From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #414 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, December 24 2012 Volume 15 : Number 414 In this issue: [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: Two alleged gangsters nabbed in Langley for firearms offences From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Sun, December 23, 2012 11:49 pm Two alleged gangsters nabbed in Langley for firearms offences BY STAFF REPORTER, THE PROVINCE DECEMBER 22, 2012 http://www.theprovince.com/news/alleged+gangsters+nabbed+Langley+firearms+offences/7737503/story.html Two alleged gangsters were arrested by Langley RCMP Friday after police found them carrying firearms. Officers with the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of BC arrested four men near 90th Avenue and 204th Street in Walnut Grove Friday afternoon after receiving a tip. Two of the men were released without charges, while two others were taken into custody and face firearms charges for allegedly breaching firearms prohibition orders. The 31-year-old man and 25-year-old man, both of no fixed address, are known to police and have gang ties, according to a news release. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: Larry James Fillo Subject: deadliest shooting, not assault rifle related Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:58:45 -0600 Interesting point, those with murderous intent, carrying multiple magazines, more than makes up for having only 10 in a pistol. As the Obama administration does(exactly what the NRA claimed he would do in his second term) attempt with his media allies, to implement the Clinton era "assault weapons" ban, we discover the deadliest shooting at a school wasn't committed by someone using an "assault rifle" but simple a couple of ordinary, run of the mill handguns. Handguns, have proliferated with the CCW permit system almost nation wide and homicides declined. Two facts that are a little awkward for the media and Obama admin., that is to the degree we can get the facts out. Hey, look on the bright side, Newsweek just folded. The Mainstream Media is weakening as more people/ad dollars(!) turn to the internet as they become tired of being lied to by the MSM. "Keeping in mind the statistical rarity and relatively tiny death toll of mass shootings to begin with, is this true? Will high capacity bans lower the number of people killed in mass shootings? All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre. With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn't need any massive magazines or custom weapons. The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can't lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn't matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized." excerpted from http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the- assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/ ***AsstMod-RAM: This Article is too long for the Digest, and requires going to the Website to view the corresponding photos. The Comments are worth reading, also.*** ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: Geoffrey Stevens: "...ban the private ownership of firearms" From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Mon, December 24, 2012 9:58 am Loosening controls on guns isn’t the way to go Geoffrey Stevens, former managing editor of the Globe and Mail - Mon Dec 24 2012 00:01:00 http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/858744--loosening-controls-on-guns-isn-t-the-way-to-go Let me start this Christmas Eve with a confession. I am, and always have been, a firm believer in gun control. This began long before the senseless massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary School this month, at Virginia Tech in 2007 or at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1989, among other atrocities. I have never understood why a supposedly civilized society, one that is truly concerned with the safety of its citizens, permits some of them to walk around with weapons with which they can kill children, students, teachers, co-workers and other fellow citizens (or kill themselves). If I were advising Prime Minister Stephen Harper — which, don’t worry, won’t happen in a million years — I would urge him to ask Parliament to ban the private ownership of firearms, and to implore Washington to adopt a similar ban in the United States. In my capacity as an unpaid and unwanted adviser, I would recommend that Parliament, having imposed a blanket ban, then craft a series of careful exemptions and controls for legitimate civilian gun users — for farmers, hunters and perhaps target shooters. Alas, none of this is going to happen. The Harper government appears to be in the thrall of the gun lobby and the Obama administration is terrified of the National Rifle Association and its Second Amendment followers. United States President Barack Obama has talked a tough game since Sandy Hook, but his “initiatives” have been weak-kneed. He is simply asking Congress to reinstate an ineffectual earlier ban on the manufacture of assault weapons. Even if he can get Congress to act, which is by no means certain, his half-measures will do nothing to address the gun culture in the U.S. — a country where, it is estimated, there are more firearms than there are people. Let tell you a personal story. Twenty years ago, I moved from Toronto to Tampa, Fla. One of my co-workers there was a Canadian woman who was married to an American whom she had met and wed in Toronto. When I arrived in Florida, they invited me to dinner. After dinner, the husband took me aside to say: “Look, the first thing you need to do is get yourself a gun. This is not Canada. Down here, you have to protect yourself and your family.” “What?” said I, the naïve Canadian, “You have guns?” He had seven of them, he replied, in his home, office and car, including two in the bedside tables of the master bedroom. “Any (expletive deleted) who tries to break in will be dead before he