law creating the specific unit expressly mandated or provided for hunting and trapping.

NRA challenged this policy in federal court and lost the case – the court determined that general NPS law (i .e ., the 1916 Organic Act) and Congressional silence provided adequate authority for NPS to adopt and enforce this policy. Immediately following this court ruling, NPS promulgated a regulation to this exact effect- 36CFR 2.2(b) – which remains in full force and effect. The regulation states “hunting may be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically authorized as a discretionary action under federal statutory law if the superintendent determines that such activity is consistent with public safety and enjoyment, and sound resource management p1inciples” (emphasis added).

Enter HR 4089. It provides as a general matter that on “federal public lands” – which include NPS units – the federal land managers “shall exercise their authority under existing law” to facilitate hunting (and shooting) “except as limited by (1) statutory authority that authorizes action or withholding action for reasons of national security, public safety, or resource conservation; … (3) discretionary limitations on recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting determined (by the land managing agency) to be necessary and reasonable …. “Section 104(a)(l), (3) .

In the case of NPS units , the early ’80s court decision (and the subsequent regulation) determined that NPS had “statutory authority” to withhold action (i.e., not act to open a unit to hunting) for reasons of public safety or resource conservation. HR 4089 does not change the law or the regulation or mandate NPS to take such action.

Fundamentally, the bill (and section 104) leaves intact established NPS discretion regarding these matters . The early 1980s court decision did not conclude that NPS was compelled or mandated to promulgate the rule at 36 CFR 2.2(b); the court held that the agency had the discretion to adopt the rule. NPS has the authority and discretion to revoke the 38-year-old rule, if it chooses, and adopt a different policy if it wants. NPCA (via the proposed Holt amendment) wanted to change this law and codify in statute the 36 CFR 2.2 rule. NPCA wanted to strip NPS of the retained discretion to change its mind regarding hunting on these non-park and non-monument units and is now declaiming that preservation of the legal status quo in HR 4089 constitutes some threat to these NPS units.

Bottom line, NPS could amend existing policy and regulations to allow hunting on a variety of its units. The agency has authority under existing law to do just that but has not taken such action for nearly four decades. HR 4089 does not change this law and emphatically does not mandate agency action to open these units – like Gettysburg or the Mall – to such activities. These charges are just one more red herring being peddled by HR 4089’s opponents.

Fiction: “H.R. 4089 puts polar bears at risk. It would undo protection for polar bears.” – Humane Society of the United States.

Fact: Title III in H.R. 4089 simply allows these 41 trophies to be brought into the United States. It does not re-open any additional polar bear importation. It does not remove current protections on polar bears. The 41 bears in question are already dead.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed polar bears as endangered in 2008 over the objections of the Canadian government, American sportsmen, and native tribes in the Arctic. Prior to the listing taking effect, 41 Americans legally took polar bears in Canada. The trophies have been marooned in Canada since.

Fiction: “H.R. 4089 mandates that federal agencies open nearly all federal public lands to hunting without regard to the impact on hunting and other resources.” – Humane Society of the United States.

Fact: Hunting seasons and bag limits on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands are set by the individual state wildlife agencies as part of their mission to manage wildlife.

H.R. 4089 does nothing to change that. The state’s authority to consider the impact of hunting is maintained entirely.

Fiction: “H.R. 4089 would strip the EPA of its ability to protect people, animals, and the environment from poisoning through toxic lead ammunition exposure.”- Humane Society of the United States.

Fiction: “H.R. would exempt toxic lead in ammunition and fishing equipment from regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act.”- Center for Biological Diversity Aprill7, 2012.

Fact: The Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) attack on HR 4089 continues a pattern of disinformation and misrepresentation about what the bill does and what existing law actually provides. In this case, CBD misrepresents Title IV of the bill, which confirms very recent EPA decisions about the agency’s lack of authority under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle.

Congress passed TSCA 36 years ago to regulate hazardous chemicals. The law specifically exempts ammunition from this regulatory scheme.

