Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Bear Spray Versus Bullets

It appears that the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have jumped onto a bandwagon suggesting that everyone, including hunters, carry and use bear pepper spray, for protection while in the woods. As a matter of fact, Idaho’s fish and game departments, along with the support of the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council, are promoting it. To the right is an ad that appeared in the Idaho Falls Post Register a few days ago. Read more

Take A Kid Hunting

By Robert Lane

Bob Lane is a Licensed Master Maine Guide and photographer. He has also guided Caribou Hunters and Fishermen on float trips in Southwest Alaska.

Deer season in Maine is a longstanding tradition marked by cold, frosty mornings, treks through the pre-dawn darkness to a coveted tree stand, a swamp’s edge, or a favorite stand of hardwoods in quest of the elusive whitetail. Lifelong friends share the camaraderie of hunting camp with stories of seasons past, traditional, hearty early morning breakfasts with strong coffee, and enough fat and cholesterol to fuel a skidder. Read more

Continuing Misinformation About Declining Hunter Numbers

By Tom Remington

Back in June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released preliminary data from their 2006 survey of hunting and fishing. Topping the headline was a statement that the number of hunting and fishing licenses bought in 2006 had dropped significantly. While that statement could be true it’s not accurate nor is it a reasonable conclusion to make based on the data collected, yet media outlets continue to tell the story that the number of hunters is shrinking. Read more

Kenton Carnegie Killed By Wolves

Nearly one year ago, I reported that a 22-year old college student, Kenton Joel Carnegie, was attacked and killed by wolves in a remote area of Northern Saskatchewan, Canada.

It has taken all this time for autopsy results and testimony from assorted experts but finally a six-person jury has agreed that Carnegie’s death was that of at least two wolves.

Paul Paquet of the University of Calgary has stated that he believes the death is consistent with that of a black bear. Recently retired wolf biologist Mark McNay from Fairbanks, Alaska was called to testify. His testimony states that he is certain Carnegie died from a wolf attack. A jury agreed with McNay.

This now marks the first official case of a human death as the result of being attacked by wild wolves in North America.

Tom Remington

Save A Grizzly. Kill A Few Thousand Humans

The world has gone insane and thousands of Americans are leading the charge! There once was a day in my life when I believed that most Americans had a brain. I have since come to the realization that few do and haven’t even the slightest inkling on how to get off their backsides and learn something for a change instead of listening to the nightly news broadcasts and believing whatever it is they hear. It’s a shame and it’s destroying our country!

With that said – and I thought I might feel better about things but I doesn’t – here we go again. Another person claiming to be knowledgeable about hunting and grizzly bears tells the world how it is. An editorial appeared in yesterday’s Idaho Statesman from a woman who claims to want to save grizzly bears by banning black bear hunting and the methods used for such.

Christine Gertschen is responding to the fact that a Tennessee bear hunter screwed up and didn’t properly identify his target before pulling the trigger. He shot a grizzly bear thinking it was a black bear. While he is ultimately responsible for what he shoots at, in fairness we should point out that no grizzly bears had been seen in that part of Idaho in 61 years. Here is some of her lament.

Without guidance from the outfitter who accepted his money for this privilege, he probably did not know that this was indeed a rare bear.

To be totally forthcoming here, the hunter accused was hunting over bait, a legal practice in Idaho and other states. It is unfortunate that in one’s quest to discredit all hunters and guides and the long-time practice of hunting that has served our society well for many generations, she has to begin by generalizing and misleading readers. She claims the hunter lacked guidance from his outfitter. She does not know that. She assumes that because the guide wasn’t sitting in the hunter’s back pocket that he wasn’t under his guidance. Is it Idaho law that requires a guide to be with a client 100% of the time? She also brings money into the picture which is just another blatant attempt at smearing the guiding industry as though somehow this hunter was paying dirty money to do something that was illegal.

Then she does two things. She attempts to convey to readers that the hunter is stupid and then lies by stating that the grizzly bear is a “rare” bear. She doesn’t know this hunter from Tennessee. How in the world can she honestly claim that he, “probably did not know that this was indeed a rare bear”?

The only thing rare about this event was the fact that a grizzly bear was where one hadn’t been for over 60 years. This doesn’t change the facts of what happened but for this editorial to claim a grizzly bear is a rare bear is a lie. Alaska and much of the Canadian Rockies area have more grizzly bears than we humans know.

