I got a news release today from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation saying that wildlife officials in Virginia have  decided to move forward with elk restoration. Plans call for up to 75 elk from Kentucky to be released in Virginia this spring. The move will provide instant opportunities for elk viewing, and the hope is that elk numbers will expand enough to allow limited hunting within four or five years. You can read the full release below.

I have to admit I am a bit of a romantic when it comes to elk restoration. Two years ago, I was extremely fortunate to draw a cow elk tag in Kentucky and enjoyed a tremendous week of hunting down there that included plenty of elk sightings and the taking of a mature cow. The Kentucky elk range is stunning, and the success of their restoration effort there is nothing short of amazing. From roughly 1,000 Rocky Mountain Elk that were trapped out West and transferred to the Bluegrass State, Kentucky now boasts a wild, free-roaming elk herd in excess of 10,000 animals. Roughly 1,000 hunting permits are issued each year.

Although the plans in Virginia don’t call for a restoration area or elk herd as large as Kentucky’s, it’s still an exciting development and a victory for wildlife and the dedicated sportsmen whose conservation-minded efforts are paying real dividends. I may never be lucky enough to draw a Virginia elk tag in my lifetime, but that won’t stop me from relishing the fact that the animals are there and that the echoing bugles of rutting bulls can once again be heard in yet another portion of their historic Appalachian range.

BOWHUNTING Editor Christian Berg killed this cow elk in Kentucky in 2010.

Here’s the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation release:

Virginia Officials Confirm Elk Restoration to Begin Soon
MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has been officially notified that elk restoration efforts in Virginia will begin this spring.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries officials confirmed the news to RMEF, the project’s leading financial contributor with a pledge of $300,000. RMEF leaders say they will now step up local fundraising efforts to ensure the project, once started, continues to move forward and remains on schedule.
RMEF has received numerous donations for the project, including several large gifts from Virginia donors. Still, about half of the pledged amount needs to be raised.
Plans call for relocating up to 75 elk from Kentucky to Buchanan County, Va., with an elk management area to include Dickenson and Wise counties. Biologists are hoping for a sustainable elk population that will offer recreational opportunities such as elk viewing in the short term and a limited hunting season within four or five years.
David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, said, “Elk have been trapped and are now being held in Kentucky for a required quarantine period. The animals will be monitored and tested repeatedly to assure good health. Later, they will be moved to southwest Virginia and held for a second period to allow them to adapt to their new surroundings, and then released in May.”
“We are excited about bringing elk home to Virginia,” said Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Director Bob Duncan. “And we’re excited about the opportunity to partner with RMEF—a leader in wildlife habitat conservation. RMEF’s support of our agency and our elk restoration project, not only monetarily but through technical assistance and support from RMEF members and chapters throughout Virginia, has been overwhelming. This partnership is beneficial not only to the restoration of elk in southwest Virginia but also to other wildlife species and programs in the area.”
RMEF invested more than $28,000 in 1996 for an initial elk restoration feasibility study in Virginia. Wildlife agency commissioners in 2010 voted unanimously to move forward with the project.
Kentucky’s elk herd, the largest herd east of the Rockies, was restored with financial and technical support from RMEF in the 1990s. That herd now numbers more than 10,000 animals, is a major tourism draw, offers ever-increasing hunting opportunities and is now serving as a source herd for restoration efforts in other states.
To be a part of this historic conservation effort in Virginia, join and support RMEF. Visit www.rmef.org and click “Attend an Event” to find fundraisers planned across the state. For additional information, call 800-CALL ELK or contact Chris Croy, RMEF regional director for Virginia, at 704-551-6223 or ccroy@rmef.org.

Most contemporary bowhunters shoot arrows that are relatively light by traditional archery standards. And the broadheads we use are far different than the one-piece, cut-on-contact designs favored by those who wield longbows and recurves. Now, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with what most of us (including myself) shoot. Hey, we’re killing plenty of critters with it, right? BUT, I’m willing to bet that many of today’s bowhunters don’t truly realize just how devastating a really heavy arrow in tandem with a single-bevel broadhead can be.

In this video, Ed Schlief demonstrates the devastating penetration power of Alaska Bowhunting Supply’s GrizzlyStik arrows in tandem with a single-bevel, cut-on-contact broadhead. Make careful note of the specs listed on the screen before these shots. Most of these arrows have finished weights in the 600-900-grain range. That’s like twice the weight of the arrows most bowhunters are using! While I realize the speed of these arrows is probably nothing compared to what you’re shooting, take a look at what they are doing to these bones and ask yourself if speed is really all it’s cracked up to be.

