View By Date

Tags

Statistics

  • 476
    Blogs
  • 120
    Active Bloggers
470 blogs
  • 04 May 2012
    The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted to allow hunters to kill up to 52 wolves in the state this fall.   CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted Wednesday to allow hunters to kill up to 52 wolves in the state this fall even as Gov. Matt Mead said he remains hopeful that Congress will act to exempt the state's wolf management plan from legal challenges he expects from environmental groups.   Game commission approval is the latest in a predictable series of state actions since Mead reached a deal last summer with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to end federal protections for wolves in the state. Mead said he hopes final federal approval of wolf delisting in the state by early fall.   The agreement would require Wyoming to maintain at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves and at least 100 individual animals outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation. Wildlife managers say there are currently about 270 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone.   Under Wyoming's plan, the state would allow trophy hunting for wolves in a flexible zone around Yellowstone National Park, beginning in October. The hunting would last until 52 were killed or until the end of the year. Wolves in the rest of the state would be classified as predators that could be shot on sight year-round.   Mead said 90 percent of Wyoming's wolves live in the trophy hunting area. Although he said he's heard criticism that the limit of 52 wolves this year is too low, he said he believes it's appropriate.   “This was a complex deal that we reached and we don't want to break the deal,'' Mead said. “And we don't want to get down to that bare minimum, where disease, or an accident out on the freeway where five wolves are wiped out, and we go below those minimums.'' Mead said he's hopeful Congress will act to exempt the state's wolf management plan from any legal challenges from environmental groups. Congress earlier extended such protection to earlier wolf delisting actions in Idaho and Montana.   Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming, had pushed to exempt Wyoming's wolf plan from legal challenges last year but the provision was removed from an Interior Department spending bill. Christine S. D'Amico, spokeswoman for Lummis in Washington, said Wednesday that Lummis continues to explore all options for how to protect the state's wolf plan. Many ranchers and hunters in Wyoming believe the state's wolf population has grown unacceptably high since wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone in the mid-1990s. The state has fought for years to try to get state control of the animals, repeatedly and unsuccessfully suing the federal government. The federal government accepted a similar delisting agreement from Wyoming in 2007 only to repudiate it as soon as a federal judge criticized it in response to a legal challenge from environmental groups.   Mead said he's heard environmental groups are intent on suing to try to block Wyoming's new wolf plan.—“Anything we have done on wolves, or that other states have done on wolves, is just a hot-button for litigation,'' Mead said. “But I would ask all those groups, number one, recognize that we're approaching this very conservatively, that we worked hard over a year on this plan, that I think it is scientifically sound. “It has been signed off on by the Secretary of Interior,'' Mead said of the plan. “It has been repeatedly signed off on by the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. So it's not just something that we came up with as just good for Wyoming. It's an agreement by a lot of parties that worked on this.''   Jenny Harbine is a lawyer with Earthjustice in Bozeman, Mont. The group has mounted legal challenges to wolf delisting efforts before. Harbine said Wednesday it's too early to say whether her group or its clients will challenge Wyoming's wolf plan until the plan receives final federal approval this fall. “I'll just say that the (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service should only delist wolves in Wyoming if the agency feels like doing so would comply with the Endangered Species Act and has a sound scientific basis at this time,'' Harbine said. “If delisting rule in Wyoming is legal, then there's no reason to seek indemnification from Congress for such a rule.''
    1683 Posted by admin
  • By admin
    The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted to allow hunters to kill up to 52 wolves in the state this fall.   CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted Wednesday to allow hunters to kill up to 52 wolves in the state this fall even as Gov. Matt Mead said he remains hopeful that Congress will act to exempt the state's wolf management plan from legal challenges he expects from environmental groups.   Game commission approval is the latest in a predictable series of state actions since Mead reached a deal last summer with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to end federal protections for wolves in the state. Mead said he hopes final federal approval of wolf delisting in the state by early fall.   The agreement would require Wyoming to maintain at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves and at least 100 individual animals outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation. Wildlife managers say there are currently about 270 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone.   Under Wyoming's plan, the state would allow trophy hunting for wolves in a flexible zone around Yellowstone National Park, beginning in October. The hunting would last until 52 were killed or until the end of the year. Wolves in the rest of the state would be classified as predators that could be shot on sight year-round.   Mead said 90 percent of Wyoming's wolves live in the trophy hunting area. Although he said he's heard criticism that the limit of 52 wolves this year is too low, he said he believes it's appropriate.   “This was a complex deal that we reached and we don't want to break the deal,'' Mead said. “And we don't want to get down to that bare minimum, where disease, or an accident out on the freeway where five wolves are wiped out, and we go below those minimums.'' Mead said he's hopeful Congress will act to exempt the state's wolf management plan from any legal challenges from environmental groups. Congress earlier extended such protection to earlier wolf delisting actions in Idaho and Montana.   Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming, had pushed to exempt Wyoming's wolf plan from legal challenges last year but the provision was removed from an Interior Department spending bill. Christine S. D'Amico, spokeswoman for Lummis in Washington, said Wednesday that Lummis continues to explore all options for how to protect the state's wolf plan. Many ranchers and hunters in Wyoming believe the state's wolf population has grown unacceptably high since wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone in the mid-1990s. The state has fought for years to try to get state control of the animals, repeatedly and unsuccessfully suing the federal government. The federal government accepted a similar delisting agreement from Wyoming in 2007 only to repudiate it as soon as a federal judge criticized it in response to a legal challenge from environmental groups.   Mead said he's heard environmental groups are intent on suing to try to block Wyoming's new wolf plan.—“Anything we have done on wolves, or that other states have done on wolves, is just a hot-button for litigation,'' Mead said. “But I would ask all those groups, number one, recognize that we're approaching this very conservatively, that we worked hard over a year on this plan, that I think it is scientifically sound. “It has been signed off on by the Secretary of Interior,'' Mead said of the plan. “It has been repeatedly signed off on by the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. So it's not just something that we came up with as just good for Wyoming. It's an agreement by a lot of parties that worked on this.''   Jenny Harbine is a lawyer with Earthjustice in Bozeman, Mont. The group has mounted legal challenges to wolf delisting efforts before. Harbine said Wednesday it's too early to say whether her group or its clients will challenge Wyoming's wolf plan until the plan receives final federal approval this fall. “I'll just say that the (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service should only delist wolves in Wyoming if the agency feels like doing so would comply with the Endangered Species Act and has a sound scientific basis at this time,'' Harbine said. “If delisting rule in Wyoming is legal, then there's no reason to seek indemnification from Congress for such a rule.''