Gertschen obviously has issues with bear baiting and that’s her right to express her opposition to it. By not having any science or just plain facts to support any of her claims though, she resorts to emotionalism with a effort to win over her audience by crying a river.

This grizzly bear had managed to avoid humans for several years in the wilderness but drought conditions and impending hibernation drove him to the bait. This is a sad waste of a magnificent creature. If we do not act to protect grizzlies, it will not be long before the few small grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 begin to blink out.

Are we to assume from this rant that if the bear had never come in contact with any human, it would be alive today? If that is the case, then perhaps the writer should pack her bags and get out of Dodge on the first train. She is living in grizzly bear country and if she wants to save another grizzly from sure demise, then moving is the best thing for the poor bears.

All animals are a magnificent creature and there will always be circumstances beyond human control that will result in the death of some of these animals. Our fish and game departments, through billions of dollars generated from the sales of licenses, have provided all Americans the opportunity to appreciate the wild animals.

To perpetuate the lie that if we don’t do something to protect the grizzly in the lower 48 states they’ll all be gone is absolutely ludicrous. The writer chooses to describe them as “the few small grizzly bear populations”. There is absolutely no danger of the grizzly bear disappearing from areas in the lower 48 states. A testament to that is the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just removed the grizzly in parts of the Yellowstone National Park area from the Endangered list.

What is laughable is the writer’s attempt to convince us that bear baiting is causing bears to become habituated to humans and thusly the result of the ultimate death of the bear. If one is to blindly accuse bear hunters of habituating bears to humans then they cannot overlook the fact that residents who refuse to bring in bird feeders, pick up and care for their trash, etc. are the cause of far more bear killings than a handful of hunters. So let’s get rid of a few thousand humans and let the bears rule.

Scientists have learned from many years of study that fragmented populations of rare animals lead to what is called the extinction vortex. Respected conservation biologists recommend a system of core reserves and travel corridors designed to prevent fragmentation. While a roadless corridor can go a long way to allowing bears and other rare wildlife to move between populations, if every bear that leaves a protected area or park falls victim to bear baiting, we can never expect to leave a sustainable population of grizzly bears for the generations to come.

It now becomes clear that Gerschen is a sponsor of wilderness management of wildlife. Perhaps in the circles she travels, her peers believe that total wilderness with no wildlife management is the best way to save bears. Far more scientists don’t buy that philosophy at all. The reason we are saving species today and wildlife populations are overabundant in many places isn’t because of the creation of more wilderness areas.

It’s a joke really when the writer says that every time a grizzly bear leaves a protected area – aren’t all grizzlies protected everywhere in the lower 48? – it will fall victim to a hunter. Has the writer forgotten that grizzly bears are not hunted in the lower U.S.? Is she implying that all hunters and going to shoot and kill every bear that comes to visit a bait pile? One hunter made a mistake. That is unfortunate. Thousands of residents in bear country make mistakes everyday that result in the death of a grizzly. Are we now to assume that all people are out to get bears killed?

As the grizzly expands its habitat, it will continue to create more and more bear/human encounters. Through education programs we will teach out hunters about better tactics for game identification and we will continue to teach residents how to live in bear country. For me, I’ll put my money on having far better success in the education process of hunters than the general public. With that said then, if Ms. Gertschen wants to save a bear, she and a few thousand other humans should move to the city and stop being a hypocrite. Blaming bear hunters for the deaths of grizzly bears is inaccurate and only displays one’s ignorance of the facts.

Accidental death of a grizzly by hunter = 1. Deaths of grizzlies from backyard dumpster diving = 100s. So, who should we be attacking?

Tom Remington

The Powers Not Delegated To The United States By The Constitution……

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the sovereignty of each of the 50 states. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” For me this is the real issue behind Alaska’s wolf management program.

United States Rep. George Miller of California has drafted a bill he chooses to call, “Protect America’s Wildlife Act of 2007″ or more accurately named HR3663 (pdf). His bill intends to amend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to put further restrictions on shooting wildlife from aircraft, essentially. The bill is an attempt to meddle into Alaska’s affairs by the U.S. Congress and violate the sovereignty of the state of Alaska.

It would prohibit anyone from shooting any wildlife from an aircraft or from landing an aircraft and shooting any animals. It increases fines for violations and attempts to force Alaska to rewrite its own constitution. The bill reads that, “a state cannot authorize or undertake any action otherwise prohibited under this Act, for the purpose of increasing any game population or for the purpose of sport hunting”. The problem with this amendment, whose intention is to force Alaska to abandon its wolf management plan, is contrary to the Alaska constitution, which states that, “Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.”