Recent license sales gains in states such as Pennsylvania indicate that hunting's demise may not be as imminent as some predicted.

Lots of people like to talk about how hunting is a dying sport. But after looking at the most recent hunting license sales report here in my home state of Pennsylvania, I ain’t buying it!

If you look at the report (Pennsylvania Hunting License Sales), you’ll see that as of the end of December, the Pennsylvania Game Commission had sold 923,795 hunting licenses. That’s 2,840 more licenses than they sold during the same period in 2010 – an increase of about 0.3 percent. Now, I’ll grant you that isn’t much of an increase, but it’s DEFINITELY not a precipitous decline. And when you look at the bowhunting numbers, things are even more rosy. According to the report, archery license sales for the period were up 2.9 percent to 297,462; no doubt due in part to the growing number of crossbow hunters taking to the field.

I realize that sales figures from one state don’t constitute a national trend. However, there is no denying that Pennsylvania is a bellwether state when it comes to hunting. Along with a handful of other states such as Texas, Michigan and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania plays a foundational role in America’s sporting community. And with nearly 1 million licensed hunters – and nearly 300,000 bowhunters – I can tell you this sport isn’t dying anytime soon.

I also find the numbers compelling when you consider the widespread dissatisfaction that exists over the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s deer-management strategy. There is no doubt that policies adopted by the agency have resulted in lower deer numbers across many areas of this state over the past decade. As a result, many hunters report seeing fewer deer, and many have predicted this unrest would lead to a precipitous decline in hunter numbers. But despite plenty of rancor, it looks like plenty of hunters are sticking it out.

Anecdotally, I don’t see a lot of gloom and doom out there either. I am friends with the owners of the two largest archery pro shops in my area and both report strong sales in 2011, both in terms of compound bows and crossbows, which continue to explode in popularity. I’m sure the difficult economy has forced many sportsmen to delay big-ticket purchases, but apparently there are still enough passionate hunters out there to keep the cash registers ringing.

I realize the long-term trend in hunter numbers shows a slow, steady decline. I realize the hunting population as a whole is aging and we aren’t necessarily bringing enough new hunters into the sport to replace all the old-timers who are dropping out. I realize the number of hunters as a percentage of the total population isn’t as great as it once was. I realize we face challenges in the form of a society that is increasingly disconnected from nature. But all that being said, I’m still not ready to put the nails in hunting’s coffin.

In fact, I feel pretty confident I’ll be bowhunting with my grandchildren someday. What say you?

There are a lot of mineral products out there, but one of the easiest to use is the new Mineral Mizer Bag. Unlike most minerals, which are poured onto the ground, the Mineral Mizer Bag is a product you hang from a tree. The porous bag uses moisture in the air to slowly drip a steady supply of minerals onto the ground. This design maximizes the use of your minerals and lasts up to a year, reducing the number of times you have to visit the area to refresh the mineral supply. That, in turn, helps reduce the amount of human disturbance in your hunting area.

The newly redesigned Mineral Mizer Bag is $20.99 and is available in apple, acorn, persimmon and Bad Boarz flavors. Six-pound mineral refills for the bag are available for $12.99. For more information, or to order your Mineral Mizer Bag, visit www.mineralmizer.com.

A friend of mine had this photo posted on Facebook. Not sure where it’s from, but that’s got to be a one in a million collision right there. Ouch!

I wonder if the truck driver had turkey dinner that night…

Bowhunter Will Rives took this net 172 4/8 whitetail in December 2010 in Jefferson County, Miss. It is the current Mississippi archery typical record and the first-ever net Boone and Crockett buck to be taken by a Magnolia State bowhunter.

It’s no secret that the number of truly huge whitetails being taken by hunters is on the increase, but the latest numbers released today by the Boone and Crockett Club are absolutely astounding! According to the Club, the number of trophy whitetails entered in their record book has jumped 400 percent over the past 30 years.

“It’s worth remembering where America’s favorite big-game species stood not so long ago — at the brink of extinction,” said Ben Wallace, Club president. “In 1900, less than 500,000 whitetails remained. But habitat programs, research, science-based management, regulations and enforcement, all led and funded by hunters, brought this game animal back to extraordinary levels. Today there are more than 32 million whitetails!”