gets through the door.” A few days later, he took me to a gun show in the Tampa armouries. I had never seen anything like it: table after table laden with everything from revolvers to submachine guns to bazookas, and creepy-looking customers in camouflage garb wandering around with automatic rifles slung on their backs. Gun shows were — and are — a major source of illegal firearms. Knowing this back then, the State of Florida introduced a pair of controversial measures that angered the gun community. It required purchasers of weapons to wait a day or two for a background check. And it changed the rules for itinerant gun dealers. Previously, they could sell weapons and ammunition out of the trunks of cars at gun shows; now they were required to have an address, although a hotel room would do. Matters are not likely to deteriorate to this extent in Canada any time soon, but there are worrying signs. The government listens to an advisory committee that is dominated by gun lobbyists. Earlier this month, the prime minister was forced to intervene when the committee proposed to loosen controls on ownership of prohibited weapons. Last week, his government, having already done away with the firearms registry, quietly scrapped regulations that would have required gun dealers to, among other things, notify the police before they hold a gun show. I hope it’s not the start of a slippery slope. Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens, an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail, teaches political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Guelph. He welcomes comments at geoffstevens@sympatico.ca . ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: George Jonas: In a free society, people have the right to own guns From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Mon, December 24, 2012 10:03 am George Jonas: In a free society, people have the right to own guns George Jonas | Dec 22, 2012 12:01 AM ET http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/22/george-jonas-in-a-free-society-people-have-the-right-to-own-guns/ When good people encounter evil, whether as a manifestation of nature or human nature, they feel frustrated. It would be worse if they didn't and took matters in their stride. It would be very unattractive if people just shrugged and said: "Well, isn't it too bad, toddlers and teachers mowed down by some lurking lunatic! But hell, there's nothing we can do, so what about dinner?" Even though doing nothing is preferable to doing the wrong thing, to do nothing after a mass murder of six-year-olds would seem unbearably callous. And that's how it happens, in order to seem caring rather than callous to ourselves, that we end up doing the wrong thing. The wrong thing will be, unless wiser counsel intervenes, new measures of state control over firearm ownership, possibly extending to monitoring the psychiatric status of individuals or their relationships. Guns may become the state's passkeys to the nation's bedrooms. The measures to control them will reduce people's freedom and dignity without increasing their security. What they will increase, though, is their sense of alienation. Consider the latest U.S. tragedy. The question to ask is: Would any gun-control measures enacted, or even proposed in free and democratic societies, have prevented it? The answer is no. The Newtown shooter used his mother's (and first victim's) guns. The strictest gun-control regime permits a woman with no criminal record or psychiatric history to keep non-prohibited and properly stored weapons in her home. No gun laws proposed or implemented make a parent's gun ownership subject to a successful psychiatric evaluation of teenagers in the household. Banning guns altogether is a different story. A complete ban of firearms in the hands of private individuals would undoubtedly reduce gun violence, but only if strictly enforced, in conjunction with confiscation and destruction of the existing stock. It would have to be combined with draconian penalties for non-compliance. It would also have to be retroactive; for, if grandfathered, such a law would leave great quantities of weapons in private hands, changing only their legal status and value. This means mass-murdering maniacs would be obliged to massacre their victims with illegal weapons more often than they do now. It does not mean that they would commit fewer massacres. Since it takes a tyranny to implement total prohibition, it is mostly tyrannies that make the attempt. Not surprisingly, elimination of privately-held firearms significantly reduces gun-related violence in tyrannies that try it. Gun violence doesn't vanish in these types of societies, but it becomes the monopoly of the state, along with most other things, from commerce to art. Violence, crime, even insanity are nationalized, so to speak. Ideas or acts we consider human rights, the tyrannical state diagnoses as psychiatric conditions in secular nations, or blasphemy in religious nations. In such countries, the streets are generally safe and orderly, at least until the people who have traded liberty for safety try to reverse the deal by revolution, where they risk all their safety to gain a little liberty, but usually gain only another tyrant. (For more detail, see the Arab Spring, among others.) Some of my friends think highly of liberty, but have little use for guns, and have a hard time talking about the two in the same breath. Some suggest I should take it down a notch, warning that I'll risk not being taken seriously if I keep conflating liberty and firearms. "Why does anyone need a military assault rifle?" one friend asked. In fact, military assault rifles are prohibited weapons in most jurisdictions. They weren't used in any of the mass shootings, and aren't part of the debate. But the question illustrates why gun control is tied so closely to liberty. Strictly speaking, no one "needs" anything but a breath of air, a cup of water and a bowl of rice. The rest are individual