The state of Alaska is required by law under its own constitution to manage its wildlife for sustainable yield. When the state has determined that the sustainable yield of moose and caribou in any region is in jeopardy, law requires them to do something about it.

The federal Airborne Hunting Act prohibits the shooting of any wildlife from an aircraft, with exceptions.

These prohibitions do not apply to state or federal employees, authorized agents, or persons acting under a license or permit, who are authorized to administer or protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops.

This essentially is the basis of which the Alaska Fish and Game conducts its wolf management plan, which at times has included shooting of wildlife from aircraft.

The fact that Rep. George Miller has decided to sponsor a bill, HR3663, is troubling in many ways. This bill, if passed would set an extremely dangerous precedence. It infringes on the sovereignty of each state to manage its own wildlife in the manner that has been done for centuries. Perhaps Rep. Miller doesn’t think shooting a wolf from an aircraft is an ethical thing to do. That is his freedom to express that as many Americans have done. I know very few people who think sport hunting from an aircraft is acceptable.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin put it as clearly as anyone could in a letter (pdf) written to Rep. Miller dated September 27, 2007.

On behalf of the state of Alaska I am writing to express my displeasure with your introduction of a bill that proposes to end what you refer to as “airborne hunting” of wolves and bears in Alaska. You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game as food to the people of this state. You displayed a shocking lack of understanding of wildlife management in the North and the true structure and function of Alaska’s predator control programs. You have threatened the very foundations of federalism and the states’ abilities to manage their own affairs as they see fit.

Gov. Palin went on to explain in her letter to Rep. Miller that she was “dismayed” that he never contacted anyone in the state of Alaska before announcing his proposed bill. She also chastised him for inaccuracies in the text of the bill and his oral statements to the media.

I am especially concerned your draft bill threatens the constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty not just of the state of Alaska, but all states. Under our system of federalism, fish and game management is generally conducted by the states, not the federal government. Courts have repeatedly recognized wildlife management as one of the aspects of traditional state sovereignty reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Gov. Palin refutes the notion that the use of aircraft in reducing wolf populations is only to benefit licensed hunters.

Our science-based program is designed to reduce the effect of predators in given areas with the intent to allow a higher harvest of moose and caribou by humans for food. By thinning the numbers of predators in selected areas, we are enabling more Alaskans to hunt moose and caribou and put food in their freezers. Each program is specifically designed, carefully considered and closely monitored. We do not undertake predator control lightly.

Many who oppose the use of aerial wolf management say it is an unethical means of hunting but Governor Palin is quick to point out that this part of their wolf management program is not hunting and that “fair chase ethics do not apply”. The position of the Alaska Fish and Game, with the support of the governor, believe this tactic in the management plan is necessary.

In a press release issue by the governor’s office on September 26, 2007, Governor Palin is quoted as saying, “It appears to me that the Congressman (referring to Rep. George Miller) has been inadvertently drawn into service as a fundraiser for national animal rights organizations that commonly spread inaccurate information about Alaska’s game management programs, and with which we are in court on these issues right now.”

Alaska’s representative to Congress Don Young, Ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Natural Resources stands boldly against Rep. Miller’s bill. In an attempt to thwart off the bill before it even sees the House floor, Young sent a letter to Nick Rahall, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, calling Miller’s bill, “ill-conceived, misguided, unnecessary and highly discriminatory”.

In his letter, Rep. Young explains once again the history of state’s sovereignty and “primacy over all wildlife within their borders”. He urges Mr. Rahall not to even bring the bill up for discussion.

In furthering his campaign against HR3663, Rep. Young circulates a letter (pdf) to colleagues, complete with graphic pictures urging members of the house to oppose Miller’s bill.

Dear Colleague,

I strongly urge you to oppose George Miller’s recently introduced H.R. 3663, the so-called “Protect America’s Wildlife Act.” This egregious legislation not only violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it is being offered by a Member who has little understanding of Alaska and Alaskan wildlife management issues, and apparently zero concern for the fact that his legislation will take food out of the mouths of thousands of Alaskans.

Rep. Miller’s bill would eliminate Alaska’s predator control program which ensures the security of the food sources on which Native and rural Alaskans have survived for hundreds of years. An overabundance of predatory Arctic Grey Wolves threatens these Alaskans’ food supply, and the state’s science and abundance-based program ensures their food security, while maintaining a healthy, viable, and reproductive population of wolves.

