Whitetails: Which Apex Predator Do They Fear The Most?

Dr. Daniel Crawford sought to find out which apex predator struck the most fear in whitetail deer. They did this playing the calls of predators such as wolves, coyotes, and others to see which the deer would react to the quickest. As a control, he also played the calls of various local birds to see if the deer had any reaction to those sounds. He used trail cams to capture the reaction of the deer.

Dr. Daniel Crawford is affiliated with the Jones Center of Ichauway, Georgia and the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Center at Texas A&M University – Kingsville. He conducted his study at the Jones Center, a 29,000 acre reserve, located in southwest Georgia and it formed the basis of his Ph.D. dissertation.

The video below with Lindsay Thomas of the National Deer Association shows many clips that Dr. Crawford and his team recorded. You might be surprised at which apex predator caused the strongest flight response in whitetail deer.

If you are interested in reading more about the research on this super-predator interaction with whitetail deer, Dr. Crawford published an article in the journal Oecologia where he goes into much more detail.

Every Pictures Tells A Story, Part XIV

Alabama became the 22nd state with permitless, unrestricted, or constitutional carry this afternoon. Gov. Kay Ivey (R-AL) signed House Bill 272 which will go into effect in January 2023. When I first started publishing this graphic created by Rob Vance in 2011, the unrestricted or blue section at the upper right of the graphic was rather small. Now over a quarter of all Americans live in a state with unrestricted carry.

Furthermore, as I write this, the governors of the states of Ohio and Indiana both have unrestricted carry bills awaiting their signature. If those states join Alabama, another 7% of the United States population will reside in unrestricted carry states.

Gov. Ivey had this to say in her signing statement:

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” said Governor Ivey. “I have always stood up for the rights of law abiding gunowners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

The primary sponsor of this bill was Rep. Shane Stringer (R – Mobile). He brought the amended bill to the floor of the Alabama House today and it was approved in a 70-29 vote mostly – but not entirely – along party lines. The Alabama Senate then approved it in a 24-6 vote. The House had originally passed it on February 22nd but then the Senate made amendments which pushed it to a conference committee.

Rep. Stringer had this to say about the bill’s passage:

“I am deeply thankful to my colleagues in the Legislature for passing this constitutional carry measure, which allows Alabamians to exercise their fundamental rights without first having to pay a gun tax in the form of permit fees,” Stringer said in a statement. “Those who still wish to purchase a permit for reciprocity with other states or other reasons continue to retain that option under this law.”

Stringer also noted that the law does establish a database of prohibited persons which he contends is more important than whether one had a permit or not. He contended there were some Alabama sheriffs who did not conduct background checks before issuing – or selling – permits.

Stringer himself has had a long career in law enforcement. He served as a deputy in the Mobile County Sheriffs Department and was also the police chief of the towns of Citronelle and Satsuma.

George Owens, Legislative Director of the Alabama Gun Rights Network, pointed out some of the details of the bill in this post.

First it means that if you can legally own a pistol you don’t need a permit to carry that pistol openly or concealed, or in your vehicle.

Second, you can still buy a permit including the lifetime permit that will become available later this year.

Your permit remains important to legally protect you from being criminally charged under certain circumstances.

You must have a permit if you carry a pistol onto a school grounds or at any school function like at a football game. This includes having a pistol in your vehicle when picking your child up. This is a federal law and it is taken very seriously.

You may not carry onto the private property of another person unless you have a permit, OR have the permission of the owner of the property.

Your permit will still grant you carry privileges in the roughly 22 states that have reciprocity agreements with Alabama. That includes Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, to name a few.

Regardless of whether you prefer to call it the Yellowhammer State or the Heart of Dixie, congratulations to all Alabamans on the hard won freedom.

Frank Tait Rides Shotgun With Charlie

My good friend and fellow co-host of the Polite Society Podcast Charlie Cook has a series of videos called “Riding Shotgun with Charlie.” The series involves Charlie driving with a guest (or two) while he films his interview of them. It is the gun culture’s equivalent of Jerry Seinfield’s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee or James Corden’s Carpool Karaoke.