choices we make as free human beings, if that's what we are, instead of wards of the state. Liberty means not having to answer, explain, or justify, any of our choices to anyone. Why does anyone need a military assault rifle? I've no idea. I certainly don't, but at one time I owned six motorcycles (and knew people who owned 20). I would have had no trouble explaining why I needed them, but would have highly resented having to do so. Just yesterday, I heard of a person who owns nine cats. She keeps them in her apartment, and doesn't have to justify to me why she needs them. And if city hall thinks she does, city hall is wrong. Whether people collect cats, rifles, motorcycles, travel experiences or books, in a free country their "need" is fully justified by their "want." End of story. But in fact guns are easier to justify than motorcycles or cats. Guns protect. We buy them as taxpayers for our politicians' bodyguards. As long as we don't buy them for our own protection, few politicians object. National Post Related Jonathan Kay: The NRA's monstrously stupid plan to put gun-toting guards in every school http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/21/jonathan-kay-the-nras-mostrously-stupid-plan-to-put-gun-toting-guards-in-every-school/ Charles Krauthammer: There's a tradeoff required to curb mass murder http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/21/charles-krauthammer-theres-a-tradeoff-required-to-curb-mass-murder/ ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: David Frum: Guns endanger more than they protect From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Mon, December 24, 2012 10:10 am Guns endanger more than they protect By David Frum, CNN Contributor - updated 8:39 AM EST, Mon December 24, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/opinion/frum-nra-nightmare-vision/ Editor's note: David Frum, a CNN contributor, is a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is the author of eight books, including a new novel "Patriots" and his post-election e-book, "Why Romney Lost." Frum was a special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002. (CNN) -- The National Rifle Association's Friday press event has received almost uniformly negative reviews. Yet the speech by NRA chief Wayne LaPierre had this merit: It pulled into daylight for all to see the foundational assumption of modern American gun culture. LaPierre argued that our society is stalked by unknown numbers of monsters, potential mass murders like Adam Lanza. Then he said this: Even if we could somehow identify future Adam Lanzas, "that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country." The "criminal class" sentence is key. In LaPierre's mind, the world is divided between law-abiding citizens and dangerous criminals. Citizens and criminals form two separate and discrete categories. The criminals pose a threat; if the citizens do not go armed against the threat, they will be victimized by the threat. I know people who carry handguns with them wherever they go, and for just the reason described by LaPierre. Now let's take a look at the real world of American gun ownership. The following incident occurred in August: "A man was shot in the face 9 p.m. Friday in an altercation with a neighbor over barking dogs on Atlas Street," Troy Police said. "Police arrested David George Keats, 73, of Troy [Michigan] and charged him with attempted murder in the incident," according to a media release from the Troy Police Department. "According to police, witnesses stated that the altercation began when Keats let his three dogs outside and the dogs began to bark. According to the media release, Keats' 52-year-old next door neighbor yelled at the dogs to be quiet and kicked the fence. Keats then ran up to the victim, yelled, 'Don't tell my dogs to shut up,' and began shooting at the victim. "One bullet hit the man in the face, piercing both cheeks, and four more shots were fired at the victim as he was running away," according to the report. The encounter between Keats and his neighbor ended nonlethally only by good luck. A shot in the face is a shot to kill. The great divide on guns Nor was this encounter aberrational. There's solid research to show that most so-called defensive gun uses are not really defensive at all. In the late 1990s, teams of researchers at the Harvard school of public health interviewed dozens of people who had wielded a gun for self-defense. (In many cases, the guns were not fired, but were simply brandished.) The researchers pressed for the fullest description of exactly what happened. They then presented the descriptions to five criminal court judges from three states. "The judges were told to assume that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun and had described the event honestly from his/her own perspective. The judges were then asked to give their best guess whether, based on the respondent's description of the incident, the respondent's use of the gun was very likely legal, likely legal, as likely as not legal, unlikely legal, or very unlikely legal." Even on those two highly favorable (and not very realistic) assumptions, the judges rated the majority of the self-defensive gun uses as falling into one of the two illegal categories. The researchers concluded: "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society." That certainly describes the Keats shooting. With a little Google searching, you can pull up dozens of similar incidents. Kurtz: Will media stay focused on gun story? Here's a story from just this past week, December 22. "Longview, Washington -- A man shot and killed his uncle during an argument at their apartment complex late Friday night. ...'We heard a big bang,' said Ron Nelson, who lives a few apartments down...Nelson said the men were fighting over a hat and a cell phone." Now that so many Americans carry weapons when they go out of the home, shooting incidents can occur anywhere, including very commonly the road. Another recent