This is not “hunting.” It is necessary predator control.

Rep. Young asserts that Rep. Miller teamed up with Defenders of Wildlife and others to draft HR3663.

Unfortunately, Rep. Miller, the Defenders of Wildlife, and other radical animal rights groups who wrote H.R. 3663 ignore these facts, place wildlife ahead of the needs of real human beings, and would like you to do the same. They would like you to believe their legislation will “save the wolves” and end “inhumane hunting.” They will issue emotional press releases and inundate unsuspecting Americans with misinformation, pictures of wolf puppies, and requests to donate money.

This cynical, disingenuous campaign will likely generate thousands of dollars in donations, but should Rep. Miller’s bill become law, it will take food out of the mouths of my constituents and their children.

In nothing more than from the perspective of an American who believes in and understands the U.S. Constitution, we have to realize that Rep. Miller’s bill is over the top. It doesn’t matter whether you or I think that using aircraft to manage a handful of wolves is right or wrong. What’s wrong is that a U.S. congressman wants to mow down the Tenth Amendment and begin letting big government dictate to Alaska and every other state, how to run their wildlife programs.

This is an issue to be decided in Alaska by the Alaska people not by a congressman in California. It is unfortunate that Alaska has had to spend countless dollars fighting lawsuits from radical animal rights groups who put the welfare of wolves ahead of humans.

I don’t fully understand the entirety of the Alaska wolf management program but I have faith that the governor, the fish and game and the citizens can resolve those issues without the federal government’s intrusion. I can also understand the frustration of some over the past history of ballot initiatives and legislative wrangling over wolf management within the last 10 years or so.

For those who don’t know, in 1996 “Proposition 3″, a citizen’s initiative to ban same-day airborne hunting, passed garnering 58.5% of the vote. In this initiative, it included a “biological emergency” clause that basically said that it had to be determined that an emergency had to be in existence before aircraft could be used to save a species.

In 1999, Senate Bill 74 was enacted that removed the “biological emergency” clause.

In 2000, Senate Bill 267 passed the Alaska Congress. This bill essentially repealed Proposition 3. Then Governor Tony Knowles vetoed the bill. The legislature overturned Knowles’ veto. Later that same year, Alaskans for Wildlife filed for another referendum in opposition to SB 267. Ballot Measure 6 passed by 53% to 47%.

Then in 2003, Senate Bill 155 is passed and signed into law by Governor Frank Murkowski. This bill reinstates the use of aircraft in wolf management. Since the inception of SB 155, the Board of Game has adopted wolf programs and Management Units to better pinpoint problem areas.

With this history, it is clear that there would be frustration on the part of citizens and voters. This is no reason to abandon the U.S. Constitution in order to push through agendas. The feds need to stay out of this and allow Alaska to resolve its problems. The Fish and Game department strongly believes in the need for this kind of aerial wolf control and have successfully convinced the Legislature and governor of its importance. It seems that, at least in previous years, fish and game and the legislature has failed to convince the people.

Alaska is a vast state with an abundance of wildlife and there needs to be a good campaign and public relations to all citizens about the wildlife management programs and the importance of everything they do. We will never stop the onslaught of lawsuits from extreme radical animal rights groups but when these groups see that the people of a state are united in their cause, they back off.

I’ll keep you informed as to what happens to HR3663. Hopefully our elected officials will also agree that our Tenth Amendment is much more important than sticking our noses into Alaska’s business.

Tom Remington

Alaska Governor Fires Back At Rep. Miller On Aerial Wolf Management Practice

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin decided not to sit quietly by while California Congressman George Miller, filed a bill to stop the use of aerial wolf management practices. According to KTUU News, Palin told Miller to stop listening to the lies of the special interests.

In her letter sent Thursday, Palin accuses Miller of not doing his homework about Alaska’s predator control program. The letter urges Miller, “…not to swallow the rhetoric of special interest advocacy groups trying to raise money for their inaccurate campaigns.”

Palin went on to explain the state’s efforts to control wolf populations.

“Scientifically based predator control programs will continue in Alaska because we want to increase moose and caribou populations, especially for those rural Alaskans who are so reliant on that game to fill their freezers and feed their families,”

Miller continues to see this as a federal government issue.