Charlie’s most recent guest was Frank Tait who is running for the NRA Board of Directors. In this case, Frank really was riding shotgun as Charlie’s carry permits were not valid in Pennsylvania. While driving around Philadelphia, they discussed a number of things including how Frank got started in competition, how he became an instructor and training counselor, his work with Appleseed and Revere’s Riders, and, of course, his run for the NRA Board of Directors.

In full disclosure, I have endorsed Frank for the NRA Board and have encouraged people to “bullet vote” for Frank. He is the only person I endorsed for the Board and the only person who got my vote. If you are eligible to vote, I would encourage you to vote soon and to vote for Frank.

I got to ride shotgun with Charlie a few years ago. I think Frank’s interview is much better than mine!

Russian Army Uses Chinese Ham Radios?

I read a report today that the Russian Army is using Baofeng UV-5R Dual Band (2m/70cm) ham radios for communications.

What the heck?

These radios sell for $25 on Amazon!

I have one as a cheap back-up to my Japanese-made Yaesu FT-60R dual band hand-held. They are not bad little radios but they certainly are not what I’d consider secure or for rugged military use.

Someone named George Turner who reported their use had this to say:

The Russian forces are using Baofeng (China) UV-5R dual-band 2m/70cm (440 Mhz) ham radios that sell on Amazon for $25 to $60. It’s a great radio for the money, and lots of hams I know have them, along with the separate clip-on mic/speaker so the radio can stay on the hip.

Except for jamming and lack of encryption, and the fact that amateur radio operators in all countries already frequent those bands, it’s an extremely good choice for an army under budget.

And of course these hand-helds also scan the bands, and this of course makes intercepting Russian radio communications a snap. That is apparently providing a trove of information, and showing just how bad the state of the invasion force is. Screaming, crying, bitching, confusion, rebellion, shock at what the mission is, and anger at the abysmal supply and food situation.

I have no way of verifying the accuracy of this report but, if true, the Russian Army is in far worse shape than I thought it was. It seems a little far-fetched but so are a lot of things.

UPDATE: It actually might be true.

I came across this story with pictures of the Baofeng in an Indian business publication.

And this thread on Twitter.

Ackerman McQueen And NRA Settle

The Federal lawsuit that the NRA brought against Ackman McQueen in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas has reached a settlement. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed but in a joint filing from attorneys for both parties they say a settlement has been reached and ask that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

The Parties have reached a settlement in the above captioned case. The Parties have stipulated and respectfully request that all pending deadlines be stayed immediately, and ask the Court to remove the case from the Court’s current March 7, 2022 trial docket. The Parties request that the Court allow the Parties time to finalize the terms of the settlement and to file the appropriate dismissal pleadings with prejudice on or before March 21, 2022.

The timing is very interesting coming as it does a day after Judge Cohen issued a partial dismissal of the New York Attorney General’s dissolution case. As a friend noted, “they are both so dirty and intertwined that neither can afford to let it get to trial.”

NRA Case Positive Spin: NRA

Like New York Attorney General Letitia James, the NRA is also putting a positive spin on Judge Joel Cohen’s ruling yesterday. Indeed, the headline on their release states, “NRA Prevails Over NYAG”.

The NRA’s release includes comments from NRA President Charles Cotton, former NRA President Carolyn Meadows, 1st VP Willes Lee, and, of course, outside counsel William Brewer III. Missing, however, from the comments on the ruling was anything from defendants Wayne LaPierre and John Frazer.

Charles L. Cotton
Charles Cotton – NRA Official Photo

“This is a resounding win for the NRA, its 5 million members, and all who believe in this organization,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “The message is loud and clear:  the NRA is strong and secure in its mission to protect constitutional freedom.”

The release says the NRA will continue to defend the remaining causes of action brought but that Letitia James can’t shut down the NRA.

