National Hunting and Fishing Day is Saturday. Will You Participate?

September 22nd marks the annual National Hunting and Fishing Day, which has been celebrated since 1972.


Saturday marks the return of the annual National Hunting and Fishing Day, which encourages sportsmen and women to promote true conservation efforts. It also serves as a perfect occasion to introduce someone new to hunting, fishing, and/or shooting sports.


It takes place every fourth Saturday in September, conveniently coinciding with the start of fall hunting season. This year, NASCAR legend Dale Earnhardt, Jr., will serve as Honor Chair of the event.


Sponsors of this year’s event include Bass Pro Shops, Realtree Outdoors, National Wild Turkey Federation, Yamaha, Ducks Unlimited, Wonders of Wildlife Museum, and National Shooting Sports Foundation.


This isn’t a new holiday. The idea was introduced to both chambers of Congress back in the 1970’s. At the insistence of the NSSF, Senator Thomas McIntyre (D-NH) introduced Joint Resolution 117 in June 1971 to authorize the annual holiday on the fourth Saturday of every September. Congressman Bob Sikes (D-FL) introduced a companion House version afterwards.


Congress unanimously passed these key pieces of legislation in early 1972.’s website says President Richard Nixon signed the first proclamation of National Hunting and Fishing Day on May 2, 1972. The full proclamation reads as follows:


For many years, responsible hunters and fishermen have been in the vanguard of efforts to halt the destruction of our land and waters and protect the natural habitat so vital to our wildlife.


Through a deep personal interest in our wildlife resources, the American hunter and fisherman have paved the way for the growth of modern wildlife management programs. In addition, his purchase of licenses and permits, his payment of excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, and his voluntary contributions to a great variety of conservation projects are examples of his concern for wildlife populations and habitat preservation.


His devotion has promoted recreational outlets of tremendous value for our citizens, sportsmen and non-sportsmen alike. Indeed, he has always been in the forefront of today’s environmental movement with his insistence on sound conservation programs.


In recognition of the many and worthwhile contributions of the American hunter and angler, the Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 117, has requested the President to declare the fourth Saturday of September 1972 as National Hunting and Fishing Day.


Now, Therefore, I, Richard Nixon, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate Saturday, September 23, 1972, as National Hunting and Fishing Day.


I urge all our citizens to join with outdoor sportsmen in the wise use of our natural resources and in insuring their proper management for the benefit of future generations.


In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-sixth.


I’ll be doing my part to promote conservation this weekend with my participation in an outdoor kids camp down in Virginia Beach, VA to benefit kids of active military members. Will you introduce someone new to fishing, hunting, or shooting sports this weekend?


This Conservation Group Aims to Tackle Poaching Through Innovative Means

EDGE has an unconventional but groundbreaking approach to conserving threatened African species like the rhino.

Americans have a soft spot for majestic, exotic animals—especially a desire to see them at healthy numbers in the wild. Due to the the proliferation of zoological societies and wildlife refuge centers in our country, we are able to educate ourselves about and witness magnificent creatures like giraffes, lions, tigers, rhinos, water buffalo, and other species close up but from a distance. Outlets like National Geographic and BBC America gives us a glimpse into these creatures through their storytelling and vivid imagery found in their articles and shows, respectively. It’s important to remember that these are wild creatures, not cuddly animals. They have the ability to enact great harm, and even death, upon humans. There are major risks entailed in coming into close contact with them. Nevertheless, factoring in caution and common sense, we can care about their well-being without being tree huggers or rabid animal rights activists.

You may recall the last male Northern rhino passed away back in March. Just this week, Phillip Bronkhorst of South Africa —who owns and operates Phillip Bronkhorst Safaris—posted a video of a rhino on his private farm that was poached and killed. The video has since garnered close to 200,000 views. Throughout the continent of Africa, rhinos and other big game species are illegally poached for their horns. Why? Local myth implies rhino horns are an aphrodisiac – the key to eternal male virility. Bizarre, right? Other species are similarly poached for their particular assets and supposed wealth entailed in these objects, like tiger or lion paws.