“People of the country, last time they visited this issue made it very clear that they wanted it outlawed. They saw this as inhumane, they saw it as inconsistent with standards of hunting,”

Tom Remington

Thanks Dad, and A Wall Hanger to End it All…

By Paul Thein

I’m now 40-years old and I’ve been hunting a family farm since I’ve been a teenager fresh out of hunter’s safety classes. Hunting is a family tradition for us. Our hunting party consists of cousins and close family friends. Over the years I have watched many of them bag the big whitetail wall hanger you dream of. Of course I can’t complain and have done well on the family farm myself. Read more

After The Shot

By Jerry Allen

Blood In Motion: A Forensic Guide to Blood Tracking

It takes a lot of work to set up and execute a hunt, but what happens after the shot will determine if the hunt is truly a success.
You’ve scouted and set up stands. You’ve sighted in your guns and bows; maybe planted a food plot and hauled bait into the woods. It’s hard work, to say the least, and finally the animal comes in and the shot is made. How long will the trailing process take you? Will you find the animal? Understanding how to track and find blood can make the difference between having meat and a trophy to show for all the hard work that you have put in — or coming home with nothing at all. You make a plan when you hunt to increase your chance of success, but if you track without a plan, your chances of success are greatly reduced.
I sell blood-detection products to law enforcement, and my business has giving me a lot of information on what to look for and what a blood trail can tell you about the hit you’ve made on an animal. I am called to many deer trails after all hope seems to be lost, because many people know that I can find blood that cannot be easily seen. Blood trails can be misleading to the hunter —lots of blood does not necessarily indicate a mortal wound, nor does a seeming lack of blood necessarily mean the animal isn’t dead.
The reaction of the animal and the blood pattern will give us a better understanding of how to go about recovering an animal. Normally, animals do not bleed to death, as an animal that weighs 160 pounds must lose 45+ ounces to die from blood loss alone. Animals will die faster from trauma than blood loss, and a combination of both is by far the best.
Most animals can travel very fast when wounded — deer can hit 35 mph, and even if they die quickly after the shot, they can travel a long distance before collapsing. A wounded animal will not go far unless it is pushed or sees movement. Sit still for at least a half hour, or you will make the tracking more difficult. Now that many states offer multiple tags, this will also give you a chance to get another animal — if you shot a large buck, it is still possible that there is a larger one close behind him. Most animals travel in loose groups; the animals in the rear of the group can help by showing you where the wounded animal traveled. Spooking these animals will remove helpful clues to the whereabouts of your trophy, and may cause a second opportunity to be wasted.
Pay attention to the reaction of the animal when it is shot, as this is your first clue to helping you know how to find it. The reaction can be deceiving, but it is still important. I have shot deer and had them look at me like nothing happened, only to watch them fall over where they stand. I have had many hunters tell me that they knocked the animal down, only to watch it suddenly jump up and run off, leaving lots of blood.
This is the one that I hate to hear the most. First of all, body shots that do not impact the neck or spine rarely make animal drop, and if the neck or spine is hit, the animal is usually disabled and cannot get up. The clues of the “dropped and got up and left lots of blood” tell me it was most likely a leg or low shoulder hit. The falling down likely means the leg was broken; lots of blood usually indicates a muscle hit. Muscle damage leave lots of blood in the first 100 yards, but then the blood trail fades fast. There will be lots of large spots of blood as the animal stands often and will lean against trees. Even with a broken leg (or two), an animal can run very fast.
I have had a lot of people tell me, “I thought I hit it, but there was no blood.” Any time there is a wounded animal, there is blood, even if it cannot be seen. Blood droplets, which are forced out of the body by gunfire, produce a high-velocity-impact splatter pattern. The pattern can be smaller than 1 mm in the beginning of the trail. Shots taken with a bow leave medium-impact blood splatter patterns and will leave droplets around 3 mm in size. Both can be difficult to see, even in the snow, so trust your instinct and follow the trail the deer took. If the deer was hit, the blood will appear soon. If it was a lung hit, it can take time for the body cavity to fill and blood to be forced out. Animals may run in the beginning of the trail; this will cause blood trails to be harder to see, as the blood is spread over a larger distance. If there is no visible blood trail, wait and let the animal lay down — it will not go far and should die quickly.
Another common animal reaction is the hind leg kick. This reaction indicates that the animal was hit farther back, most likely a gut shot. The blood pattern and the color of the blood will be very important. Darker blood is from the stomach or liver. A liver shot is always fatal, but is still a poor shot to take. Green matter or food is from one of the deer’s four stomachs — a fatal shot, but it will most likely take until the next day or later for the deer to die from a stomach shot. Give this animal at least three hours and follow up in the daytime.
The double lung shot is the best-percentage shot to take, as it will cause massive internal bleeding and drowning, causing death within about 150 yards. This pattern will start out with little blood, but it will increase as the animal starts blowing blood out the mouth and nose.
Quartering-away shots always cause the most damage, as the projectile will travel more distance through the body. Shots from a raised area (tree stand) generally give a better blood trail, as the exit hole will be lower and allow blood to leave the body cavity in greater volume.
Shooting for the tail is the worst shot, leaving only a wounded animal or spoiled meat. If the shot hits the back of the thigh, it will bleed well but will not die soon, as the muscle will tighten up and help stop the bleeding. An animal shot in the anus will spread bacteria all over the insides, and the damage will be even worse if the bladder is also hit. This type of shot requires the animal to be cleaned immediately and thoroughly washed out in order to save any of the meat.

