Jim Shepherd at The Shooting Wire has a fascinating feature on 84-year-old Ted Gundy, a U.S. Army sniper during World War II. Gundy (pictured at left) recently visited the Army’s sniper training school, and in the process thoroughly impressed the school’s modern warriors by firing bull’s-eyes with an old bolt-action .30-06 Springfield and a primitive scope.

West Virginia wildlife officials have tried to remain upbeat as snowfall after snowfall blanketed the Mountain State. They acknowledge, however, that much more might cause deer to start dying off.

Biologists don’t expect major losses, but they do expect winterkill to occur in “pockets” where snows are deepest and where last fall’s mast shortage left deer in particularly poor condition.

So-called “right to hunt” amendments are now in effect in 14 states, with Tennessee moving toward making it 15. My column this week in the Sunday Gazette-Mail explains why I think such amendments aren’t a good idea:

Sometimes sportsmen should be more careful what they wish for.

In Tennessee, for example, a vocal band of outdoors enthusiasts asked legislators to add a “right to hunt” clause to the state’s constitution.

The Tennessee Senate recently approved a right-to-hunt bill. If the measure passes the House of Representatives, a simple majority “yes” vote during the 2010 fall election would make it law.

At first glance, a constitutional right to hunt might seem like a fine idea. A closer look reveals some potential pitfalls.

Chief among them: People don’t pay for rights.

Does our right to free speech require a fee? No. Does our right to worship as we please? Our right to due process of law? Our right to jury trials?

We don’t pay for rights; we pay for privileges.

For example, there is no “right to drive a car.” Driving is a privilege, extended by states to their citizens. To qualify for that privilege here in West Virginia, we must pass a written test and a hands-on driving proficiency test. Then we pay a fee. Then, and only then, does the state issue us a license.

Should hunting become a right, would the state lose the ability to charge a license fee?

And before you cheer about that, bear in mind that hunting- and fishing-license fees allow the state wildlife officials to purchase vast tracts of hunting land for your use, stock fish in streams and reservoirs for you to catch, manage the wildlife you hunt, and keep outlaws from ruining all those resources before you can enjoy them.

Speaking of outlaws, what would happen if the state caught some guy spotlighting deer and found him in possession of 100 frozen whitetail carcasses? Could the state punish the violator by telling him he could never hunt again?

“The Legislature has given my client a constitutional right to hunt, and you may not revoke that right,” the guy’s lawyer could tell the court. And if the court ruled in his favor, the state would lose a major deterrent to wildlife-related crime.

A right to hunt could also butt heads with property rights.

Landowners don’t own the wildlife that lives on their property. By law, West Virginia’s wildlife belongs to the public. Landowners can, however, protect wildlife on their land by limiting people’s access to it.

Would they still be able to do that if the public had a constitutional right to hunt? Again, some court would probably end up deciding. Hunters arrested for trespassing could conceivably argue that their right to hunt is every bit as important as a landowner’s right to restrict access.

Finally, what effect would a right-to-hunt amendment have on the state’s ability to establish hunting seasons, determine bag limits and set up special-regulation hunting areas?

Any hunter willing to spend time and treasure on a court fight could make wildlife officials’ lives miserable. He could argue that bag limits unduly restrict his right to hunt, or that hunting seasons prevent him from exercising his right to hunt whenever he wants to.

I’ve heard right-to-hunt amendments called “a solution in search of a problem.” The simple fact is that hunting is a legal, state-sanctioned activity in all 50 states.

No credible threat to hunting’s legal status has ever arisen. Why, then, would hunters want to risk opening a different, but equally messy, can of worms?

Gee, it’s kind of encouraging to hear a big-time Washington bureaucrat praise “the remarkable legacy of hunter-conservationists in America.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar uttered those words yesterday as he announced the formation of a new advisory body, the Wildlife Heritage and Hunting Conservation Council.

The council’s stated purpose is to “help promote cooperation between sportsmen … and state and federal governments.” It will include representatives from the archery, hunting and shooting sports industries.

“We will ask the council to consider key issues of concern within the wildlife conservation community and assist us in maximizing our conservation and public recreation programs for the benefit of all Americans,” Salazar said. “The creation of this council is but another chapter in the remarkable legacy of hunter-conservationist in America.”

Salazar had particularly kind words for hunters’ active roles in helping protect the environment and helping conserve wildlife populations.

“All Americans have benefited from the conservation of America’s hunters. It is clear to me that if wildlife conservation is to remain strong in America, our nation’s hunting tradition must remain strong,” he said.

If California wildlife officials really want to expand black bear hunting, they should encourage those protesting the proposed expansion to take a look at West Virginia.