Who are these poachers and what is their driving force? Many of these individuals are local to African villages or towns, they could be relatives of Rangers too—driven to get out of poverty by drastic, unethical means. What is important to note is that poachers should not be conflated with law-abiding hunters. That would be a grave mistake.

A healthy alternative is being a steward of animal welfare—like EDGE (Eco Defense Group) is doing. Their services include tactical and canine support; wildlife conservation forensics programs; and community development. EDGE approaches conservation through research, technology, education, and safety. The group hopes to tackle poaching through innovative means. They bring in professionals from across different fields —namely the US Army Research, Woods Hole Research Institute, International business, special ops and entertainment—and across the globe. Their website doesn’t reveal [organization bios](A healthy alternative is being a steward of animal welfare—like EDGE (Eco Defense Group%29 is. ) “due to the unique nature and security concerns of some of our work.” They work with and endorse the work of Special Rangers in Kruger National Park in South Africa, for example, to aggressively combat poaching there:

Kruger National Park, at over two million hectares — roughly the size of Israel — is one of the largest and most diverse parks in the world, and it is the epicenter for counter poaching. On morning drives we are charged by bull elephant and attacked by baboons. We watch leopard walk up to our car and rhino and kudu and giraffe pass by. It is truly a kind of paradise, unique the world, unique among even other Africa preserves.

The park is maintained and controlled by Rangers, under direction of expert Regional Ranger Don English. Section Rangers control various parts of the park; under the Section Rangers, Field Rangers work in the bush for up to five nights at a time, tracking and ambushing the poachers that cross the borders.

And poachers cross daily. Kruger is losing Rhino at a rate of approximately 1.5 animals per day, with other species like elephant, pangolin and lion under attack as well. Since the market explosion almost a decade ago, the Rangers in the park have been fighting a war, and it is a war in which they struggle constantly to gain the upper hand.

Which is why 28-year veteran Ranger and Head of Special Operations Bruce Leslie has handpicked twenty top Field Rangers for a unique team of Special Rangers. They call themselves “The Lions.”

These Special Rangers represent a new evolution in the anti-poaching war. They are the tip of the spear in the fight, and their training, technology and tactics have made them a razor sharp instrument in an intelligent and evolutionary approach.

Did this pull at your heartstrings? You can chip in to support their efforts by going here to donate whatever you can. This conservation group is unlike any other, so you know your funds will go to support rangers, training, and educational efforts.

Follow EDGE on FacebookInstagram, and Twitter. Check out their website to learn more about their conservation efforts.

The Endangered Species Act Needs to Be Overhauled to Better Promote Conservation

USFWS and NOAA Fisheries echoed Congressional calls for ESA reforms. Here’s why this should be celebrated.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries have announced rules changes to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to better reflect “best science and best practices to improve reliability, regulatory efficiency and environmental stewardship.”

In a release issued yesterday, these recommendations came from stakeholders invested in the issue on how to better promote the law without stepping on people’s toes, being duplicitous in nature, or having faulty application of the law that would do little to protect endangered or threatened species. Both agencies urged reforms — not abolition — of the ESA to ensure its application reflects true conservation methods.

“The Trump Administration is dedicated to being a good neighbor and being a better partner with the communities in which we operate. One thing we heard over and over again was that ESA implementation was not consistent and often times very confusing to navigate. We are proposing these improvements to produce the best conservation results for the species while reducing the regulatory burden on the American people,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Principal Deputy Director Greg Sheehan. “We value public input and have already incorporated initial public comments we received in response to our notices of intent published in 2017. We encourage the public to provide us additional feedback to help us finalize these rules.”

“We work to ensure effective conservation measures to recover our most imperiled species,” said Chris Oliver, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. “The changes being proposed today are designed to bring additional clarity and consistency to the implementation of the act across our agencies, and we look forward to additional feedback from the public as part of this process.”