So I Have A Wounded Animal, Now What?
Blood trailers spend a lot of time looking on the ground, but little time looking at the brush, where more than half the blood is usually found. Blood on brush can reveal how high or low the shot hit, helping in the recovery plans.
No hunter should be without a compass — use it to get a bearing on the trail taken using a marker like a unique tree to track to. Working in pairs is best; have one tracker circle ahead 75 to 100 yards in case the animal is alive. Then have the second person take the trail. Repeat this until the animal is recovered. Remember to be safe when tracking, because all animals are dangerous when wounded. Proper gun handling and line-of-fire rules must be followed to avoid injury.
Timing is very important. Tracking too soon is the main reason mortally wounded animals travel a long distance and make recovery difficult or impossible. Tracking too slowly will cause the meat to spoil. Reading the clues properly will make the difference in how good the meat tastes, since recovery shortly after death is important. Meat with a gamey taste can be caused by slow recovery, not cleaning properly or hanging in warm weather.
Adrenaline runs high after the shot, and humans have a hard time controlling it. Relax, breathe deeply and take a few moments to reflect about what happened. The beginning of the trail is the most important place to get the facts of what happened and how to proceed.
The first thing we do at a crime scene is cordon off the area to keep people from altering evidence. Then we use only a few people to process the scene, again, to keep from altering or destroying the evidence. Walking on a blood trail will transfer the blood pattern from its original spot to somewhere else, or destroy it completely. Never put more than three people on a trail unless it is hopeless to recover without extra people. Mark the trail as you progress to give you a travel pattern to study for clues.
Unless the animal drops within sight, no trail should be taken within 30 minutes. The animal you just shot will be looking at the spot where it was wounded to see what happened. It will lay down soon and try to lick or heal the wound, usually with in 40 yards if there is cover. Do you want to turn a 40-yard trail into a 400-yard trail?
Many times I am asked to follow a blood trail that had a small amount of blood that suddenly had twice as much blood, then nothing. This usually means the animal has turned 180 degrees and walked over the same trail twice, then cut off at a 45- or 90-degree angle after it decided the trail it was following was not safe.
The blood left on the ground or brush is important, as it can tell much about the wound. Bright red or pink indicates an artery or lung shot. Many animal trails I have followed were from shots that hit low in the shoulder or leg, leaving large amounts of blood. The blood is slightly darker with a very narrow trail 4 to 8 inches in width. This animal will likely need a second shot. Make plans to get a person ahead to dispatch the animal. Trails of blood more than 2 feet wide are complete pass-through shots and increase the chances of recovery greatly. Blood trails that have squirts of blood on the side of the trail 2 feet or more indicate arterial shots in the neck, heart or other major artery. Give the animal time to bleed out before you start tracking. Brown or greenish blood, or blood with green or brown matter, is always a gut or liver shot — in both cases, the animal will need extra time to die before you attempt to recover it. The liver shot will kill faster, but may still take two hours or more. Blood with green matter is a five- or six-hour wait to track. The tracker should attempt to put a shooter ahead to dispatch the animal if it is still alive.
Many visual blood trails disappear when the animal’s heart stops and the blood pressure drops, as the blood is no longer being forced out of the body. Most animals can still travel 30 to 45 seconds and cover 65 yards or more before dropping, and the blood trail will be almost impossible to see without blood-tracking aids. Bluestar® will come in handy, as the animal will be close by but may not be seen because of terrain or brush.
Many times I have found animals within 40 to 50 yards of the stand, where they died after having run 250 to 300 yards in a long arching circle, trying to get back to the spot they were safe in before the shot. Knowing the bedding areas helps a lot if you cannot find an animal.