    May 04, 2012 1683
  • 12 Sep 2010
     HAVE PROPERTY I WILL BE FILMING THIS YEAR HUNT ON TO START, THEN WILL BE GOING TO A FRIENDS LAND TO HUNT THEN END UP BACK AT MINE FOR BOW SEASON. STARTED ARCHER LESSONS FOR THE YEAR. GOT THE CAMPER ALL READY AND THE DOG HOUSE BUILT. BEEN A VERY PRODUCTIVE START OF THE HUNTING SEASON. FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW ME, BOBBY D,S ARCHERY IS WHOM I AM, KILLING DEER IS THE THING I DO... I AM ALSO A YOUTH ARCHERY TEACHER, FOR TEACHING THE KIDS FOR TOMORROW THE ART OF BOW HUNTING IS WHAT I DO! 
    940 Posted by Bobby D House
  •  HAVE PROPERTY I WILL BE FILMING THIS YEAR HUNT ON TO START, THEN WILL BE GOING TO A FRIENDS LAND TO HUNT THEN END UP BACK AT MINE FOR BOW SEASON. STARTED ARCHER LESSONS FOR THE YEAR. GOT THE CAMPER ALL READY AND THE DOG HOUSE BUILT. BEEN A VERY PRODUCTIVE START OF THE HUNTING SEASON. FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW ME, BOBBY D,S ARCHERY IS WHOM I AM, KILLING DEER IS THE THING I DO... I AM ALSO A YOUTH ARCHERY TEACHER, FOR TEACHING THE KIDS FOR TOMORROW THE ART OF BOW HUNTING IS WHAT I DO! 
    Sep 12, 2010 940
  • 19 Sep 2011
    Fewer pheasants mean hunters in North Dakota could bag fewer than half a million roosters for the first time in a decade, state officials said. BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Fewer pheasants mean hunters in North Dakota could bag fewer than half a million roosters for the first time in a decade, state officials said. A roadside survey conducted in late July and August found the pheasant population was down 36 percent statewide from last year. Brood surveys, which are considered the best indicator of pheasant production, showed a 38 percent drop. "Brood survey numbers from this summer match closely to numbers from 2001, when hunters harvested 420,000 roosters,'' said Stan Kohn, state Game and Fish Department spokesman. "If fall weather conditions hold through most of the year, I could see a fall harvest of about 400,000 birds. "But if winter sets in early, we could be much lower.'' Pheasant counts show the most in southwestern North Dakota, Kohn said. While the number of birds and broods were down 26 percent in that area, that's less of a decline than elsewhere. Wildlife officials attribute the low numbers to three straight difficult winters with above average snowfall, wet conditions during peak hatch in three of the last four years, and the loss of nesting habitat as the result of Conversation Reserve Program acreage being removed from the pheasant range. "Boiled down, hunters will likely have to put in more time to find success,'' Kohn said. The regular pheasant hunting season opens Oct. 8 and continues through Jan. 8. A two-day youth pheasant hunting weekend is scheduled for Oct. 1-2.
    1116 Posted by admin
  • By admin
    Fewer pheasants mean hunters in North Dakota could bag fewer than half a million roosters for the first time in a decade, state officials said. BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Fewer pheasants mean hunters in North Dakota could bag fewer than half a million roosters for the first time in a decade, state officials said. A roadside survey conducted in late July and August found the pheasant population was down 36 percent statewide from last year. Brood surveys, which are considered the best indicator of pheasant production, showed a 38 percent drop. "Brood survey numbers from this summer match closely to numbers from 2001, when hunters harvested 420,000 roosters,'' said Stan Kohn, state Game and Fish Department spokesman. "If fall weather conditions hold through most of the year, I could see a fall harvest of about 400,000 birds. "But if winter sets in early, we could be much lower.'' Pheasant counts show the most in southwestern North Dakota, Kohn said. While the number of birds and broods were down 26 percent in that area, that's less of a decline than elsewhere. Wildlife officials attribute the low numbers to three straight difficult winters with above average snowfall, wet conditions during peak hatch in three of the last four years, and the loss of nesting habitat as the result of Conversation Reserve Program acreage being removed from the pheasant range. "Boiled down, hunters will likely have to put in more time to find success,'' Kohn said. The regular pheasant hunting season opens Oct. 8 and continues through Jan. 8. A two-day youth pheasant hunting weekend is scheduled for Oct. 1-2.
    Sep 19, 2011 1116
  • 19 Sep 2011
    A man who became separated from his friends in dense forest during a squirrel hunting trip in western Tennessee says he ate worms and drank muddy water to survive five days in the wild before he was found. MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — A man who became separated from his friends in dense forest during a squirrel hunting trip in western Tennessee says he ate worms and drank muddy water to survive five days in the wild before he was found. Bill Lawrence said he gathered rainwater in his hunting vest and tried to stay calm throughout his ordeal. Authorities say they conducted the longest search in decades in the 13,000-acre Meeman Shelby Forest State Park before the man was discovered Sunday. Lawrence lost sight of his two hunting buddies on Aug. 31 while chasing a squirrel and became alarmed when his shots were the only ones he could hear, The Commercial Appeal reported (http://bit.ly/pakvdz). "This is when I got turned around,'' said Lawrence, a corrections officer, adding he tried in vain to find his friends or their truck. At the time he became separated, Lawrence was clad in camouflage pants and jacket, a hat and snake boots. His friends reporting him as missing. Searchers used trained dogs, horses, all-terrain vehicles, boats, police vehicles and helicopters as they scoured the thick woods. Meanwhile, Lawrence kept walking, searching for food and water. "I was drinking muddy water ... eating worms. Yeah, I'd seen that on TV. I ate worms.'' Lawrence said he had a shotgun, 15 shells, 2 bottles of water, a flashlight, a can of bug spray, a squirrel call and a can of dipping tobacco. But he did not have a cell phone to summon help. He shot his gun whenever he thought he heard someone, but his shotgun shells ran out on Saturday. "Everything was against him from the very beginning,'' Park Manager Steve Smith said, noting the helicopter spotters had difficulty peering into the dense forest canopy and searchers were hampered by extreme heat. Messages left by The Associated Press at the park office for Smith were not immediately returned. A telephone listing for Lawrence couldn't be located. Lawrence eventually reached a road on Sunday. It was about three miles from where he started out, but Lawrence estimated that he had covered about 35 miles by then. Lawrence said he collapsed and was found by some passers-by. "Man I was happy,'' he said. "I laid down in that road and just sat there. ... By then I was just wore out.'' Authorities said Lawrence suffered from dehydration and severe insect bites. He was taking antibiotics because of the things he ate in the forest.
