By Jay McAninch

By offering non-English voters help in so many languages at the polls, how can we ensure oral assistance doesn’t influence their votes?

As we start down the home stretch toward November’s election, the balance of power in the White House, the Senate and House of Representatives is up for grabs. With growing numbers of non-English-speaking groups becoming a factor in political races, how do we ensure all U.S. citizens have effective opportunities to register, learn the details of elections, and cast free ballots in this important election?

I ask because I noted a headline from California last week in which the secretary of state announced that voters could participate in elections in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog or Vietnamese. New Web pages will provide registration forms, voting advice, instructions for voting by mail, and other useful voter information. In addition, oral assistance will be available at the polls to help those who find written materials confusing.

Just so we’re clear, written and oral assistance will also be available in English, but I wonder why we simply don’t require English as the only option at polls. By offering so many language choices, how can we be sure the assistance non-English voters receive – especially oral assistance – doesn’t influence their votes? After all, a fine line separates assistance from influence.

Imagine going to the polls and seeing a Spanish-speaking volunteer assisting voters who don’t speak English. Imagine, too, if you couldn’t understand what the volunteer was telling one of your fellow voters. I oppose voter discrimination, but how can we know if the volunteer is giving the voter helpful instructions or steering electoral decisions?

In the last election, 248 jurisdictions (states and counties) were required to provide language assistance for voting. This included 188 in Spanish, 22 in Asian languages, and 38 in Native American and Alaskan native languages. Minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which have been in effect since 1975, mandate that jurisdictions provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance and other materials related to the election process, including ballots in the language of the applicable minority group. The affected jurisdictions are determined by ethnicity figures. Language assistance is required by federal law when more than 5% of the voting-age population, or 10,000 citizens of voting age, are members of a single-language minority living in a jurisdiction. It’s also required when English proficiency and illiteracy rates of a minority group are higher than the national rates.

I believe the language of politics should be English to ensure all voters can read and understand the same information, regardless of how they receive it. That single act would remove any potential for partisan advocates to assemble voting blocs based on language. It would also remove any need for oversight and monitoring to ensure translations provide instruction and information, not guidance and persuasion, no matter how subtle.

Apparently, members of Congress agree, as demonstrated by the more than 700 members who have co-sponsored English language legislation dating back to 1981. The current bill, the English Language Unity Act of 2011, is sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) as HR 997, and Sen. Jim Imhofe (R-Okla.) as S 503. The bill has 113 co-sponsors. This legislation would make English the language in all official government activities, including voting. It sounds like a no-brainer, but given today’s politics regarding race and ethnicity, this legislation reportedly has little chance of passing.

Meanwhile, the 2010 census reported 80.3% of U.S. residents speak English, 12.3% speak some variation of Spanish, 3.7% speak a European language (German, French, Italian, Scandinavian, Slavic, Baltic or Iranian), 3% speak an Asian language (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and languages of Asia and the Pacific), and 0.7% speak native American or Alaskan, Arabic or Hebrew, or another indigenous language. Of non-English speaking residents, 3% did not speak English or did not speak it well.

The number of citizens needing voting assistance is small but, unfortunately, most non-English speakers live in communities dominated by their ethnic group, usually in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago – all strongholds of the Democratic party. Will the GOP soon insist on monitoring all such instructions with their own translators? And when party allegiances shift in the future, will Democrats insist on monitoring presumed-GOP translators? As I compiled this information, I became less concerned about voter discrimination and more concerned about voter influence.

Although this issue is sensitive, it will grow in importance as we scrutinize future elections. Minority voting blocs are common topics in the media, yet I’ve not seen reports on what assistance non-English speaking citizens receive at the polls. Granted, monitoring these situations will be tough. When does oversight become voter discrimination in an age where governments seemingly try to accommodate everyone? These days you can get a driver’s license and participate in court proceedings without speaking English. Therefore, without speaking a word of English, you can obtain the most common form of legal identification and gain access to our legal system, where you’re entitled to the same freedoms and rights granted to most Americans.

I fear it might be time to get out those foreign-language tapes so I can protect my future and my family’s at the ballot box.

By Jay McAninch

Although many Americans face a rude awakening, our society’s gas woes may be a boon for archery dealers.