There are tools we can use in tracking. Dogs are now legal in many states, and are a great tool if there is no rain or snow. However, most people do not have dogs or have the time to train them, nor do they have the money to pay a dog tracker. Dog tracker fees vary but usually end up around $150. Lights made for finding blood do not work very well, as blood absorbs light. Regardless of what you see on TV, law enforcement officials do not use lights to find blood. There are a few luminol-based products (Tink’s® and Bluestar®, notably) that make blood glow in the dark. I prefer Bluestar® because it was first made for forensic use.
Bluestar®’s inventor, Dr. Loïc J. BLUM, with a Ph.D. in chemiluminescence, has perfected the mixture, making it the easiest and strongest blood finder in the world. It is used in more than 70 countries by law enforcement and hunters alike.
Bluestar® picks up hemoglobin, which transports oxygen to the cells. Hemoglobin contains iron, which is a basic element of earth and is nearly impossible to destroy without fire.
Much time was spent to produce a product that the investigator would need little or no training to use and that could tell the difference between blood and other items containing iron.
Sold in tablets that you add to water, this is the best tracking agent on the market today. At a cost of $19.95 to track four animals, the cost is very affordable. You can usually cover 100 yards in 10 minutes or less, and the time saved will be worth the money spent.
Small and lightweight and sold in packs of four, Bluestar® gives the hunter enough to cover even the longest trails. Bluestar® also will work well in evergreens and moss, because the reaction with blood is so much different from “false positives” that any one can tell the difference. Bluestar® was made for law enforcement to find blood amounts so small the DNA profile cannot be done. Even in the crime scene, clothing or items that have been cleaned over and over will still glow bright blue were blood was present.
Many times the hunter cannot find the beginning of the trail. Before you leave the stand, use a waypoint to know where the animal was standing when the shot was taken. A compass is perfect for this, using a marker such as a tree to find the spot.
Many times I use Bluestar® only to find the start of the blood trail. To do this, spray while walking across the trail as soon as you find the blood. See if you can follow it with your eyes; if not, continue to use the Bluestar®. I often use it to regain a trail when an animal changes terrain, going from leaf litter to grass fields, for example. Bluestar® will work in the rain or snow.
You will learn a lot about trailing when using Bluestar®, since you will see the whole trail every time you use it and can key in on the evidence the blood trail leaves.
Since it glows bright blue in the dark, even people who are colorblind or whose eyes are “not as good as they used to be” can follow the trail without any help. No glasses or lights are needed, just water and a spray bottle. Water can be taken from streams, lakes and ponds along with any tap or bottled water. In extreme cold, you can use window washer solvent.
Another advantage of Bluestar® is total darkness is not needed, just low light after shooting hours end.
Mix a set of tablets in a sprayer and spray on the ground where the animal was standing, and if the animal was hit, there will be a bright blue glow. Blood is easily transferred from one place to another, so stay off the trail or you will leave footprints of blood all over the woods. There will be an unbroken trail of blood where the animal went when using Bluestar®. If you just find blood spots here and there, these are transfer patterns made by people and animals walking on the blood trail. Blood will be trackable for a very long time. There has been a forensic study on Civil War sniper holes at the Shriver House museum in Gettysburg, Pa., and blood was found more 143 years after it was shed. Blood will last in the woods for months, but there is a big difference in the brightness between old trails and new ones. Blood on the hands of a hunter after gutting an animal without gloves will remain for weeks, no matter how well the hunter washes. This is used frequently in murder cases.
Last but not least, use trail markers. This will help if you need to leave the trail for any reason and will help anyone who is trying to join later on to find the trackers. This also gives a pattern of travel, which most likely will be an arch traveling back to the bedding area downwind of the stand. Bedding areas are thick with a good view and take advantage of wind direction, and they provide a perfect area for a wounded animal to try and recover.
So no matter what happens before or after the shot, there are tools that cost very little and will save lots of time, and help us remain ethically responsible by recovering game quickly and efficiently. For more info on Bluestar® go to http://bloodglow.com/. You can call Jerry anytime on his cell phone if you need help figuring out a trail. (888) 579-1965, toll free.

Next Page »