    1392 Posted by admin
  • By admin
    A man who became separated from his friends in dense forest during a squirrel hunting trip in western Tennessee says he ate worms and drank muddy water to survive five days in the wild before he was found. MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — A man who became separated from his friends in dense forest during a squirrel hunting trip in western Tennessee says he ate worms and drank muddy water to survive five days in the wild before he was found. Bill Lawrence said he gathered rainwater in his hunting vest and tried to stay calm throughout his ordeal. Authorities say they conducted the longest search in decades in the 13,000-acre Meeman Shelby Forest State Park before the man was discovered Sunday. Lawrence lost sight of his two hunting buddies on Aug. 31 while chasing a squirrel and became alarmed when his shots were the only ones he could hear, The Commercial Appeal reported (http://bit.ly/pakvdz). "This is when I got turned around,'' said Lawrence, a corrections officer, adding he tried in vain to find his friends or their truck. At the time he became separated, Lawrence was clad in camouflage pants and jacket, a hat and snake boots. His friends reporting him as missing. Searchers used trained dogs, horses, all-terrain vehicles, boats, police vehicles and helicopters as they scoured the thick woods. Meanwhile, Lawrence kept walking, searching for food and water. "I was drinking muddy water ... eating worms. Yeah, I'd seen that on TV. I ate worms.'' Lawrence said he had a shotgun, 15 shells, 2 bottles of water, a flashlight, a can of bug spray, a squirrel call and a can of dipping tobacco. But he did not have a cell phone to summon help. He shot his gun whenever he thought he heard someone, but his shotgun shells ran out on Saturday. "Everything was against him from the very beginning,'' Park Manager Steve Smith said, noting the helicopter spotters had difficulty peering into the dense forest canopy and searchers were hampered by extreme heat. Messages left by The Associated Press at the park office for Smith were not immediately returned. A telephone listing for Lawrence couldn't be located. Lawrence eventually reached a road on Sunday. It was about three miles from where he started out, but Lawrence estimated that he had covered about 35 miles by then. Lawrence said he collapsed and was found by some passers-by. "Man I was happy,'' he said. "I laid down in that road and just sat there. ... By then I was just wore out.'' Authorities said Lawrence suffered from dehydration and severe insect bites. He was taking antibiotics because of the things he ate in the forest.
    Sep 19, 2011 1392
  • 27 Jan 2011
    Hello Everyone,   My name is Wade and I am writing today to tell you about Racks & Tails Magazine!  Racks & Tails is a new quarterly publication written by Hunters for Hunters.  The Magazine has a 75% article to 25% advertisement ratio, meaning that you will always get lots of Great Information and see lots of Great Pictures, taken by average everyday hunters of  their harvested animals. I am hoping that you will find this Magazine interesting and be willing to give it a try!    I am trying to become a Gear Tester for the Magazine and as part of my contract I need to bring 100 + new subscribers to the Magazine.  Now, I really am an avid hunter, but my list of hunters that I personally know totals three, myself and my two hunting buddies.  So I am here today to ask you to check out the Magazine and if you like it, give it a try.  I ask that if you do decide to subscribe to Racks & Tails that you enter ABWW into the referral code section of the subscription page.  Buy doing so you will be helping me and you, as I will be open to any suggestions for Gear Testing and will respond to any questions that you may have.  Please follow the following Links to Racks & Tails Facebook Page and to the Subscription Page.     Thanks,   Wade   http://www.facebook.com/RacksAndTails     http://www.racksandtails.com/
    721 Posted by wadewillems
  • Hello Everyone,   My name is Wade and I am writing today to tell you about Racks & Tails Magazine!  Racks & Tails is a new quarterly publication written by Hunters for Hunters.  The Magazine has a 75% article to 25% advertisement ratio, meaning that you will always get lots of Great Information and see lots of Great Pictures, taken by average everyday hunters of  their harvested animals. I am hoping that you will find this Magazine interesting and be willing to give it a try!    I am trying to become a Gear Tester for the Magazine and as part of my contract I need to bring 100 + new subscribers to the Magazine.  Now, I really am an avid hunter, but my list of hunters that I personally know totals three, myself and my two hunting buddies.  So I am here today to ask you to check out the Magazine and if you like it, give it a try.  I ask that if you do decide to subscribe to Racks & Tails that you enter ABWW into the referral code section of the subscription page.  Buy doing so you will be helping me and you, as I will be open to any suggestions for Gear Testing and will respond to any questions that you may have.  Please follow the following Links to Racks & Tails Facebook Page and to the Subscription Page.     Thanks,   Wade   http://www.facebook.com/RacksAndTails     http://www.racksandtails.com/
    Jan 27, 2011 721
  • 22 Feb 2011
    Delaware has had a liberal deer season or seasons the past 10 years. The average hunter could harvest an animal if time and effort was put into the hunt. Our numbers in certain areas seemed to have dwindled and was noticeable during the 2010 season that has just ended.Three years ago we had an outbreak of blue tongue disease that claimed quite a few animals in some of my favorite areas for hunting. Three years ago during the opening of deer season in November I couldn't believe my eyes as the biggest grey fox came within shooting range, it was as large as a small collie. Not wanting to ruin my opening day I let it walk. Later as I told the story I learned that a coyot was supposedly sighted by other hunters in the area. After the season and while talking with my taxidermist in Marydel, Md he told me a young man had shot and brought to him three coyote to be mounted. I thought it strange as to how a coyote could get to our area since the Chesapeake Bay and Canal to the North, Delaware Bay to the east and the Atlantic Ocean would present a problem for Coyotes to get here. Two years have past and while visiting another taxidermist to pick up some waterfowl mounts I asked him about the coyote issue. He told me that the state wildlife officials had brought some here to help curtail the deer numbers. Well, I do not know what has happened in 2009-2010 season, blue tongue, hunter success, coyote introduction or UFO but it seem our number is dwindling in some areas.Anyone else out there wish to comment? This is only one hunters opion
    1000 Posted by deerhunterdefl
  • Delaware has had a liberal deer season or seasons the past 10 years. The average hunter could harvest an animal if time and effort was put into the hunt. Our numbers in certain areas seemed to have dwindled and was noticeable during the 2010 season that has just ended.Three years ago we had an outbreak of blue tongue disease that claimed quite a few animals in some of my favorite areas for hunting. Three years ago during the opening of deer season in November I couldn't believe my eyes as the biggest grey fox came within shooting range, it was as large as a small collie. Not wanting to ruin my opening day I let it walk. Later as I told the story I learned that a coyot was supposedly sighted by other hunters in the area. After the season and while talking with my taxidermist in Marydel, Md he told me a young man had shot and brought to him three coyote to be mounted. I thought it strange as to how a coyote could get to our area since the Chesapeake Bay and Canal to the North, Delaware Bay to the east and the Atlantic Ocean would present a problem for Coyotes to get here. Two years have past and while visiting another taxidermist to pick up some waterfowl mounts I asked him about the coyote issue. He told me that the state wildlife officials had brought some here to help curtail the deer numbers. Well, I do not know what has happened in 2009-2010 season, blue tongue, hunter success, coyote introduction or UFO but it seem our number is dwindling in some areas.Anyone else out there wish to comment? This is only one hunters opion
    Feb 22, 2011 1000
  • 25 Jul 2012