The Boone and Crockett system of scoring big-game trophies originated in 1906 as a means of recording details on species thought to be disappearing. Over time, these records evolved as an effective way to track the success or failure of conservation efforts.

As North America’s whitetail herd has grown, numbers of big bucks also have risen. For the period 1980-1985, hunters entered 617 trophy whitetails into Boone and Crockett records. For the period 2005-2010, the total jumped to 3,090, an increase of 400 percent.

During this 30-year span, many states and provinces saw percentage gains much greater than the continental average (see data below). For example, trophy whitetail entries from Wisconsin have risen 857 percent. In Illinois, the increase is 896 percent. Ontario went from a single entry to a whopping 41 — a 4,000 percent gain!

Six states and provinces had zero entries in 1980-1985. For 2005-2010, they combined for 48. See the list below to find out how your state or province ranked:

B&C Trophy Whitetail Production, 2005-2010, plus comparative data from 1980-1985.
(Typical and non-typical trophies combined)

1. Wisconsin, 383 entries (1980-1985 rank 3rd, 40 entries)
2. Illinois, 299 entries (1980-1985 rank 6th, 30 entries)
3. Iowa, 224 entries (1980-1985 rank 2nd, 59 entries)
4. Ohio, 215 entries (1980-1985 rank 14th, 16 entries)
5. Missouri, 214 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
6. Kentucky, 199 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
7. Indiana, 195 entries (1980-1985 rank 16th, 14 entries)
8. Kansas, 181 entries (1980-1985 rank 4th, 35 entries)
9. Minnesota, 172 entries (1980-1985 rank 1st, 76 entries)
10. Saskatchewan, 147 entries (1980-1985 rank 7th (tie), 27 entries)
11. Texas, 132 entries (1980-1985 rank 12th, 19 entries)
12. Alberta, 115 entries (1980-1985 rank 7th (tie), 27 entries)
13. Nebraska, 78 entries (1980-1985 rank 18th (tie), 12 entries)
14. Oklahoma, 48 entries (1980-1985 rank 22nd (tie), 7 entries)
15. Ontario, 41 entries (1980-1985 rank 42nd (tie), 1 entry)
16. Arkansas, 40 entries (1980-1985 rank 34th (tie), 3 entries)
17 (tie). Michigan, 39 entries (1980-1985 rank 17th, 13 entries)
17 (tie). Mississippi, 39 entries (1980-1985 rank 18th, 12 entries)
19. North Dakota, 31 entries (1980-1985 rank 31st (tie), 4 entries)
20. Pennsylvania, 26 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
21. New York, 25 entries (1980-1985 rank 28th (tie), 5 entries)
22. South Dakota, 24 entries (1980-1985 rank 20th (tie), 8 entries)
23 (tie). Georgia, 23 entries (1980-1985 rank 5th, 31 entries)
23 (tie). Maryland, 23 entries (1980-1985 rank 28th (tie), 5 entries)
25 (tie). British Columbia, 19 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
25 (tie). Maine, 19 entries (1980-1985 rank 11th, 20 entries)
27. Virginia, 17 entries (1980-1985 rank 22nd (tie), 7 entries)
28. Tennessee, 15 entries (1980-1985 rank 20th, 8 entries)
29. Colorado, 13 entries (1980-1985 rank 42nd (tie), 1 entry)
30. Idaho, 11 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
31 (tie). Massachusetts, 8 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
31 (tie). Quebec, 8 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
33. Delaware, 7 entries (1980-1985 rank 42nd (tie), 1 entry)
34 (tie). Louisiana, 6 entries (1980-1985 rank 28th (tie), 5 entries)
34 (tie). Manitoba, 6 entries (1980-1985 rank 15th, 15 entries)
34 (tie). Washington, 6 entries (1980-1985 rank 31st (tie), 4 entries)
37 (tie). Montana, 5 entries (1980-1985 rank 13th, 17 entries)
37 (tie). Alabama, 5 entries (1980-1985 rank 34th (tie), 3 entries)
37 (tie). North Carolina, 5 entries (1980-1985 34th (tie), 3 entries)
40 (tie). Connecticut, 4 entries (1980-1985 rank 38th (tie), 2 entries)
40 (tie). New Hampshire, 4 entries (1980-1985 rank 38th (tie), 2 entries)
42 (tie). New Jersey, 3 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
42 (tie). New Brunswick, 3 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
42 (tie). West Virginia, 3 entries (1980-1985 rank 34th (tie), 3 entries)
45 (tie). Mexico, 2 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
45 (tie). Wyoming, 2 entries (1980-1985 rank 38th (tie), 2 entries)
45 (tie). South Carolina, 2 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
45 (tie). Nova Scotia, 2 entries (1980-1985 rank 31st (tie), 4 entries)
49 (tie). Oregon, 1 entry (1980-1985 rank 38th (tie), 2 entries)
49 (tie). Rhode Island, 1 entry (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)