Section 4 of the 1973 law would be reformed to “ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.” With respect to this provision, both agencies have proposed measures that offer more specificity in relation to designations made with respect to listing, delisting, and reclassification of species—plus improve how critical habitat designations are made. The agency made it clear that some of these designations of “critical habitat is not prudent.” Section 7 deals with how other federal agencies would consult with the Service and NOAA Fisheriesto “ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat.”

Independent of this rule change, USFWS and NOAA also hope to amend Section 4(d) of the ESA that applies a blanket rule that awards same protections for threatened species as they would for endangered species. This proposed rule change would exclude currently listed threatened species, but “will ensure that species listed as threatened in the future receive the protections tailored to the species’ individual conservation needs” in the future. Departing from past administrations, these two agencies have proposed this interpretation of “foreseeable future” to mean they—USFWS and NOAA Fisheries—can cogently and clearly “determine that both the future threats and the species’ responses to those threats are probable.”

This reform would be welcomed for several reasons.

First, ESA protections for threatened and endangered species should be tailored to the conservation needs of the species—well rooted in science, and not junk science alarmism. The status of threatened or endangered species can rapidly change when conservation methods are carefully implemented and when facts and findings aren’t manipulated. The designation should also accurately reflect the current status of a particular species, not be labeled as more threatened than believed or recorded for political reasons. Secondly, the law in its current standing has deleterious effects on property owners as in the case of the dusky gopher frog in Weyerhauser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a 2012 incident in Louisiana that ruled that federal government can designate private land in the state as “critical habitat” for this particular frog species in question. This case made it impossible for the landowners to develop their land, with this resulting in costs amounting to $34 million. The case will be heard in the Supreme Court on October 1, 2018. There are many other species — invasive and non-native deemed “threatened” or “extinct”— that are granted these critical habitat designation protections at the expense of landowners, including conservancy fairy shrimp and wolves (the latter of which has exploded in numbers over the years, to the detriment of ranchers in the Mountain West). The ESA in its current standing would force landowners to pay for programs preserving them should they reside on their property. Asinine if you ask me.

The ESA modifications were welcomed by groups like Safari Club International.

Members of the bipartisan Western Caucus similarly hosted a press conference on Capitol Hill last Thursday to shed light on the need to modernize the ESA, given its innumerable shortcomings to protect native species in our country or promote true conservation. In an official press release from July 12th, here’s what the caucus previewed in terms of reforms it hopes to usher in:

Today, Members of the Congressional Western Caucus unveiled a bipartisan package of nine bills, all united by the goal of modernizing and improving the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). …The ESA has been modified only sparingly since its introduction, with the result being that the hundreds of thousands of interactions that take place every day between parties affected by the Act and the statute as implemented have had almost no bearing on the way species conservation is managed in the United States at the federal level. Even Executive branch regulations governing implementation of the Act lie mostly untouched – and have for years. … Consequently, the sum total of experience and exposure to the ESA across decades by thousands of hugely different parties throughout the United States has been decisively ignored when it comes to improving the Act. Not a Caucus to let such an embarrassment of riches lie wasted, we saw an opportunity for serious reform….The ultimate goal which every Member involved in the Modernization Package agreed on was that the ESA must be retooled in order to: 1)Fulfill its original intent of prioritizing real recovery and conservation of eligible species, and; 2) More effectively balance the interests of all parties involved in and affected by species and habitat listings – including species themselves, private citizens, industry, local governments, public infrastructure projects, nonprofit organizations and other entities.

Here are more posts in support of ESA reforms:

If reforms were to be enacted, they would target the following shortcomings: 1) reducing environmental litigation, 2) more possibility for sustainable land development 3) and farming while concurrently protecting endangered species.