    6th Annual Special Needs Horseback Ride by Mia Anstine I am proud to be a part of WCO, Wolf Creek Outfitters, Inc. We feel it is important to give back to the community. We offer a horseback ride each year to the Special Needs children of our community. This year's ride was as wonderful as the past. We had plenty of help and were [...] Read more of this post
    1213 Posted by Mia Anstine
  • 6th Annual Special Needs Horseback Ride by Mia Anstine I am proud to be a part of WCO, Wolf Creek Outfitters, Inc. We feel it is important to give back to the community. We offer a horseback ride each year to the Special Needs children of our community. This year's ride was as wonderful as the past. We had plenty of help and were [...] Read more of this post
    Jul 25, 2012 1213
  • 25 Feb 2011
    BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Defying federal authority over gray wolves, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock — even in areas where that is not currently allowed — and said the state will start shooting packs that hurt elk herds. Schweitzer told The Associated Press he no longer would wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met. "We will take action in Montana on our own,'' he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it.'' State wildlife agents and ranchers already kill wolves regularly across much of the Northern Rockies, where 1,700 of the animals roam parts of five states. Rules against killing wolves have been relaxed significantly by federal officials over the past decade but hunting remains prohibited. Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill problem wolves, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade. But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators. Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency was working with Montana and other states in the region to address their concerns over the wolf population. "We've been in negotiations with Montana and the other states for some time, and we're committed to continuing that and trying to find a solution that works for everybody,'' he said. In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar provided by Schweitzer's office, the Democratic governor said state game wardens will be directed to stop investigating wolf shootings north of Interstate 90, the part of the state with the strictest protections for the animals. That follows a similar show of defiance from Idaho's Republican governor, C.L. "Butch'' Otter. Otter said in the fall that Idaho Fish and Game agents would no longer participate in wolf management efforts, including shooting investigations. The move forced federal officials to step in to enforce restrictions on killing the animals. Federal enforcement of laws against killing protected wolves also would be expected in Montana. But critics of federal wolf policies appeared emboldened by the governor's Wednesday statements. Robert Fanning, who heads a group that advocates protecting elk herds around Yellowstone National Park from wolves, sent out an e-mail urging Montana residents to ``lock and load and saddle up while there is still snow on the ground.'' In the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Schweitzer directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing wolf packs blamed for driving down elk populations. The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot. A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials. But Schweitzer indicated Wednesday he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves. He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, which said the Bitterroot packs would be killed "to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act.'' Department of Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the agency agreed there was an "urgent need'' to turn over wolf management to states that have acceptable management plans for the animals. "But the governor's letter is not the answer,'' she added. Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court. A provision in a budget bill pending before Congress would revoke endangered species status for wolves in Montana and Idaho. Other measures introduced by lawmakers would lift federal protections across the lower 48 states. Despite the bitter public divide on the issue, attacks on livestock by other, unprotected predators such as coyotes far exceed damage from wolves, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. But the lack of state control over wolves because of their endangered status has frustrated both livestock owners and elk hunters, who complain that their hands are tied by federal protections. "This is a real-life problem in Montana — and we plan to start solving the problem,'' Schweitzer said.
    873 Posted by Chris Avena
  • BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Defying federal authority over gray wolves, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock — even in areas where that is not currently allowed — and said the state will start shooting packs that hurt elk herds. Schweitzer told The Associated Press he no longer would wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met. "We will take action in Montana on our own,'' he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it.'' State wildlife agents and ranchers already kill wolves regularly across much of the Northern Rockies, where 1,700 of the animals roam parts of five states. Rules against killing wolves have been relaxed significantly by federal officials over the past decade but hunting remains prohibited. Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill problem wolves, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade. But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators. Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency was working with Montana and other states in the region to address their concerns over the wolf population. "We've been in negotiations with Montana and the other states for some time, and we're committed to continuing that and trying to find a solution that works for everybody,'' he said. In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar provided by Schweitzer's office, the Democratic governor said state game wardens will be directed to stop investigating wolf shootings north of Interstate 90, the part of the state with the strictest protections for the animals. That follows a similar show of defiance from Idaho's Republican governor, C.L. "Butch'' Otter. Otter said in the fall that Idaho Fish and Game agents would no longer participate in wolf management efforts, including shooting investigations. The move forced federal officials to step in to enforce restrictions on killing the animals. Federal enforcement of laws against killing protected wolves also would be expected in Montana. But critics of federal wolf policies appeared emboldened by the governor's Wednesday statements. Robert Fanning, who heads a group that advocates protecting elk herds around Yellowstone National Park from wolves, sent out an e-mail urging Montana residents to ``lock and load and saddle up while there is still snow on the ground.'' In the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Schweitzer directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing wolf packs blamed for driving down elk populations. The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot. A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials. But Schweitzer indicated Wednesday he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves. He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, which said the Bitterroot packs would be killed "to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act.'' Department of Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the agency agreed there was an "urgent need'' to turn over wolf management to states that have acceptable management plans for the animals. "But the governor's letter is not the answer,'' she added. Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court. A provision in a budget bill pending before Congress would revoke endangered species status for wolves in Montana and Idaho. Other measures introduced by lawmakers would lift federal protections across the lower 48 states. Despite the bitter public divide on the issue, attacks on livestock by other, unprotected predators such as coyotes far exceed damage from wolves, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. But the lack of state control over wolves because of their endangered status has frustrated both livestock owners and elk hunters, who complain that their hands are tied by federal protections. "This is a real-life problem in Montana — and we plan to start solving the problem,'' Schweitzer said.