While it appears that most of the heavy lifting before the court was done by William Brewer’s partner Svetlana Eisenberg, Brewer is still the one who gets quoted.

William A. Brewer III
William Brewer – Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors bio photo

“We applaud the court’s recognition that dissolution is neither appropriate nor justified,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to the NRA. “We look forward to continuing the defense of the NRA – and proving that it acts in the best interests of its members and the Second Amendment freedoms in which they believe.”  

I’m sure Mr. Brewer is look forward to continuing the defense of the NRA as legal fees now are reportedly 20% of the NRA’s total budget and it seems his firm is getting the majority of that.

Brewer who probably wrote the NRA’s over the top release goes on to say:

Brewer adds, “Today’s developments underscore the simple truth that since taking office in 2019, the Attorney General has pushed a contrived narrative about the NRA in her attempt to support a dissolution claim that is improper. This is a victory for not only the NRA, but all who believe in the right to free speech and association.”

Other comments came from Carolyn Meadows and Willes Lee:

“I’ve always said that the dissolution case was part of a political vendetta to take down the NRA,” says NRA Past President Carolyn Meadows. “I want to thank NRA members for helping us confront this abuse of power. They deserve an enormous amount of credit.”

NRA First Vice President Willes K. Lee said, “As an NRA member, this decision gives me great pride. It reaffirms an important belief:  the NRA continues to serve as the greatest voice in the fight to protect Second Amendment freedom.”   

The key things to remember about Judge Cohen’s ruling is that the remaining 14 causes of action will go to trial, that included in those are allegations of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, and that he took a dim view of the current management of the NRA including that of Wayne LaPierre and John Frazer. Moreover, the ruling still could be appealed by James who has indicated she is pondering her legal options. I do doubt that it will be appealed as it was as much of a win for the Attorney General’s Office as it was for the NRA.

NRA Case Positive Spin: Letitia James

Both sides of the dissolution lawsuit involving the New York Attorney General and the NRA are trying to put a positive spin on Judge Joel Cohen’s ruling yesterday. Below is the spin put on it by NY Attorney General Letitia James.

Letitia James in New York City on 19 November 2019.
Reuters photo

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after Justice Joel Cohen of the New York County State Supreme Court rejected a second round of motions brought forward by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, and Corporate Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer as they sought to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Attorney General James against the organization in August 2020:

“Today, the court affirmed my office’s right to pursue its long-standing claims that fraud, abuse, and greed permeate through the NRA and its senior leadership. While we’re heartened that the judge rejected the NRA’s attempts to thwart most of the claims in our case against the NRA, we are disappointed that the judge ruled against the dissolution portion of the case. We are considering our legal options with respect to this ruling. We remain committed to enforcing New York law regardless of how powerful any individual or organization may be.”

In today’s decision, the court let stand all of the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) claims of self-dealing, abuse, and unlawful conduct by LaPierre, who has been at the helm of the NRA for three decades. Similarly, the court rebuked the efforts by Frazer to dismiss him from the case, finding that OAG’s allegations that Frazer violated his obligations as the NRA’s General Counsel for failing to address conflicts of interest and respond to whistleblowers who alerted the NRA to systemic financial wrongdoing were valid. The court also held that OAG’s claims against the NRA for false regulatory filings and failing to address conflicts of interest will proceed. 

As an attorney friend mentioned to me yesterday, Judge Cohen’s ruling could be appealed. James is acknowledging this in her statement where she says they “are considering our legal options”. That said, I’d be a little surprised if they do appeal it. A partial win is better than no win at all.

NRA Will Not Be Dissolved

Judge Joel Cohen issued a ruling today in the New York Attorney General’s dissolution suit against the National Rifle Association. He dismissed four of the 18 causes of action in the amended complaint brought by Attorney General Letitia James but allowed the remain 14 to continue. Specifically, Judge Cohen dismissed the first, second, 16th, and 18th causes of actions.