There’s an emerging trend that could change the business dynamic for archery and bowhunting companies. Rising gasoline prices are no longer a periodic issue. They’re an ongoing problem. Recently released energy projections for 2012 predict that by year’s end gas will cost more than $4 a gallon at the pump everywhere, and nearly $5 a gallon in some locales. Nearly all forecasters agree gas prices will continue rising, especially with growing demands for fuel but also because of tightening supplies.

The model used by the “box stores,” or multichannel retailers, has been that cheap gas allows consumers to drive to a large department-style discount store while allowing mass merchants to move products great distances at relatively little cost. Meanwhile, many archery dealers have been forced to change their business practices when a major discount chain moves into their area. Some have gone out of business while others had to diversify their product line and/or find ways to increase revenues through service work and shooting opportunities. Some manufacturers help dealers by offering them exclusive products, which makes them the sole source of some brands.

During my years with the Archery Trade Association, we’ve searched for ways to help archery dealers and multichannel retailers thrive, because both are ATA members. Dealers have generally been the source of custom and labor-intensive bow-fitting and tuning, with products from the middle to high end of the cost spectrum supplemented by accessory sales as part of a complete bow package. On the other hand, multichannel stores are the chief source of low- to mid-range bows, a wide range of accessories, and many “cash-and-carry” products such as targets, tree stands and other bowhunting accessories.

In essence, this model gives dealers a low-volume but potentially high-margin product orientation, while chain stores focus on high-volume, lower-margin products. How will gasoline demands change the retail model? Clearly, more expensive gas will give local independent retailers a growing advantage in the marketplace. However, growing demands for gasoline are the primary price driver, and that has far more ominous impacts than gas prices alone.

Consider the following: In 2009, the United States had 750 cars per 1,000 people while China had four cars per 1,000 citizens. When China attains half the car-ownership rate of the U.S., it will mean more than 400 million new cars needing gasoline. With China’s economy growing at about 10 percent annually, its energy demands – coupled with a strong cash position in world markets – will drive up gasoline prices while reducing the fuel’s availability.

In other words, the United States is in for a rude awakening. Experts like Christopher Steiner, author of the book “$20 Per Gallon,” predict the world’s middle class will soon reach 1.8 billion people, and most of these folks will want what Americans have enjoyed for decades: affordable cars and travel that satisfies a wide range of desires.

So, will crude-oil supplies meet the world’s growing demands? Consider that after about 150 years of increasing crude-oil production to a peak in 2006, supplies have begun what experts like Steiner think is an irreversible slow decline. Nearly all the statistics say oil is getting harder to find and extract, leaving an ominous fact: We find one barrel of oil for every six barrels we consume. Furthermore, giant oil companies we know by name once controlled more than half the world’s oil production. They now control closer to 10 percent, thanks to countries like Iran, Russia, Venezuela and others developing state-owned companies. Those countries use oil both as an important asset and for political leverage. Where Iran once exported more than 70 percent of its oil, it now keeps more than 50 percent for internal use. Its leaders enjoy using their remaining reserves to gain a stronger stage in world affairs.

Although many Americans face a rude awakening, our society’s gas woes may be a boon for archery dealers. If gas increases to $5 per gallon and beyond, the cost to go anywhere will have greater impacts than saving a few bucks on a particular product. In addition, the cost of discount–store products must rise as costs for producing those products overseas increases, and as middle-class workers demand wages comparable to American wages. Meanwhile, the costs of transporting those products over air, land and sea will keep increasing. While relative price points across the spectrum might remain similar, the cost to get to stores will differ, favoring the nearby retail outlets.

So, are these changes certain to happen? Well, no one predicts otherwise. The experts differ only on when and how much gas will rise. Everyone worries about supplies. Because we’re at the point where the trend is unfolding, it makes sense to at least plan for possibilities while managing for the realities of today’s market.

Today, tomorrow, next year and five years from now, personalized customer service accompanied by higher prices and access to exclusive product lines will be the hallmark of independent archery dealers. The only change I project is that savvy dealers will stay even more in tune with their local markets, and find ways to attract more customers who increasingly value close, convenient access to professional archery retailers.

Although studies and surveys vary, the trend toward bowhunting growth that began back in the mid-1980s continued in 2011.

By Jay McAninch
Once a year, I like to sit down and review all data available about archery and bowhunting to see if I can make sense of where our industry is going. Unfortunately, we don’t have major surveys to use and there aren’t readily available retail sales figures to review. Thus I’ve simply considered all the information, developed some thoughts about those data and assembled what follows as the best status report on the archery and bowhunting industry I can offer.