    Feb 25, 2011 873
  • 07 Mar 2012
    Elk and Big Horn Sheep Studies in Colorado by Mia Anstine Those of you who have followed me over the years know that I have a genuine love for hunting as well as a respect for animals. I enjoy chasing a big bull elk or even a cow any chance I get. I also have a bucket list a mile long. Does it mean I'm chasing trophys? [...] Read more of this post
    1202 Posted by Mia Anstine
  • Elk and Big Horn Sheep Studies in Colorado by Mia Anstine Those of you who have followed me over the years know that I have a genuine love for hunting as well as a respect for animals. I enjoy chasing a big bull elk or even a cow any chance I get. I also have a bucket list a mile long. Does it mean I'm chasing trophys? [...] Read more of this post
    Mar 07, 2012 1202
  • 18 May 2012
                                                            Is There a Price Tag on Our Right To Bare Arms?     By Chris Avena   On May 9th, I had the opportunity to speak to Kelly McMillan, the director of Operations of McMillan Firearms about his recent meeting with Bank of America in which they had told him that they no longer wanted to do business with McMillan Firearms because they are a firearms manufacturer. Should a financial institution have the right to terminate your account based solely on the industry that you choose to make a living in? Is there corporate profiling among our financial institutions? Let’s see what Kelly McMillan has to say.   SMH: Kelly, you recently had a meeting with Bank of America   KM: That is correct.  April 19th we had what was scheduled as just a standard annual account review meeting with a couple of representatives from the Bank of America. But it did surprise me when they showed up with the Sr. Vice President (Ray Fox) whom I have never met and didn’t know who he was but when you are handed a business card that says Sr. Vice President it just made me wonder what this meeting was really about. Had this been a normal account review, it would have been with the regular bankers that I deal with.   SMH: Did you make this meeting or did Bank of America make this meeting?   KM: They made the meeting. Just to give you a little background, I have been doing business with bank of America since 1998, that’s almost 14 years. In that time, we have never bounced a check, never missed a payment on our credit lines. We actually have two businesses with two different credit lines. At the time of this meeting our credit was less than 60 Percent of the maximum that is allowed on the credit lines. We have been a really good customer for them and we have had a significant amount of money that flowed through those accounts. We have also paid a significant amount of fees based on the services that they offered. So it really took me by surprise when Mr. Fox started to talk about our business and how it had changed. So I had interrupted him and said “so you are going to tell me that you did not want our business because we manufacture firearms and he said “that is correct”.   SMH: You had asked him if this decision was politically motivated.   KM: That is correct. He had made the comment that Bank of America had to be diligent in their assessment of their risk of doing business with a firearms manufacturer and how that played into their corporate reputation.   SMH: How did you interpret their Risk or their Reputational risk as they put it?   KM: I took Mr. Fox at his word that they just didn’t want to do business with me any more because I manufactured firearms which was not anything new to them. I had the account that we had opened for the rifle company under the name McMillan Firearms Manufacturering in 2007 so they have known (if they could read) they have known based on the name on the account. When they said that they had to assess the risk, that is when I asked him if this was a politically motivated decision and he said yes. From my stand point, I did not mean democrat or republican. I meant inter Bank of America political decision. I do not know what their policies are. I have never claimed to state what their policies are. Their big defense against this has been – well- that is not our policy. If you look-  we have just done a big deal with the freedom group and we have other customers that manufacture  or are in the manufacturing of firearms industry so this can not possibly be true and I do not know about any of that, I just know what happened.   SMH: Now that this has resonated with you for a week or so, do you feel that when they said political that it was B of A executives or government?   KM: I have been really firm about not speculating or giving my opinion about who or why because all of it would just be speculation and I do not want to give anybody the indication that I have any inside      information. I do know that the State president for the Bank of America from Arizona came to see me and I did not buy his explanation of why they decided that they do not want my business. He claimed that it was just a sound financial decision based on my business but the fact is (as I said before) that I have been a good customer. We are in good shape financially. There really is no reason for him to have made that comment. Now what made me even less likely to believe Mr. Almonza who is the state president (of B of A) is that when we started the meeting, I asked him if he minded if I record the meeting and he said yes I do mind. I was kind of surprised and said why would you mind? So he told me because he wanted it to be a friendly conversation between he and I. From my perspective, anyone who does not want to be held accountable for what they say (and that would be the reason why they would not want to be recorded) can not necessarily be taken at face value. So I listened to what he said and then I evaluated (the conversation). Basically what I asked Mr. Almonza was that he had told me such a different story from the conversation that Mr. Fox and I discussed that it can not be a misunderstanding so one of you is lying. Who should I believe? He responded that he does not know what Mr. Fox and I discussed because he was not in the room. Keep in mind that Mr. Fox is Mr. Almonza’s subordinate and works directly under him. If it were me, I would have had a conversation with Mr. Fox prior to coming into the meeting so I had a clear understanding.   SMH: You have seen quite a bit of support from our community since this all began –   KM: It has been incredible to see how many people really cherish their second amendment rights and will take a stand to anyone who threatens to take that away from them and that is what this has been seen as which is an affront to our second amendment rights. There have been thousands of people that I have been in communication with through our Facebook page, emails and phone calls. They have been very supportive and I really appreciate them making the effort to make this fight a national fight because it is important to all of us.   SMH: It is no secret that our Second Amendment rights have been under fire (so to speak) from the Obama Administration. With that in mind, if this was a politically pressured decision from our administration - Have they put a price tag on our Constitutional Rights?   KM: It has been mentioned many times in the press and around the internet that they have not been successful in drafting legislation that will outright take our guns away from us so they are back dooring us by attempting to get ammunition registered and each round accountable to an individual, it is just a way to make it more difficult, more expensive and more likely that we will not go through the trouble that they are trying to create in order for us to keep our guns. If we can not get ammunition it doesn’t matter if we can get guns or not and I believe that is part of the process.   SMH: Do you feel that with the events that are happening if this is in fact a political move, can the industry indirectly be affected with the ancillary products to guns such as ammunition, clips, scopes etc. anything that is gun related. Can a bank pick or choose who they want to do business with?   