Disregarding this plain language, in 2007 environmentalists petitioned EPA to use TSCA to ban traditional ammunition that uses lead and fishing sinkers and lures using lead. On Aug. 27,2010, EPA rejected the petition concluding the law does not authorize EPA to regulate or ban lead in ammunition . EPA also declined to regulate fishing sinkers or lures.

In March 2012 activists led by CBD filed a new petition with the Obama EPA looking for a different answer on ammunition. But the law is the law and on April 9, 2012, EPA reached the same conclusion: the March petition “provides no new information that would lead EPA to consider the 2012 submission to be a new petition under Section 21 , nor does it include information not previously considered by EPA that would warrant reconsideration of EPA’s conclusion that it does not have authority under the TSCA to regulate shot and bullets.” The EPA release can be found at

Not willing to take “no” for an answer – twice – CBD filed suit against EPA arguing that TSCA does allow EPA to regulate and ban traditional ammunition.

Aware of this new suit, and not wanting some activist federal judge to overrule the EPA decisions handed down by two different Administrations, the House of Representatives included Title IV in HR 4089 confirming EPA’s reading of TSCA. CBD wants to change the 1976 law and opposes action by Congress to merely confirm what has been the basic understanding of TSCA for nearly 40 years.

The activist attack on fishing gear follows a similar pattern. As noted, EPA rejected in 2010 the first effort to regulate fishing tackle. CBD and company filed a new fishing tackle petition in November 2011. And EPA rejected it again in February 2012. Title IV of HR 4089 also confirms this action by the Obama EPA. Again, it is the activists seeking to change the law – HR 4089 maintains the TSCA as enacted in 1976 and continues to bar EPA from expanding its reach to regulate fishing tackle.

UA Contributor Exhibits at the Wildlife Experience

Eldridge Hardie Art of a Life in Sport, a one-man exhibit of more than thirty original oil, watercolors, and drawings covering four decades of this preeminent sporting artist’s work is currently being displayed at The Wildlife Experience in Parker, Colo., a short drive from downtown Denver. The exhibit runs to Sept. 3. Hardie has long been well known to collectors of fine sporting art for his authentic portrayals of angling and hunting experiences. In 2011, he was the featured artist at the Southeastern Wildlife Exposition in Charleston, SC.

He was also honored with the first ever retrospective exhibit at The National Bird Dog Museum. He has exhibited at the Prix de West Invitational at the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum, Artists of America, Great American Artists, The National Museum of Wildlife Art, and the American Museum of Flyfishing. The Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame has named him a Legendary Artist. In addition to regularly providing artwork for covers of The Upland Almanac, Hardie has published his art in other magazines and has illustrated more 25 spotting books.

This is a unique opportunity to see paintings from the artist’s and other private collections as well as his workbooks and other artifacts of his long career. The Wildlife Experience hosts many outstanding traveling exhibits such as Birds in Art, The Society of Animal Artists, and Art of the Dive , and has an impressive permanent collection of major wildlife rut. It inspires an appreciation and respect for wildlife and the outdoors through adventure, experiences, and education. A unique blend of fine art, interactive exhibits, 1mge format film, natural history, and community educational programs provides The Wildlife Experience the opportunity to present information on the world’s wildlife and ecosystems that encourages discovery and understanding through fun and entertainment. For more information call 720-488-3300 or visit

Collegiate Sport Shooting Grows in Leaps and Bounds

A record 61 colleges and university competed at the ACUI Intercollegiate Clay Target Championships held in late March 2012 in San Antonio, Texas. The event has received a tremendous amount of support from the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Collegiate Shooting Sports Initiative. Shooters competed across six different events, which included American Skeet and Trap, International Skeet and Trap, Five Stand, and Sporting Clays. For the second year, Missouri’s Lindenwood University took high overall team in Division I. And while the overwhelming number of student shooters came from schools located in hunting and shooting hotspots like the South and the Midwest, some surprises did exist. Two Ivy League colleges, Harvard and Yale, fielded teams, as did the University of Vermont and Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

This article originally appeared in the Autumn 2012 Flushes & Noteworthy Points column of The Upland Almanac.