incident: In Pensacola, Florida, in October a man in a Jeep Cherokee cut off another car. A roadway confrontation followed, the two cars stopped, and the Jeep owner emerged to shoot the other driver in the knee. He was arrested this past week. In these cases, and thousands like them each and every year, it is not so clear who is the "good guy" exercising responsible self-protection and who is the "bad guy" who can only be deterred by an armed citizen. But the guns in their hands protected exactly nobody. They turned ordinary altercations into murderous exchanges of fire. They brought wounds, death and criminal prosecution where otherwise there would likely only have been angry words or at worst, black eyes. LaPierre's offers a vision of American society as one unending replay of the worst scenes in Charles Bronson's 1974 vigilante classic, "Death Wish." The people most victimized by this nightmare vision end up being the people who believe it -- and who carry the weapons that kill or maim their neighbors, their relatives, their spouses, and random passersby. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: The Economist: Only drastic gun control could make a big difference. Small measures can help a bit. From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Mon, December 24, 2012 10:15 am THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS IN AMERICA: If We Want To Be Safer, We Need To Change The Constitution The Economist - Dec. 23, 2012, 12:36 PM http://www.businessinsider.com/the-truth-about-guns-we-need-to-change-constitution-2012-12 Only drastic gun control could make a big difference. Small measures can help a bit. ON DECEMBER 14th maniacs in America and China unleashed the horror in their heads on the most innocent of targets. In China's Henan province, Min Yongjun burst into a classroom and hacked away at 23 children, severing ears and fingers. But in Newtown, Connecticut, the little ones suffered even worse. After a ten-minute rampage 20 of them were dead, as were six teachers and the killer himself. The American was armed with a semi-automatic rifle with an extended magazine and two semi-automatic handguns. Every country has its madmen, but Min was armed only with a knife, so none of his victims died. If America is ever to confront its obsession with guns, that time is now. America's murder rate is four times higher than Britain's and six times higher than Germany's. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300 million guns are "out there" in the United States, more than one for every adult. Barack Obama does appear to be seizing the moment to push for tougher gun regulation; but America has heard such promises before, not least from the current president on the campaign trail in 2008. Nothing came of that; Mr Obama never even attempted to follow through, and no gun-control bill ever made even the floor of Congress during his first term, although the Democrats held bulletproof majorities there. This time may--just--prove different. The crime in Newtown was so horrible that even the National Rifle Association is talking about change. Some form of new regulation does seem possible: perhaps a reinstatement of the assault-weapons ban which, between 1994 and 2004, prohibited the sale of a list of the most militaristic weapons, or an end to the "gun-show exemption" that allows people to buy weapons without the usual background checks that supposedly prevent the sale of weapons to criminals and the insane. If you want to be safer, change the constitution These measures will all help, though they cannot be anything like the panacea that the would-be regulators dream of. The great bulk of America's murders are committed with "ordinary" handguns, not the sort that would be covered by any remotely likely ban; and the evidence that the 1994-2004 ban altered homicide rates is sketchy at best. The list of banned weapons was filled with loopholes, and was easy for gun-buyers to evade. It also referred only to the sale of new weapons, and made no attempt to tackle the mountain of killing equipment already in the public's hands. If Americans want a society where schools do not, as the one in Newtown did, have to drill their children in emergency lock-down procedures, more drastic measures should be contemplated. Handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale. Gun licences, obtainable only after extensive police and medical review as in most other civilised countries, would be needed for hunting and sporting weapons. Tough police action, coupled with an extensive "buy-back" programme, would be needed to mop up the hundreds of millions of guns that are already held. If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to be amended. None of this is likely to happen soon. America can take some solace from the fact that, slowly, as a result of better policing and better treatment for gunshot victims, the number of murders committed each year is declining. But not much. Click here to subscribe to The Economist Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-truth-about-guns-we-need-to-change-constitution-2012-12#ixzz2FzDq2nya ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: Trapper laments destruction of Alberta forest, caribou habitat From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Mon, December 24, 2012 10:36 am Trapper laments destruction of Alberta forest, caribou habitat Bob Weber, The Canadian Press Published Sunday, Dec. 23, 2012 2:00PM EST http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/trapper-laments-destruction-of-alberta-forest-caribou-habitat-1.1090186 EDMONTON -- Ken Cowles thought he'd found a refuge. The longtime northern Alberta trapper had been chased from one area to another as he tried to stay ahead of the logging and drilling that ruined his other traplines. The section along the Little Smoky River east of Grande Cache seemed perfect -- not pristine, but relatively untouched. Timber companies had agreed to stay out. The federal and provincial