KM: I do understand as a business owner that banks need to be able to choose who they do business with but I also feel that they should be accountable and there needs to be a sound business logic to that and if they say that there is too much risk in the firearms industry, meaning that they have a few companies (that they do business with) and they want to balance their portfolio so we want to pick and choose which companies we would like to keep. I would understand that if they would man up, say it and let the world know that this is their position on this. They shouldn’t say that it (the conversation) never happened or that it was not their policy and try to brush it under the rug. I have always maintained that they (B of A) have always looked at me as a small business with little consequence and probably if they had told me to go away, I would just go away but they have found out how significant, each individual, when it comes to second amendment rights can be and how we (as a group) have stood up for our constitutional rights.   SMH: I know of several individuals that I have spoken to that have closed their accounts at Bank of America and they have taken it a step further by canceling their Bass Pro credit card because it was issued through Bank of America. It seems that Bass Pro’s positions is that Bank of America said that this situation did not happen the way you are saying so they are taking the three monkey approach (See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Talk No Evil) . For a company like BassPro to change banks, it would be a logistical nightmare for them.   KM: I understand that but please keep in mind that through this whole thing, I have never once asked anyone to close their accounts, cut up their credit cards and change banks. I have never said that. That is an individual choice for each of us who are fighting this battle against the encroachment of our second amendment rights. Everyone has to choose for them selves how they are going to fight this. If changing banks or changing mortgage companies or changing credit cards is not something that would be easily done or to would have negative repercussions on the individual or their business – I do not expect them to do that because they need to take care of themselves. As far as BassPro is concerned, what I am most disappointed about is that they have not contacted me. No one from BassPro has called me and said Lets hear your side of the story. I honestly think that they (BassPro) looked at this situation and said that it would be a nightmare if we had to stand on the side of the second amendment rights people. So we are just going to say that it is “he said, they said” and we can not take a position. Same as the NRA has done. The NRA has said that we do not have a position in this because it is his word against theirs. I understand that. That makes sense to me.   SMH: Do you feel it is a danger, if this is indeed the case, (and this is innuendo on both our parts) for government to put political pressure on a banking institution to stop financing gun manufacturing companies and possibly negating U.S. citizens of their second amendment rights.   KM: If in fact that is what’s happening, then I think that this is far more dangerous than anyone has given credit to it. Because if there is political pressure from the administration or anybody in the national political arena and the Bank of America or any other company is succumbing to that pressure, then we do not have much of a chance in our fight against them because that holds a different weight with people. The next time that someone becomes expendable as far as a company to Bank of America and political that is created that situation, you know that Bank of America will say (sure) whatever you want because of the position that they are in as far as being indebted to the administration for keeping them in business. Small business owners and even significant business owners really do not stand a chance to fight against that. Unless they are going to try to do something covertly and we just make sure that we let everyone know what is going on.   SMH: Do you mean something like the Fast and the Furious, selling guns to Mexico when they are supposed to be taken off the street altogether.   KM: Yes, that did hit real close to home. Of course we were not involved in that. They didn’t approach us during that time because of the type of firearms that we manufacture did not seem to fit what their profile was but even that is ridiculous. I have no idea what the fore thought to that was and whose decisions those were but it is crazy. We are law abiding citizens, we follow all of the ATF rules, we actually have to deal with the state department with every gun that we sell outside of this country and we Do that because we love this business and we want to stay in it so we follow the rules and we are law abiding company. Then when you hear about stuff like this that was created and perpetrated by the government I am wondering who is in control.   SMH: Have you found a Second Amendment Friendly Bank?   KM: We have actually started doing the interviewing process. We have three interviews over the next few days and I hope to have a choice by next week. One of the situations that we have found ourselves in is now that we have a responsibility to the thousands of people that are going to be looking to see who we choose, we must be diligent in picking a second amendment friendly bank, not just tolerant ( because there are tolerant banks out there). For example, there is one of the major banks that does not allow legal concealed carry in their bank or even in their drive through and obviously, I could not choose that bank because that is not really supporting our legal rights to own and carry guns. So we have to do a good job because a lot of people are watching.   SMH: So they will tolerate it, they will not allow it (guns) in their bank, but I am sure that their security guards are carrying guns.   KM: I am sure that they are.   SMH: I really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us today. I know how much everyone wants to be kept up to speed on the progress of this situation.   KM: I will keep in touch with everyone through Facebook and our website when we do choose a new bank. Our website is www.McMillanUSA.com and our website has a link to our Facebook page. There is also a lot of information on our facebook page with regards to other people who have had similar experiences and people who have told their stories with relation to what has happened with Bank of America so if anybody is interested, they can just find us on facebook (McMillan Group International).   SMH: I have actually read quite a few stories on your facebook page and it does not seem like this is an isolated incident that is happening with you.   KM: No, it doesn’t and one of the things that has come to light is that they have done the same thing with farmers. I have heard several stories about people who have had family farms for years and years and about two or three years ago Bank of America started telling them that they will not be renewing their line of credit, which farms have to have in order to function. They (farms) can not function with out loans because of how the industry is. So when they are told that they can not have a credit line, it is real devastating to them. Asking us (McMillan) to change banks from Bank of America, we have not slowed down our production at all. It has not been a financial burden for us. Bank of America did tell us that they would give us 6 months or until September 1st (to find a new bank) so it has not been a financial Hardship for us. But those in the farming community who have had this happen to them, it was a real traumatic experience and for some of them, they never survived.   SMH: So the banking industry is actually picking and choosing the industries that are to their advantage to deal with.   KM: Apparently & for whatever reason. Well, I appreciate you calling me and giving me the chance to talk a little bit about what happened. I hope that your viewers find it enlightening. We will just have to see how this all plays out.   SMH: What does McMillan have in store for us this year as far as new product lines?   KM: We actually débuted a couple of new products at the Shot Show this year. They will probably be out by late summer. The CS-5 is a terrific new covert short barreled  mac-pack type gun for military and law enforcement. We also have a civilian version of it that has a 19 inch barrel so that you don’t have to get a tax stamp to own it.   SMH: I did not have the opportunity to stop by your booth at Shot this year but I will defently make it a point to come by and see you in January,   KM: Perfect- I look forward to it.   “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” ~ Thomas Jefferson~    