First and foremost, bowhunting drives our industry so addressing participation data is an important starting point in assessing the industry. Although studies and surveys vary, the trend toward bowhunting growth that began back in the mid-1980s continued in 2011. But in my opinion, the years of double-digit annual gains ended around 2000. In many states, bowhunting numbers can be characterized as “stable” to “slightly increasing,” with all increases less than 5 percent.

Many publications continue to show increasing bowhunter numbers based on license data from the states. Unfortunately, these data are often compromised by duplicate licensing, which can result from myriad antlerless deer tags, combination tags, and multiple species-specific tags. Further complications arise with some youth licenses, and with states that sell only a general hunting license and therefore must estimate archery license sales. Recent estimates of 3.5 million-plus bowhunters are definitely high, in my opinion, as a result of the problems mentioned earlier. The best data I have, and which I can substantiate, suggest bowhunter numbers are much closer to 3.2 to 3.3 million rather than the recent estimates of 3.5 million. Therefore, the trend I’ve shown in Bullet 1 is accurate.

Now, let’s look at some of the more recent surveys and reports.

 1. A national survey of American households by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA) found the declining trend in bowhunter numbers continued in 2011. Their data (which have a 95 percent confidence interval of +/-4 percent) show a 15.6 percent decline from 2000 to 2010, with a peak in 2002 of 5.34 million bowhunters and a low of 3.72 bowhunters in 2008. As a percentage of the U.S. population during that 10-year period, the participation rate declined 0.4 percent. The current estimate is that 1.4 percent of Americans bowhunt.

2. From the SGMA survey, bowhunters are 87 percent male, 53 percent are 35 years or older, 40 percent have a household income of at least $75,000, 28 percent live in an area with 2 million or more residents, and 36 percent have a college degree. Slightly less than 3 million bowhunters were considered “core participants,” meaning they made eight or more hunting trips per year. The survey found 69 percent of bowhunters fish in freshwater and 46 percent enjoy target shooting with rifles.

 3. Bowhunter numbers continue to be linked to hunters being attracted by the sport’s longer seasons, chance to hunt during the rut, liberal bag limits and the sport’s inherent challenges. Surveys continue to show that up to 90 percent of bowhunters also hunt with guns, so it’s a myth that bowhunters are a different class of hunters than firearms hunters.

 4. Based on manufacturing data since 2006, we’ve seen a 70 to 80 percent rise nationwide in crossbow sales, which represent more than 20 percent of all bow sales. The sales are driven largely by the addition of crossbows for all or part of the archery seasons, or reduced age limits in Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Kentucky and other states. During the past four quarters, crossbow sales made up slightly more than 25 percent of all bow sales.

States like Wisconsin have shown that reducing the age limit for crossbows can hold onto or bring back older archery hunters. Bowhunting data typically show a slow decline in bowhunter participation as bowhunters reach their 40s, and then steeper declines in their 50s. In Wisconsin, this trend continues until age 65, when crossbow use is legal, and then bowhunting participation jumps for hunters up into their 70s.

 5. Nationally, since 2006, compound sales — which have represented more than 70 percent of bow sales — were up 0.1 percent, or simply steady. As a percentage of all bow sales over the past four quarters, compound bows fell to 65 percent of the market, but that decline was more about growth in crossbow sales than a decline in compound bow sales.

6. At the same time, recurve sales — which consistently represent less than 10 percent of bow sales — were down 19 percent. During the past four quarters, recurve sales made up 8 percent of total bow sales and continue to be strong everywhere except North America.

The Archery Federal Excise Tax (FET) collections are another good source of archery and bowhunting data. We not only monitor total FET collections, we also monitor the two types of archery FET. The tax is levied on sales in the United States at two rates on different equipment: 1) Gear taxed at an 11 percent rate include broadheads, bows with 30 pounds or more of draw weight, and all accessories attached to a bow; and, 2) arrow shafts (except for wooden shafts for youths) are subject to a flat tax that increases based on the CPI, which has been between 42 and 45 cents per shaft. Even so, FET data on bows, broadheads and all accessories attached to bows are difficult to interpret because the diversity of products, and the wide range in quality and pricing make purchasing patterns complex. The FET on arrow shafts only reflects arrow shafts sold, so these trends are easier to interpret. All FET are reported quarterly after the federal fiscal year, which runs October 1 to September 30.