The ESA was enacted to accomplish the following: “The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Service has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife such as whales and anadromons fish such as salmon.” However, it can be argued that the ESA took a staunch preservationist view over a conservationist view and now applies its provision to non-native species, among many of its longstanding issues.

I spoke with Congressman Louie Gohmert last fall about his SAVES Act, which was placed on a Union Calendar back in February. The goal of the SAVES Act is to ” amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that nonnative species in the United States shall not be treated as endangered species or threatened species for purposes of that Act.”

​Not surprising, rabid animal rights groups and Democrats have screamed bloody murder with respect to the modernization of the ESA.

Lawmakers tied these proposed rule changes to Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh or blamed the “villainous” nature of the current administration.

EcoWatch said these rule changes “will push wildlife over the edge and into extinction.”

Center for Biological Diversity, which has a lengthy history opposing hunting as a means of conservation, said Interior is threatened by the ESA in its current standing because it’s “effective.” (Really?)

Sierra Club issued a statement saying without the ESA in its current form, we wouldn’t see grizzly bears or American bald eagles and they risk going “extinct” with new changes.

Reforms to the ESA should be welcomed not only to better promote true conservation efforts, but to promote coexistence with private property rights. I’ll continue to monitor developments here at The Resurgent.

WIN: Interior Proposes Expansion of Hunting, Fishing on 30 More Wildlife Refuges

This proposal will open up roughly 248,000 acres to new or expanded hunting and fishing opportunities.

Yesterday, the Department of Interior announced its intention to expand hunting and fishing opportunities on 30 wildlife refuge comprising roughly 248, 000 acres. This is in line with his past secretarial orders and efforts to increase public access for these outdoor activities—which weren’t seen on such a large scale until now.

What would this proposed plan do? It would open up new hunting and fishing opportunities across 30 wildlife refuges and expand such opportunities in 136 wildlife refuges. Moreover, it would simplify regulations to better reflect state hunting and fishing regulations, and go into effect during the 2018-2019 seasons. If approved, this measure would allow hunting to transpire across 377 wildlife refuges, while allowing fishing to occur on 312 wildlife refuges. An official DOI release said new opportunities would be permitted on “Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois and Wisconsin,” while allowing “deer hunting in Philadelphia at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge” for the first time.

“As stewards of our public lands, Interior is committed to opening access wherever possible for hunting and fishing so that more families have the opportunity to pass down this American heritage,” Zinke said. “These 30 refuges will provide incredible opportunities for American sportsmen and women across the country to access the land and connect with wildlife.”





Illinois and Missouri

Illinois and Wisconsin



Maine and New Hampshire





New Jersey

New Jersey and New York

New Mexico

North Dakota






  • Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge: Open hunting of certain gamebirds, small mammals and furbearers for the first time, and expand existing migratory game bird and big game hunting.

This isn’t the first time Zinke and his department have expanded hunting and fishing opportunities during their young tenure thus far. Last fall, his department opened up these opportunities across 10 national wildlife refuges and similar public lands.

Very encouraging news. Let’s hope the naysayers—including those masquerading as sportsmen’s groups resisting DOI leadership—applaud this proposal.

CA Wants to Ban Hunters From Possessing Legally Hunted Animals from Africa

CA’s SB 1487 could pass and spread across the country—ultimately hurting true conservation efforts here and abroad.

Unsurprisingly, the once Golden State wants to ban firearms and now hunting. The latest move in Sacramento is the recent passage of Senate Bill 1487—the Iconic Africa Species Protection Act—in that respective chamber by a 5-2 vote. If passed by the CA Assembly and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, the law would forbid Californians from being in possession of certain legally harvested animals from Africa—many of which are deemed “trophy” animals.