Boone and Crockett offers two premier ways to trace and detail historic conservation developments, not just with whitetails but many other species as well.

A book, “Records of North American Big Game,” offers detailed tabular listings for trophies in 38 different categories of game. Each entry includes the all-time entry score, date harvested, location of kill, hunter and owner names, and selected measurements. At 768 pages, the book retails for $49.95.

A searchable online database, called “Trophy Search,” is another exceptional resource. By buying an annual subscription, users can sort B&C archival data in infinite ways to identify national as well as local trends. An annual subscription is $50.

I need to tell you right up front I’m not a tree hugger. I don’t drink raw milk, buy groceries at the organic health-food store or drive a hybrid. But like pretty much all the red-blooded American sportsmen I know, I consider myself a conservation-minded person who cares about the health of the environment. We in the hunting community talk a lot about preserving the future of our sport, which involves everything from introducing the next generation to making sure quality habitat is protected from threats such as suburban sprawl and energy development. But when it comes to the topic of food plots, I sometimes wonder whether we’ve lost our way when it comes to the conservation ethic and sustainability.

Before I go any farther, I want to again remind you that I am hardly on the radical environmental fringe. And I ENJOY hunting over a good food plot as much as anyone. Heck, I travel to Illinois for a prime rut hunt every November, and part of my enthusiasm for that hunt is tied to the fact that I know the landowner does a great job with his food plots, which help hold plenty of deer on the property. That said, I really can’t think of a single person who I know personally that manages a successful food plot WITHOUT the use of various chemicals, particularly when it comes to controlling weeds in the plots.

What really got me thinking about this again today was an article I read online about a recent study conducted by a university over in Germany. You can read the article HERE, but in summary, what the article basically found is that residue from glycophospate (Roundup weed killer) is basically ubiquitous in the environment and concentrations of it can be found in just about everyone’s urine. Depending on the person, those concentrations can range from low to many, many times those considered safe in drinking water. And while I don’t claim to be an expert on environmental health and safety, all you have to do is a quick Google search to unearth a plethora of evidence that links high exposure to Roundup to such fun things as cancer, infertility, birth defects, obesity and mental illness. And I don’t mean to just pick on Monsanto (the company that makes Roundup). There are plenty of other chemicals commonly used on food plots, and I wouldn’t volunteer to drink a glass of any of them.

There’s no doubt that using chemicals greatly enhances food plot performance. Trust me, I’ve seen some awesome managed properties and enjoyed some great hunts on them. If you have the time, equipment and money to afford it, you can create food plots that are as well manicured as a golf course (another industry that goes heavy on the chemicals), and you WILL have deer eating them. But I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a better way. Is there an organic food plot movement within the hunting community? If so, I haven’t heard of it, but I’m willing to bet there are at least a few people out there trying to do without chemicals. My guess is it’s not nearly as easy.

Of course, sitting here behind my desk at the magazine office, it’s easy for me to point the finger at property managers. The truth is, I’ve never had the luxury of owning my own hunting land, so I don’t have to worry about how to control the weeds in my clover plot. However, I’d like to think that if I did own a couple hundred acres of dirt, I’d be concerned about the possible long-term impacts of dumping tons and tons of chemicals onto my ground over a period of decades.

Granted, the use of agricultural chemicals for food plot use is barely a ripple in the water when compared to amount of chemicals used in commercial farming operations. I don’t have any statistics, but I feel confident saying food plotters represent only a small fraction of 1 percent of chemical use. On the other hand, we sportsmen are often quick to hold ourselves up as “leaders in conservation” and “stewards of the environment.” That being the case, I wonder if a little more self reflection isn’t in order when it comes to the way we manage our own hunting properties.

So, what do you think? Am I crazy? Unrealistic? Spot on the money? Please share your thoughts and give it to me straight. I think it will be a very interesting discussion.