The first and second causes of action sought the dissolution of the NRA. In the first cause of action, the NRA was said to have “conducted its business in a persistently illegal manner and abused its powers contrary to the public policy of the State of New York by operating without effective oversight or control by its officers and directors” which was grounds for dissolution under N-PCL § 1109(b)(1). The second cause alleged that “directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporate assets, have perpetuated the corporation solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner.” This would be grounds for dissolution under N-PCL § 1109(b)(1).

He wrote in dismissing those two causes of action:

In arguing for dissolution, the Attorney General’s allegations fail to delineate between the NRA, on the one hand, and its leaders on the other, who acted “without regard to the NRA’s best interests” (see id. ¶ 143 [“LaPierre, together with his direct reports, including Defendants Phillips, Frazer and Powell, instituted a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA . . . without regard to the NRA’s best interests.”]; id. ¶ 646 [“Despite a conflict of interest and his lack of authority to do so, LaPierre unilaterally determined to place the NRA into bankruptcy to evade a regulatory action in which he was named as a defendant . . . cost[ing] the NRA tens of millions of dollars”]). Conflating the Individual Defendants with the NRA writ large for purposes of dissolution is inappropriate here for the reasons discussed supra. It also ignores the allegations that the wrongdoers in control of the NRA do not necessarily speak for other NRA members, some of whom have tried to instigate reform within the organization but have been met with resistance from entrenched leadership (see, e.g., id. ¶ 491). (emphasis mine)

The 16th cause of action involved the prudent management of institutional funds. This cause of action was dismissed by Judge Cohen as it didn’t properly distinguish between “program-related funds” and “institutional funds”.

The 18th cause of action was specifically against LaPierre, Frazer, Phillips, and Powell. It accused them of common law “unjust enrichment” and sought to recover monies paid to them that were “excessive, unreasonable, and/or unauthorized.” Judge Cohen based his dismissal of this cause of action as it ran afoul of earlier NY Court of Appeals rulings about unjust enrichment. In other words, this was only dismissed due to a technicality.

While the NRA will not be dissolved, this is not to say that the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, and the others are in the clear. The third and fourth causes of action against LaPierre and John Frazer allege breach of fiduciary duty. This was allowed to proceed onwards. Likewise, Judge Cohen found that the allegations contained in the seventh and eighth causes of action which accuse both LaPierre and Frazer of failing to properly administer charitable assets were sufficient to proceed.

The 11th and 14th causes of action were against LaPierre and the NRA respectively. These accuse LaPierre and the NRA of engaging in “unlawful related party transactions.” Judge Cohen found that both claims were sustained.

The 15th cause of action which was allowed to go forward involved violation of the New York whistleblower protections. Judge Cohen said there was sufficient evidence to show that the NRA, Powell, and LaPierre retaliated against whistleblowers and that Frazer was incompetent in carrying out the whistleblower policy. The retaliation against Oliver North as well as the freezing out of directors such as Tim Knight and Esther Schneider from committee assignments is coming back to haunt the NRA.

The final cause of action sustained against the moves by LaPierre and Frazer to have them dismissed is the 17th. That cause of action stated that the NRA and Frazer “made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the annual reports the organization filed with the Attorney General.” Judge Cohen said that the NRA didn’t contest the falsity of the filings for now and the allegations against Frazer were specific enough that they should continue.

It should be noted that neither Josh Powell nor Woody Phillips sought to have the specific causes of action against them dismissed.

If after all the court proceedings are finished, it could result in the all four of the individual defendants being being barred from the NRA or other New York non-profits and forced repayment of their ill-gotten gains. Moreover, I can foresee a forced restructuring of the NRA in such a way as to prevent the abuses we have seen and are now seeing.

The bottom line is while the NRA has escaped dissolution this is not the end of things.

You can read the full 42-page opinion by Judge Cohen below. It makes for interesting reading.

451625 2020 People of the State of v People of the State of DECISION ORDER on 611 by jpr9954 on Scribd