ORIGINAL: deerfly

For those hunters and thier kids who enjoy hunting different seasons and species, opportunities have never been better and will most likely impove. 

That is absolutely not true. in the 60's and 70's small game hunting was the way to introduce junior hunters to the sport of hunting. naturally breeding pheasants ended in the 70S and rabbit populations are basically extinct in many areas. In my areas I have seen more deer/year than rabbits for at least the last 20 years and the PGC has no answers as to why the rabbits or pheasants disappeared.

 
Why am I not surprised.  I tend to agree that deer numbers are partly to blame yet you find the negatives to focus on.
 
Anyway.  How are the squirrel, turkey and bear populations these days compared to the 60's and 70's? How are the deer populations today compared to the 60's and 70's?  Archery opportunities are outstanding with long seasons, a increasing harvest and crossbows now being legal.
 
As I said, opportunities to hunt ndifferent seasons and species have never been better, deerfly. If you want to continue to focus on rifle deer it is no wonder you are blind to them.  This isn't the 60's and 70's. Take advantage of what we got.  It is there.

I guess I just have a hard time blaming HR/AR for the decrease in youth hunters when outdoor recreation in general (hiking, fishing, camping, even just playing outside) is decreasing across the board due to a pantheon of other reasons. Why would hunting be insulated from those affects? Seems to me HR/AR provides a convenient scapegoat, especially for those who want proof of the failure of one or both of those policies. Does it contribute? Probably. Is it solely responsible? I doubt it.

I think everyone contributing to this thread was involved in the other, so I won't re-post what I said about the extinction of the outdoor experience here. The genral gist was that kids need LOTS of exposure from a young age to the outdoors, and as that has gone by the wayside, so has youth participation in outdoor sports.

Blame the kids ,blame the parents, blame the deer,blame the PGC, blame our state legislators,Who else are we going to blame ?? How about blaming yourself. Have you taken a kid and introduced them to the great outdoors lately other than your own ?

Then why bother to reply to my post if you were only reiterating a point I had made?

I often ask myself what it will take to get my kids to love hunting. My daughter is 9 and I have sons that are 7 years old and 8 months old (little early to tell if that one will be interested).

Of the two older ones, my daughter has been the one more interested in hunting with me, though she really only likes to go turkey hunting. I don't know why. I don't do it much, but that's her thing. I guess it's because the first time we went, we had a hen within 5 yards of us, and saw a couple gobblers just out of range.

My son has his moments where he loves hunting with me. He prefers to go on duck or goose hunts because (a) I let him wear his hip waders and mess around in the water with the decoys (b) he likes to get a snack at the store by my favorite pond and (c) he likes to play fetch with my lab while we're waiting on birds to fly. But he also has times where he wants nothing to do with it. He's a very active kid - loves all sports, and will play outside for 2 hours alone just because he hates to sit inside.

We strictly limit TV time, Wii, & other gadgets, so it's not like they're choosing to be slugs over going out and doing something. They are both involved in sports, and other activities, but not to the point where it dominates our lives.

They have both been immersed in an outdoor culture. We take family fishing trips to local farm ponds. A couple times a year, we'll catch a bucket of bluegills and have a fish fry. When we go to the beach, they love to fish with me, and enjoy the ensuing fish fry. They love when I actually shoot something and bring it home. We camp together a couple times a year and in the past year, they've both progressed from a Red Ryder, to a Crossman 10 pump to a .22. They both love to shoot.

When I take them hunting, it's only for an hour or two at a time. I try to take them on dove hunts or waterfowl hunts a couple times each fall so they don't just have to sit motionless the whole time. Quick hunts at prime times with a good chance that we'll at least see what we're after.

Simply put, I'm doing everything I can to make hunting exciting for them.

Which is why I don't take them deer hunting. In the past 5 years, it sucks where I deer hunt. Heck, I'm bored on most deer hunts in the past couple years, and usually wish I was hunting ducks instead.

Kids need some payoff for their patience. I can understand frustrated deer hunters not taking their kids. Hopefully, deer hunting in most parts of PA will rebound at least a little bit. But in the meantime, if you want kids to hunt, diversify a little bit and learn to do something with some potential payoff for their patience. Don't expect a kid, even a kid that's passed their Hunter Safety Course, to sit motionless in the woods for 3 hours. Most adults can't even do that, at least me. Give them some action. Have some fun, and have some realistic expectations of what their attention span can handle.