    2162 Posted by Chris Avena
  •                                                         Is There a Price Tag on Our Right To Bare Arms?     By Chris Avena   On May 9th, I had the opportunity to speak to Kelly McMillan, the director of Operations of McMillan Firearms about his recent meeting with Bank of America in which they had told him that they no longer wanted to do business with McMillan Firearms because they are a firearms manufacturer. Should a financial institution have the right to terminate your account based solely on the industry that you choose to make a living in? Is there corporate profiling among our financial institutions? Let’s see what Kelly McMillan has to say.   SMH: Kelly, you recently had a meeting with Bank of America   KM: That is correct.  April 19th we had what was scheduled as just a standard annual account review meeting with a couple of representatives from the Bank of America. But it did surprise me when they showed up with the Sr. Vice President (Ray Fox) whom I have never met and didn’t know who he was but when you are handed a business card that says Sr. Vice President it just made me wonder what this meeting was really about. Had this been a normal account review, it would have been with the regular bankers that I deal with.   SMH: Did you make this meeting or did Bank of America make this meeting?   KM: They made the meeting. Just to give you a little background, I have been doing business with bank of America since 1998, that’s almost 14 years. In that time, we have never bounced a check, never missed a payment on our credit lines. We actually have two businesses with two different credit lines. At the time of this meeting our credit was less than 60 Percent of the maximum that is allowed on the credit lines. We have been a really good customer for them and we have had a significant amount of money that flowed through those accounts. We have also paid a significant amount of fees based on the services that they offered. So it really took me by surprise when Mr. Fox started to talk about our business and how it had changed. So I had interrupted him and said “so you are going to tell me that you did not want our business because we manufacture firearms and he said “that is correct”.   SMH: You had asked him if this decision was politically motivated.   KM: That is correct. He had made the comment that Bank of America had to be diligent in their assessment of their risk of doing business with a firearms manufacturer and how that played into their corporate reputation.   SMH: How did you interpret their Risk or their Reputational risk as they put it?   KM: I took Mr. Fox at his word that they just didn’t want to do business with me any more because I manufactured firearms which was not anything new to them. I had the account that we had opened for the rifle company under the name McMillan Firearms Manufacturering in 2007 so they have known (if they could read) they have known based on the name on the account. When they said that they had to assess the risk, that is when I asked him if this was a politically motivated decision and he said yes. From my stand point, I did not mean democrat or republican. I meant inter Bank of America political decision. I do not know what their policies are. I have never claimed to state what their policies are. Their big defense against this has been – well- that is not our policy. If you look-  we have just done a big deal with the freedom group and we have other customers that manufacture  or are in the manufacturing of firearms industry so this can not possibly be true and I do not know about any of that, I just know what happened.   SMH: Now that this has resonated with you for a week or so, do you feel that when they said political that it was B of A executives or government?   KM: I have been really firm about not speculating or giving my opinion about who or why because all of it would just be speculation and I do not want to give anybody the indication that I have any inside      information. I do know that the State president for the Bank of America from Arizona came to see me and I did not buy his explanation of why they decided that they do not want my business. He claimed that it was just a sound financial decision based on my business but the fact is (as I said before) that I have been a good customer. We are in good shape financially. There really is no reason for him to have made that comment. Now what made me even less likely to believe Mr. Almonza who is the state president (of B of A) is that when we started the meeting, I asked him if he minded if I record the meeting and he said yes I do mind. I was kind of surprised and said why would you mind? So he told me because he wanted it to be a friendly conversation between he and I. From my perspective, anyone who does not want to be held accountable for what they say (and that would be the reason why they would not want to be recorded) can not necessarily be taken at face value. So I listened to what he said and then I evaluated (the conversation). Basically what I asked Mr. Almonza was that he had told me such a different story from the conversation that Mr. Fox and I discussed that it can not be a misunderstanding so one of you is lying. Who should I believe? He responded that he does not know what Mr. Fox and I discussed because he was not in the room. Keep in mind that Mr. Fox is Mr. Almonza’s subordinate and works directly under him. If it were me, I would have had a conversation with Mr. Fox prior to coming into the meeting so I had a clear understanding.   SMH: You have seen quite a bit of support from our community since this all began –   KM: It has been incredible to see how many people really cherish their second amendment rights and will take a stand to anyone who threatens to take that away from them and that is what this has been seen as which is an affront to our second amendment rights. There have been thousands of people that I have been in communication with through our Facebook page, emails and phone calls. They have been very supportive and I really appreciate them making the effort to make this fight a national fight because it is important to all of us.   SMH: It is no secret that our Second Amendment rights have been under fire (so to speak) from the Obama Administration. With that in mind, if this was a politically pressured decision from our administration - Have they put a price tag on our Constitutional Rights?   KM: It has been mentioned many times in the press and around the internet that they have not been successful in drafting legislation that will outright take our guns away from us so they are back dooring us by attempting to get ammunition registered and each round accountable to an individual, it is just a way to make it more difficult, more expensive and more likely that we will not go through the trouble that they are trying to create in order for us to keep our guns. If we can not get ammunition it doesn’t matter if we can get guns or not and I believe that is part of the process.   SMH: Do you feel that with the events that are happening if this is in fact a political move, can the industry indirectly be affected with the ancillary products to guns such as ammunition, clips, scopes etc. anything that is gun related. Can a bank pick or choose who they want to do business with?   KM: I do understand as a business owner that banks need to be able to choose who they do business with but I also feel that they should be accountable and there needs to be a sound business logic to that and if they say that there is too much risk in the firearms industry, meaning that they have a few companies (that they do business with) and they want to balance their portfolio so we want to pick and choose which companies we would like to keep. I would understand that if they would man up, say it and let the world know that this is their position on this. They shouldn’t say that it (the conversation) never happened or that it was not their policy and try to brush it under the rug. I have always maintained that they (B of A) have always looked at me as a small business with little consequence and probably if they had told me to go away, I would just go away but they have found out how significant, each individual, when it comes to second amendment rights can be and how we (as a group) have stood up for our constitutional rights.   