Live Nerves!

Touched a nerve with my recent post on hunting and shooting funding, didn't I?

First, let me answer an email...no, of course I'm not "anti-hunting!" Exactly the opposite. The shooting sports have the abilty to save hunting, to reverse the losses. Why? It's an equation. Say it takes $1000 to recruit a hunter for "X" years. There are several reasons why that dollar number is high — it's expensive to "cast the net," find the necessary number of potential hunters; there's the huge barrier (and expense) of buying a gun; there's the expense of both hunter safety and hunting specific training program; etc.

Let's say 10% of the excise taxes went specifically to the shooting sports. That still leaves 90% going to hunting-specific programs, including land aquisition and recruitment and retention! But the 10% for the shooting sports, call it $25 million per year, would be a stunning windfall for the shooting sports. Let's say $10 million per year was dedicated to growing the shooting sports, increasing the size of the pie, getting more people to the range. It is much easier and less expensive to get people to the range — in fact, we know how to do that, and we have a lot of experience at it! Once the program was up and running, I'd say the cost to recruit sport shooters would be in the $25-50 region.

If we brought an additional, say, 50,000 people into the shooting sports, every one of those new sport shooters are ideal prospects for the game fields. At much less cost than traditional recruitment and retention programs because they've already learned firearms safety, have the basic training and have purchased or have access to a gun. Plus, hunting mentors don't have to look far for good prospects.

And those larger numbers of new sport shooters MAKE US STRONGER; larger numbers of new shooters make shooting and hunting more "mainstream," one of the key ways to reverse the years of antigun propaganda.

Suppose $1 million a year (less than 1/200 of what WE pay in self-imposed taxes!) was earmarked for prize money. Think that might drive the shooting sports? Suppose we create a "Sport Shooter of the Year," who'll pick up a cool $100,000 and a nice yellow Hummer? Thing that might help us getting our message out?

Suppose a portion of that money went to a full-time newsroom, sending out press releases, advance information, background material on the various shooting sports? Would that get us in the New York Times? Nope...but you would start reading and hearing about shooting sports and local "heroes" in your local papers and media. Think that might drive an increase in new shooters? How do we know these ideas will work? WE'VE TRIED THEM, BETA-TESTED THEM AND SEEN THE RESULTS!

What money is left we use to create and promote a national program for training and a national standards for certifying instructors, augmenting and expanding the excellent NRA program already out there. The new paradigm for instruction would be based on ski/snowbaord instruction — a standardized national package that allows new shooters access to multiple different levels/styles of instruction that are aimed at driving the shooting sports. "I took Class 2 Handgun in Texas, and I'm looking forward to a Class 1 Shotgun class when I move to Iowa..."

Every single thing I've mentioned is already a proven path; concepts already hammered out, tested and waiting for funding. The hell of it is, the money's already there. We pay it; we ALL pay it.

It's a heck of a vision, isn't it?