Good post rsquared.
 
That was why I thought pheasant hunting over pointing dogs would be a good hunting introduction.  You get to walk, not have to sit like a stone.  You can talk, not have to be deathly quiet. You can pay minimal attention (at least the youths can, the adults need to watch and read the body language of the dogs), and look at other things kids like to look at.  The weather during the youth hunt period is pleasant -- not too cold to freeze them, not too hot that the walking at a moderate pace through cut paths in the fields (the dogs do the cover work) works up a sweat.  Action is more than fairly timely -- during our average non-preserve pheasant hunts, youth or otherwise, we average a pointed bird about every 15 minutes (less on stocking days).  Pheasants don't sneak by, they flush with a lot of noise and notice.  They aren't terribly hard to hit if the kid has done any sort of practice.  And it is a social activity as well, with the opportunity to take buddies along and talk about multiple "hunting stories" that they shared.
 
Yet there is little interest.
 
When I was a youth, yes, deer hunting was number one, but small game hunting and groundhog hunting accounted for more trips afield, more time spent with a gun in hand, and as a training ground for deer hunting -- how game moved, how it hid, where it went, etc.  I will agree that there are less rabbits (although the number that we see pheasant hunting would be more than enough to hunt over and have action all day long if there were decent beagles involved).  I know there are less phesants.  In the 70's and 80's the PGC and private clubs stocked over a million, plus there was a thriving wild phesant population.  Today, those stocking numbers are somewhere around 100,000 --yet, as stated above, with a decent dog or two, we still have plenty of action doing what could best be descrbed as "easy" hunting.
 
Yet, few youths are picking up the shotgun.
 
Are the deer numbers to blame?  Maybe.  To some degree probably.  But not solely or entirely.
 
Do I agree with everythng the PGc does.  Absolutely not.  Especailly the deer program.  But that doesn't mean that I automatically tie everything that is wrong with hunting in PA, the declining numbers of hunters, deer hunters, and youth hunters, entirely on the deer issue.  As stated above, are deer numbers ot blame?  Maybe.  To some degree probably.  But not solely or entirely.
 

What has happened since the 50's and 60's to cause a decline in small game? I saw my first coyote in the eighties, now I see them or their tracks nearly every time I go out. You used to get paid to shoot owls, now you get fined. You used to shoot hawks on sight, now you get fined. There used to be a bounty on fox and you trapped them year round, now, not only is their no bounty but the price of fur is so low it's no longer profitable to trap them. The PGC introduced the Fisher, one of the most aggressive predators of small game there is. The PGC cut the pheasant stocking by 90%. Much of the small game habitat has been taken over by homes and shopping malls.
Any more questions?

ORIGINAL: S-10

What has happened since the 50's and 60's to cause a decline in small game? I saw my first coyote in the eighties, now I see them or their tracks nearly every time I go out. You used to get paid to shoot owls, now you get fined. You used to shoot hawks on sight, now you get fined. There used to be a bounty on fox and you trapped them year round, now, not only is their no bounty but the price of fur is so low it's no longer profitable to trap them. The PGC introduced the Fisher, one of the most aggressive predators of small game there is. The PGC cut the pheasant stocking by 90%. Much of the small game habitat has been taken over by homes and shopping malls.
Any more questions?

Yes. Isn't the predator/prey relationship such that a strong predator population equates to an equally strong prey population? It was my understanding that given the dependence on prey for food, predator populations rise, or fall, very quickly depending on the availability of prey.

Also, what makes you think hawks and owls feed primarily on game species? Or even that they make up enough of their diet to make any sort of real impact on game species? Do you have any evidence that indicates hawks, owls, and foxes don't make the majority of their diet from non-game species?