SMH: I know of several individuals that I have spoken to that have closed their accounts at Bank of America and they have taken it a step further by canceling their Bass Pro credit card because it was issued through Bank of America. It seems that Bass Pro’s positions is that Bank of America said that this situation did not happen the way you are saying so they are taking the three monkey approach (See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Talk No Evil) . For a company like BassPro to change banks, it would be a logistical nightmare for them.   KM: I understand that but please keep in mind that through this whole thing, I have never once asked anyone to close their accounts, cut up their credit cards and change banks. I have never said that. That is an individual choice for each of us who are fighting this battle against the encroachment of our second amendment rights. Everyone has to choose for them selves how they are going to fight this. If changing banks or changing mortgage companies or changing credit cards is not something that would be easily done or to would have negative repercussions on the individual or their business – I do not expect them to do that because they need to take care of themselves. As far as BassPro is concerned, what I am most disappointed about is that they have not contacted me. No one from BassPro has called me and said Lets hear your side of the story. I honestly think that they (BassPro) looked at this situation and said that it would be a nightmare if we had to stand on the side of the second amendment rights people. So we are just going to say that it is “he said, they said” and we can not take a position. Same as the NRA has done. The NRA has said that we do not have a position in this because it is his word against theirs. I understand that. That makes sense to me.   SMH: Do you feel it is a danger, if this is indeed the case, (and this is innuendo on both our parts) for government to put political pressure on a banking institution to stop financing gun manufacturing companies and possibly negating U.S. citizens of their second amendment rights.   KM: If in fact that is what’s happening, then I think that this is far more dangerous than anyone has given credit to it. Because if there is political pressure from the administration or anybody in the national political arena and the Bank of America or any other company is succumbing to that pressure, then we do not have much of a chance in our fight against them because that holds a different weight with people. The next time that someone becomes expendable as far as a company to Bank of America and political that is created that situation, you know that Bank of America will say (sure) whatever you want because of the position that they are in as far as being indebted to the administration for keeping them in business. Small business owners and even significant business owners really do not stand a chance to fight against that. Unless they are going to try to do something covertly and we just make sure that we let everyone know what is going on.   SMH: Do you mean something like the Fast and the Furious, selling guns to Mexico when they are supposed to be taken off the street altogether.   KM: Yes, that did hit real close to home. Of course we were not involved in that. They didn’t approach us during that time because of the type of firearms that we manufacture did not seem to fit what their profile was but even that is ridiculous. I have no idea what the fore thought to that was and whose decisions those were but it is crazy. We are law abiding citizens, we follow all of the ATF rules, we actually have to deal with the state department with every gun that we sell outside of this country and we Do that because we love this business and we want to stay in it so we follow the rules and we are law abiding company. Then when you hear about stuff like this that was created and perpetrated by the government I am wondering who is in control.   SMH: Have you found a Second Amendment Friendly Bank?   KM: We have actually started doing the interviewing process. We have three interviews over the next few days and I hope to have a choice by next week. One of the situations that we have found ourselves in is now that we have a responsibility to the thousands of people that are going to be looking to see who we choose, we must be diligent in picking a second amendment friendly bank, not just tolerant ( because there are tolerant banks out there). For example, there is one of the major banks that does not allow legal concealed carry in their bank or even in their drive through and obviously, I could not choose that bank because that is not really supporting our legal rights to own and carry guns. So we have to do a good job because a lot of people are watching.   SMH: So they will tolerate it, they will not allow it (guns) in their bank, but I am sure that their security guards are carrying guns.   KM: I am sure that they are.   SMH: I really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us today. I know how much everyone wants to be kept up to speed on the progress of this situation.   KM: I will keep in touch with everyone through Facebook and our website when we do choose a new bank. Our website is www.McMillanUSA.com and our website has a link to our Facebook page. There is also a lot of information on our facebook page with regards to other people who have had similar experiences and people who have told their stories with relation to what has happened with Bank of America so if anybody is interested, they can just find us on facebook (McMillan Group International).   SMH: I have actually read quite a few stories on your facebook page and it does not seem like this is an isolated incident that is happening with you.   KM: No, it doesn’t and one of the things that has come to light is that they have done the same thing with farmers. I have heard several stories about people who have had family farms for years and years and about two or three years ago Bank of America started telling them that they will not be renewing their line of credit, which farms have to have in order to function. They (farms) can not function with out loans because of how the industry is. So when they are told that they can not have a credit line, it is real devastating to them. Asking us (McMillan) to change banks from Bank of America, we have not slowed down our production at all. It has not been a financial burden for us. Bank of America did tell us that they would give us 6 months or until September 1st (to find a new bank) so it has not been a financial Hardship for us. But those in the farming community who have had this happen to them, it was a real traumatic experience and for some of them, they never survived.   SMH: So the banking industry is actually picking and choosing the industries that are to their advantage to deal with.   KM: Apparently & for whatever reason. Well, I appreciate you calling me and giving me the chance to talk a little bit about what happened. I hope that your viewers find it enlightening. We will just have to see how this all plays out.   SMH: What does McMillan have in store for us this year as far as new product lines?   KM: We actually débuted a couple of new products at the Shot Show this year. They will probably be out by late summer. The CS-5 is a terrific new covert short barreled  mac-pack type gun for military and law enforcement. We also have a civilian version of it that has a 19 inch barrel so that you don’t have to get a tax stamp to own it.   SMH: I did not have the opportunity to stop by your booth at Shot this year but I will defently make it a point to come by and see you in January,   KM: Perfect- I look forward to it.   “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” ~ Thomas Jefferson~    
    May 18, 2012 2162
test