To view the Archery Federal Excise Tax Collections 2007 – Present, click HERE to download the table.

 7. The past five years of FET total collection data reflect the pattern seen in much of the U.S. economy. From a high of $36.5 million in 2006-07, collections dipped to $34.8 million in 2007-08 and to $32.2 million in 2008-09 before rebounding to $35.9 in 2009-10. This year collections soared to a high of $44.1 million, which is a one year gain of 23 percent, erasing the old peak set in 2006-07.  The increase overall in FET collections isn’t matched by other data and there doesn’t appear to be similar increases on participation. Thus, the increase could be tied to archers and bowhunters buying new product after a few years in a bad economy of making do with older equipment. Perhaps the FET data are a sign the archery and  bowhunting industry is emerging from recession.

 8. In reviewing the collections on bows and accessories, records were set in all quarters except the 2^nd quarter. The final total represented a one-year increase of 22 percent. This growth is likely linked to crossbows and crossbow accessories, but otherwise looks like an across-the-board increase in nearly all products.

 9. Total FET collections on arrow shafts for 2006-07 were $8.3 million, and then they rose slightly in 2007-08, dipped to $6.3 million in 2008-09, and returned to $8.24 million in 2009-10. This year,  collections were at record levels in all four quarters and ended at $10.2 million, a 24 percent one-year increase.  That would be about a 22 percent increase over the five years from 2006-07 to 2010-11.

 10. Meanwhile, national surveys by the National Sporting Goods Manufacturers (NSGM) found archery equipment sales were down 2.1 percent in 2009 from 2008, which mirrors some national data on general archery participation. This slight downward trend isn’t bad given the economy, unemployment, home foreclosures and retail spending.

 11. The National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) painted a slightly different picture of archery equipment sales. Their data showed an 8 percent increase from 2009-10, and they’re forecasting a 2 percent increase by the end of 2011. But in reviewing these data, it’s clear the NSGA doesn’t have a deep database to draw from because they report on lower end bows, arrows in three-packs and a few accessories. Therefore, I’m not sure how much confidence to place in their trend numbers.

You can’t control the context around you, but you can create a certain order that‘s reassuring.

By Jay McAninch

Context. Funny how every issue you think about, every concern you address, everything it seems has to be considered in context. Better said, everything that impacts our lives does seem connected to the conditions that are layered around us. Day in and day out, all of our decisions – those that are critical to our homes and families and those that influence our work – are best made in context.

In the coming months, context is what I’d like to talk about in this space. Blog posts may consider context from within the archery and bowhunting industry, the shooting and hunting segment, the entire outdoor market, or context provided by the US or global economy. We’ll take a look at the context that surrounds the political vortex I see here in Washington, DC or the context in the states and on Main Street where many of you operate.

The problem when anyone deliberates about the context surrounding their situation is that it complicates things. Rest assured, I understand the notion that keeping things simple makes decisions, choices and, just about everything, much easier. In the beginning, God created heaven and earth … and everyone lived happily ever after, right?

Unfortunately, in our business, decisions made by state agencies about bowhunting impact you. Decisions made by the IRS or US Fish & Wildlife Service about Federal Excise Tax impact you. Decisions made by the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the acceptable lead levels in sporting equipment impact you. Decisions made by OPEC about fuel prices that change shipping costs impact you. Decisions made by Congress about healthcare, taxes and the national debt and budget impact you. Decisions made by the President’s agency staff about federal worker compensation, the extension of benefits to any American, interest rates, subsidies for grain prices, foreign aid to the Middle East and monetary fund support for European countries all impact you.

If those matters concern you and you’d like to hear my point of view, then I’m going to offer it — for better or for worse — in this space. I hope you’ll find my thoughts helpful or, at the very least, informative and stimulating. I also hope you’ll be motivated to respond by email or in the comment box below, which will create a dialogue that might help us all deal with the context that surrounds us.

Finally, you’re likely thinking, Why? Why bother with all these frustrating and complicated issues that surround us? Because context matters. Addressing context can have a calming impact on you and can reinforce the decisions you make. Considering the context around you thoughtfully is all part of going through life with your eyes wide open and living life to the fullest. Sure, you can’t control much of the context around you, but you can create a certain order that‘s reassuring. And that might just lead to a level of confidence that makes all the hard work and sacrifice worth it. I’m looking forward to it and I hope you’ll join me.