The bill was first introduced on February 16, 2018, to address Section 740.12 of the Public Utilities Code but later evolved into anti=hunting legislation. Here’s more on the proposed legislation stemming from California’s legislature:

Existing law prohibits the importation or possession of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians unless specified conditions are met, including, among other things, the animals were legally taken and legally possessed outside of this state and the Fish and Game Code and regulations adopted pursuant to that code do not expressly prohibit their possession in this state. Existing law provides that a violation of this code or any regulation adopted under this code is a crime.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body or other part or product of specified animals, including leopards, tigers, and elephants. A violation of this provision is punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000, not to exceed $5,000, or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, for each violation.

Per the bill, this ban would extend protections to “prohibit the possession of specified African species and any part, product, offspring, or the dead body or parts thereof, including, but not limited to, the African elephant or the black rhinoceros, by any individual, firm, corporation, association, or partnership within the State of California, except as specified for, among other things, use for educational or scientific purposes by a bona fide educational or scientific institution, as defined.”

The bill adds that if any Californian is in possession of aforementioned animals, dead body parts, etc., criminal penalties would be imposed—ranging from a fine to imprisonment. If someone is found in violation of this bill, if passed, they would be fined up to $10,000. Other estimations say penalties could range from $5,000 to $50,000.

NRA-ILA, the legislative wing of the National Rifle Association, noted that if passed, this bill would extend to other so-called “big game” species—adding this would violate federal and international laws like CITES:

Not only would SB 1487 violate federal law and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), but the bill has no basis in science, does not recognize the great contribution of hunters to wildlife conservation and cherry picks certain African species based on popularity instead of biological necessity. While this bill deals specifically with African species, make no mistake that this is the first step towards banning hunting domestically. The same animal rights activists that support this bill have also made clear that they intend to ban all hunting in the future.

Sportsmen’s Alliance similarly echoed their disapproval of this proposed legislation, citing its potential deleterious consequences to combat poaching efforts in Africa:

Currently, Americans may hunt Africa’s Big Five, which includes elephants, lions, leopards, rhinos and cape buffalos. These hunters must obtain the proper import permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and must be legally permitted to hunt those species in the range countries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only issues import permits for hunts that occur in countries that maintain sound conservation plans that help improve threatened and endangered wildlife. Dollars spent by American hunters fund anti-poaching operations and provide much needed funds to villages in range countries.

California recently considered a bill that would limit gun raffles to three a year—largely cutting into conservation funds for wildlife and habitat restoration efforts there. To see a bill like SB 1487 shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Trophy hunting is arguably a controversial matter, but one not too difficult to understand from a conservation angle. If this law were be to enacted, it could create a movement to outright ban possession of legally harvested animals not just from Africa, but elsewhere across the globe. Perhaps it will even extend its reach to ban American “trophy” species like Grizzly bears, mountain lions, proghorn sheep, or Roosevelt elk. That would be dangerous precedent targeting law-abiding hunters and killing off conservation efforts.

This video puts an unlikely positive spin on the conservation methods entailed with so-called trophy hunting:

Let’s hope this bill is killed, but given California’s one-party rule in Sacramento that’s unlikely to be the case. We will monitor these efforts going forward.

California Lawmakers Want to Limit Gun Raffles Benefitting Conservation Efforts

First they came after the AR-15s, now they come after gun raffles benefitting conservation.

A newly-introduced bill in the California legislature would severely cripple conservation efforts in the Golden State if passed.

AB 3199, which would amend how firearms are transferred, would limit gun raffles hosted by nonprofits to three a year under this proposed bill. Prominent wildlife and habitat conservation groups heavily rely on gun raffles to raise money for their efforts—even in California. Excise taxes collected on firearms—much like hunting and fishing licenses—directly go back to conservation efforts through the Pittman Robertson Act to be administered in individual states.

This provision to limit gun raffles to three a year was introduced by Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena). Holden originally wanted to ban all gun raffles, but settled on this move instead.

“This would put a limit on it, to be sure,” Holden told The Sacramento Bee. “We think that’s a reasonable one … I’m not quite sure why someone would want to raffle off an AR-15, but this would at least create a reasonable set of standards of how that would be done, and (ensure) it’s in compliance with the law.”