This entry in the L.A. Times gets into the arguments animal-activist groups are making against the proposals. They oppose the use of dogs. They oppose the use of radio-tracking collars on the dogs. They oppose the use of GPS locators in the dogs’ collars. They argue that the Golden State’s bear population will soon be decimated if hunters are allowed to enjoy such advantages.

Never mind that hunters here in West Virginia have employed similar technology for ages, and our bear population is increasing. In 1977 the Mountain State had an estimated 500 black bears. Now we have more than 12,000. We must be doing something right.

In mid-March, biologists and officials from the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources will hold a series of 12 public meetings throughout the Mountain State.

The meetings are a chance for hunters and anglers to get in their two cents’ worth. DNR biologists will have their proposed 2010 hunting regulations in draft form by then, and they incorporate the input they get at the meetings into their final proposals.

Two meetings will be held in each of the DNR’s six management districts. All the meetings will run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Here’s the schedule:

Monday, March 15, 2010

Fairmont - East Fairmont High School (Commons Area)

Martinsburg - James Rumsey Technical Institute (Cafeteria)

Summersville - Summersville High School

Lewisburg - Brier Inn

Milton - West Virginia Pumpkin Park (4-H Building)

Spencer - Spencer Community Building

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Glen Dale - John Marshall High School

Moorefield - Moorefield Middle School (Cafeteria)

Buckhannon - Buckhannon-Upshur High School

Mullens - Twin Falls State Park (Chinquapin Room)

Logan - Chief Logan State Park Conference Center

Parkersburg - City Building/Lobby

Hot off the presses, here are the results of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources’ 2010 annual waterfowl survey. From a DNR news release:

Wildlife biologists counted 2,868 ducks and 7,789 Canada geese during the annual mid-winter waterfowl survey in early January, according to Steve Wilson, Waterfowl Biologist for the Wildlife Resources Section of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources.

            “The numbers of both ducks and geese were higher than 2009, with ducks up 41 percent and geese up 138 percent,” Wilson said.  “The real value of this survey is analysis of long-term data across broad geographic areas, rather than annual fluctuations within individual states.”

            Weather conditions during and immediately prior to the survey strongly influences waterfowl movement.  When snow cover and frozen waterways force birds to move south and congregate on larger rivers and lakes that are not frozen-over, waterfowl counts in West Virginia usually increase.

            Canada geese, mallards and black ducks, as usual, were the most commonly observed species in the 2010 survey.  Other observed waterfowl include:  canvasback, scaup, ring-necked duck, gadwall, bufflehead, goldeneye, mergansers and tundra swan.  Eleven bald eagles and one golden eagle were also observed.

            The survey was conducted on January, 5, 8 and 11, 2010 and included portions of the Kanawha, Ohio, Shenandoah and New rivers as well as Tygart and Bluestone lakes.

Once again, sportsmen have put their money where their mouths are.

Aided by a $20,000 grant from the National Wild Turkey Federation, the State of West Virginia will add 1,585 acres of prime hunting land to its Beury Mountain Wildlife Management Area.

The newly added tract will fill in a gap that had existed between the Beury Mountain WMA and the nearby New River Gorge National River.

Under the agreement, The Nature Conservancy will buy the land from Greenbrier Forest Products, and will sell it to the Division of Natural Resources over the next two years. The DNR will get most of the money from sales of hunting and fishing licenses, and the NWTF will chip in its 20 grand.

This latest tract is an addition to 4,500 acres added a couple of years ago through a similar process.

Bad news — Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow this morning. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette tells how.

Take heart, though. The vernal equinox (the first day of spring) is only six weeks and a few days away.

During my recent tour of the SHOT Show, I ran across a product that should excite anyone who bowhunts for deer east of the Mississippi River.

Called Optifade Big Game/Forest, the new digital camouflage pattern is specifically designed to be invisible to deer and other ungulate species at ranges between 20 and 40 yards, and to mimic the coloration and vertical shadow pattern commonly found in eastern woodlands.

The initial Optifade pattern, Big Game/Open Country, was designed for the brownish brushlands found in western states. It worked great in the Rockies, the Great Basin and the Sierra Nevadas, but was ill-suited for use in eastern deciduous forests.

I’ve heard critics express fear that Big Game/Forest’s darkish pattern might “block up” when viewed from a distance and become an amorphous blob. Keep in mind, though, that the purpose is to be invisible to a deer’s vision at distances within bow range.

Sitka Gear, licensed by Optifade inventor W.L. Gore & Associates to market the pattern, has come out with a full product line — clothing, hats, gloves, backpacks, underwear and other accessories.

Now if they’d just come out with an eastern pattern designed specifically to fool a turkey’s vision…