governments had promised to preserve caribou habitat. And Cowles's new trapline was on the one sliver of the Little Smoky herd's range that remains in good shape. Cowles, 63, figured he'd spend the rest of his trapping days working the surrounding lakes, creeks and forests. Maybe not. "When I bought this trapline, I thought, 'This is good. I'll be protected here,"' he said recently. "I got in here and exactly the same thing is happening, except it's worse." Alberta has 15 caribou herds and all of them are threatened by industrial incursion into the old-growth forest they require to survive, a problem acknowledged by both the federal and Alberta governments. As early as 2004, Alberta's caribou recovery plan said "targets should be used to describe the minimum habitat necessary for the survival and recovery of woodland caribou." Federal documents say caribou need to be able to use at least 65 per cent of their range. If any area were a candidate for preservation, it would be Cowles's neck of the woods. Environment Canada says caribou tend to stay at least 500 metres from roads, cutlines or well sites. That accounts for 95 per cent of the Little Smoky range, the worst disturbance rate for any herd in Canada. The remaining five per cent, on which Cowles traps, is critical. "It is within the core of the range and it is relatively undisturbed," said Dave Hervieux, caribou specialist with Alberta's Department of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. "It is heavily used by the caribou that remain." Environmentalists echo the sentiment that this habitat should be saved. "It shouldn't be that hard to defer new (industrial) footprint," said Carolyn Campbell of the Alberta Wilderness Association. Still, in 2009 and 2010, Alberta Energy sold 61 oil and gas leases in the two townships right in the heart of what was left of Little Smoky's prime range. Despite policy and promises to preserve habitat, 84 per cent of that tiny remnant has now been sold off. The average price was about $380 a hectare -- about two-thirds the average price for oil and gas rights in 2010. Roads have been punched through the bush. Cowles counts plans for at least 34 new wells on his trapline. "I had one oil company tell me, 'We see (caribou) on the lease all the time. They like it there.' "I said, 'They don't like it there. They used to feed there. They fed in that area for hundreds of years and they fed in the same places all the time. You guys go clear (the trees) and they'll go there to feed and they'll just stand there because they don't know why the feed isn't there."' Cowles has been offered buyouts, but he's not biting. "They'll pay me off, but why do I want to get bought out? So I'll shut up?" He has written to Alberta's environment and energy ministers and to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "All you get is lip service," Cowles said. "I'm just kind of getting to my wit's end. It's just like banging your head against a wall." He says pelts from lynx, marten, fisher and wolf are already down about 75 per cent. "I don't blame the oil companies. The government is the one that's selling the land to them and telling them what to do with it." Alberta Energy spokesman Mike Deising said Alberta must develop its energy resources. "It's all about finding the right balance between getting the resources out of the ground and, in this case, with habitat," he said. Roads "go everywhere" in this province, he said. "Roads are a factor of living in a 21st-century economy." Deising said conflicts between development and habitat conservation are being mitigated through land-use plans such as one recent completed for the oilsands region which saw some energy leases cancelled. That plan took years to achieve. Land-use discussions for the Little Smoky area haven't yet begun. The Little Smoky herd consists of fewer than 100 animals and is considered in imminent danger of extirpation, which means making a species extinct in one area but not globally. "More work needs to be done," Deising acknowledged. He said the herd has remained stable for the last six years. However, that stability has been achieved largely through shooting wolves that prey on the caribou -- about 650 since 2005. "We have bought them some time with our wolf management plan," said Hervieux. "If we weren't reducing the excessive mortality on caribou, the game's up." Hervieux concedes that shooting wolves won't work forever. "If the habitat conditions for caribou very significantly decline from where they are currently, then I would say even with predator management it would be hard to keep caribou in the game. "You can only hold back Mother Nature so long." The logging industry has had more success in conserving habitat, Hervieux said. "On the oil and gas side, we have fewer examples," he said. "It's complicated and I think it's fair to say that we're not there yet. "There's a continued desire to work in that country, for natural resources to be extracted there, and there's a desire to conserve caribou. All of those things are hard to make work together. "It's going to take some time to make these things all good." Campbell has heard such pledges before. "The (Alison) Redford government had promised there would be a better balance between environmental concerns and economic development," she said. "It's very disappointing there hasn't been in this case. "Business goes ahead with business as usual. It makes a mockery of promises to 'better balance."' Now, after more than 40 years in the bush, Cowles wonders how long he has left. "I don't have any new areas to go to. I'm finished. Trappers are the only stewards of the land left. We're there to see it every day. (People) don't see the destruction. It doesn't bother them. If they were out there every day and they saw how beautiful it was and the animals that are in there, it would be a different story for sure." ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #414 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)