Here’s how AB 3199 would place limitations on gun raffles, which directly benefit conservation efforts:

This bill would repeal these exemptions for charitable auctions and would instead authorize a charitable organization, as specified, to conduct no more than 3 auctions, raffles, or similar events per year in which firearms, other than handguns, may be auctioned, raffled, or otherwise sold, and would require those firearms to be transferred to a licensed dealer to process the transfer pursuant to all legal requirements, including a background check and waiting period.

Renowned conservation group Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation would be among the many organizations adversely affected by this measure if it were to pass. Here’s how their impact could be affected:

Many organizations, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation included, conduct raffles in California to generate funding that is put back on the ground to benefit wildlife. RMEF has 32 different chapters and approximately 13,400 members statewide. About half of the $1 million it raises within the state on an annual basis comes via gun raffles.

The California chapter of National Wild Turkey Federation issued this legislative action item encouraging their members to voice opposition against AB 3199:

This bill would have serious negative effects on fundraising by charitable organizations in the state of California. Passage of this bill could lead to less funding for State Wildlife Areas, habitat conservation projects, and many other vital projects critical to wildlife in California

California Waterfowlers issued this statement condemning the proposed legislation, by citing how excise taxes from firearms purchases directly benefit conservation efforts via the Pittman Robertson Act:

Funding conservation with guns is not a new concept: 81 years ago, hunters agreed to tax themselves with the federal Pittman-Robertson Act, which places an 11 percent excise tax on guns and ammunition. The proceeds go primarily to support wildlife habitat, and since this act was passed, it has raised more than $2 billion, and states have matched this funding with more than $500 million…There is no evidence that guns won at California Waterfowl – or any – fundraising events are contributing to gun violenceAB 3199, which would restrict charitable organizations to no more than three events per year with gun raffles, is worse than a solution in search of a problem; it would prove extremely damaging to organizations like ours that ensure wildlife have a place to live and thrive amid the relentless expansion of human development across our state. It creates a victim where there was none before: wildlife.

First they came after the AR-15s, now they come after gun raffles benefitting true conservation efforts.

The AR-15, like other firearms, is largely discriminated against for its perceived “scary” aesthetics. The scaremongering that results from this unfair castigation of firearms—which are inanimate objects misused by criminals—have severely hurt efforts to promote actual gun safety, education, and now conservation. Conservatives and Republican lawmakers have rightly warned that undue regulation of firearms, instead of the enforcement of existing laws, would have adverse effects on other aspects of life—with conservation efforts being the latest target, as illustrated in this case.

California lawmakers would be very remiss to push this bill as groups like Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and their chapters there rely on these gun raffles to raise money for conservation. If you’ve attended a hunting-oriented banquet like I have, rifles are a huge staple there. Nobody gets harmed or perturbed by their presence. These evenings are marked by good times, better company, and thousands of dollars risen to save local habitats and wildlife species. So what if AR-15 type, semi-automatic rifles are auctioned off? They are done so in a safe and responsible manner—with proceeds directly going back to habitat and wildlife restoration efforts.

It’s important to remind our peers that hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts preach, practice, and encourage gun safety. Maligning them further will do nothing to reduce mass shootings or homicides. They deserve to be stakeholders in matters concerning public safety, not scapegoated or undermined. They handle firearms on a daily basis, unlike many of these so-called gun safety advocates who endlessly screech and clamor for gun disarmament under the guise of “reform.”

As I’ve argued here at The Resurgent before, attacking shooting sports and hunting—as hunters and anglers foot the bill for 80% of restoration efforts— is a dangerous move. If this bill passes, it could be replicated nationwide—as most ill-fated policies happen to spread from California outward. Let’s hope the Golden State’s hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts organize to defeat this bill, which attacks their lifestyle and their efforts to promote true conservation.

Girl Power: Dana Loesch Interviews Hunter Eva Shockey on New Book, Conservation

Blaze TV host and syndicated radio talk show host Dana Loesch interviewed hunter and new author Eva Shockey last night on her program.

Shockey–who’s been traveling around the U.S. promoting her new book “Taking Aim: Daring to Be Different, Happier and Healthier in the Great Outdoors“–joined Loesch on her program “Dana” to discuss why she wrote her book and why she uses her platform to be positive role model for women in hunting.

“I love how you reject every stereotype,” said Loesch about Shockey in the interview. “Because you’re like, ‘I’m feminine. I’m very lady-like.’ I’ve seen you out there with your bow … and your manicure’s on point. You embrace all of it and I think that redefines what people think about women who hunt.”

Here’s more from the interview:

Eva also explained that contrary to popular perceptions, hunters are strong conservationists. “We appreciate where our food comes from,” said Eva. She went on to explain that hunters “raise the most money for conservation of any other group on this planet … on top of that, we provide our own food. Instead of going to Whole Foods, we go hunting and we fill our freezer with meat that, for the rest of the year, we share with our family and with our friends. It’s no different than going to the grocery store, we just understand where it comes from. I think you have a greater appreciation for the animal.”

Originally from British Columbia, Canada, Eva Shockey rose to prominence here in the U.S. in the last five years and graced the cover of Field & Stream in 2014–one of America’s leading outdoor publications. She is one of the most popular outdoor personalities on social media and was recently listed as a Top Ten TV personality by Hollywood Reporter.
Here’s Eva’s recent interview on NRATV’s Cam and Company:






Shockey’s book is a great read. (Full disclosure: I was on her book Launch Team. You can watch my review of the book below):

In addition to hosting her own TV and radio programs, Dana Loesch also serves as a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. It was only natural to see her interview Shockey, a fellow sportswoman who is one of the most well-versed public figures on Second Amendment issues.

These two women certainly ooze true female empowerment, and it’s refreshing to see Ms. Shockey blazing the trail for more women in hunting and shooting sports. If you haven’t already, check out “Taking Aim” today!

Interior Will Shrink, Not Eliminate, Some National Monuments Under Review

The Associated Press is reporting the Department of Interior’s review of the Antiquities Act of 1906 will result in the shrinking, not elimination, of some contested national monuments. As to which monuments will be impacted, that has yet to be determined:

Per the AP, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke–after announcing a thorough review of the Antiquities Act earlier this year — is recommending that none of 27 national wildness or ocean monuments under review be eliminated.  But he said several of the contentious monuments will shrink in size. Here’s more from AP:

Zinke told The Associated Press that unspecified boundary adjustments for some monuments designated over the past four decades will be included in the recommendations he planned to give President Donald Trump on Thursday. None of the sites would revert to new ownership, he said, while public access for uses such as hunting, fishing or grazing would be maintained or restored.

 I wrote on this very subject here at The Resurgent earlier this year:

Why shouldn’t citizens have a say over the designation of national monuments in their backyards? Big government coming in and usurping lands with minimal to no public input–which they ultimately forbid hunting, fishing, and hiking on–should anger true conservationists. How can lands be public if the public is refused a voice ? Zinke recognizes the problem with preservation and has instead ushered in a return to true conservation.

Before the fear mongering starts to set in, let’s see what Secretary Ryan Zinke comes up with. He’s not going to sell off all public lands for oil and gas exploration. He’s not going to abuse his privileges. He’s actually offering to be transparent–a key facet absent in his predecessors. To keep public lands truly public, allowing input from those who’ll be impacted by such national monument designations is important. I welcome the improvement and modernization of the Antiquities Act of 1906 and hope you will too.

Perhaps a good compromise to be approved by all? That could likely be the case. We shall see which monuments will be affected–as Bears Ears National Monument should be on the receiving end of this recommendation after President Obama’s last minute illegal move to designate the area as a national monument late last year.

We will continue to follow updates on the public lands debate here at The Resurgent.