ORIGINAL: SonofZ3

ORIGINAL: S-10

What has happened since the 50's and 60's to cause a decline in small game? I saw my first coyote in the eighties, now I see them or their tracks nearly every time I go out. You used to get paid to shoot owls, now you get fined. You used to shoot hawks on sight, now you get fined. There used to be a bounty on fox and you trapped them year round, now, not only is their no bounty but the price of fur is so low it's no longer profitable to trap them. The PGC introduced the Fisher, one of the most aggressive predators of small game there is. The PGC cut the pheasant stocking by 90%. Much of the small game habitat has been taken over by homes and shopping malls.
Any more questions?

Yes. Isn't the predator/prey relationship such that a strong predator population equates to an equally strong prey population? It was my understanding that given the dependence on prey for food, predator populations rise, or fall, very quickly depending on the availability of prey.

Also, what makes you think hawks and owls feed primarily on game species? Or even that they make up enough of their diet to make any sort of real impact on game species? Do you have any evidence that indicates hawks, owls, and foxes don't make the majority of their diet from non-game species?

 Saw a Hawk take down a tweety bird in mid air the other day, purdy cool to see. Prob. not much evidence in checking cuds since there are tons of mice & tweety birds compared to rabbits, Quail & Pheasant around here??? S-10 is on the money again   My neighbor used to catch the Owls years ago since they would just about wipe out his birds he raised, they would even steal 'em right from the tree tops. The game com. tried getting a population ov the roosting breed going in Mercer County for some yrs. but that project failed also.

 Still a lot ov Jr. hunters around the Slippery Rock area But a decline in overall hunters a part can be blamed on the new lice. system, many adult & Jr. hunters can't get their # to go through the system if they r on probation

crappy

common sense tells me farming practices, number of farmers today, predators, MANY MANY Raptors, and lack of natural habitat are what has lead to the decline on small game hunting...not hunters or the PGC..
and see none of these improving to help the small game population...

So I can not say I agree with this statement..

For those hunters and their kids who enjoy hunting different seasons and species, opportunities have never been better and will most likely improve.

I find it VERY INTERESTING that BT (the almighty anti-PGC guy) does not talk that way around his niece... obviously... why is he not pointing out to her how many are leaving the sport since AR/HR and the PGC ruining everything.. because there are not enough deer..

he claims lack of deer drive youngsters from the sport... and complains about the lack of deer in his area.. but yet his niece HAS NOT lost interest even though if what he says is true she HAS TO see less deer but still remains interested ...wonder why... maybe it's REALLY not as bad as he preachs to us ??????


could it be those very parents or adults that he wrote about here that DO NOTHING to get or keep kids involved ??====

Now, in a feeble attempt to defend the PGC you are willing to stoop so low as to blame the kids and their parents for their lack of interest in hunting.

His niece is still interested because he is showing a different side of himself.. telling us one thing and her another... just like any parent that is really trying to get or keep a kid into hunting.. some of those are successful..

the ones not doing or trying to do anything to get or keep kids involved... and not that it's a place the blame game.. but thery are a reason youngsters are not involved..

what makes you think hawks and owls feed primarily on game species

The PGC had a bounty on hawks, owls, and fox for the reason that they made significant inroads in small game numbers. As pressure from bird lovers increased the bounties were taken off the raptors and they were discountinued on the fox because it was felt the money could be better used elsewhere. The fur prices were felt to be enough incentive to keep the trappers interested.
I used to help raise ringnecks for stocking that had been supplied by the PGC as chicks. The reason that they were not released until just before hunting season was that we knew from past experience that the predators would kill the majority within a few days of release. Raptors don't have to make game species their prime target. They only have to target them enough to contribute to a greater loss from all causes than reproduction can offset.
The biggest problem in my opinion is the effect of the coyote which was a predator that in the past never had to be figured into the equation and to a lesser degree the fisher which was introduced by the PGC and has rapidly increased in numbers. In my area we are starting to see the effects of the predators in our turkey population.

ORIGINAL: S-10

what makes you think hawks and owls feed primarily on game species

The PGC had a bounty on hawks, owls, and fox for the reason that they made significant inroads in small game numbers.

I thought it was discontinued because it was realized that habitat was more important, and that predators make a much larger impact on non-game species, the species that need to be managed by predators.

Pheasants are a bad example of a predator prey relationship because they're tame birds. Freshly stocked pheasants do a poor job of seeking cover if they even try to hide at all. They let people (predators) walk right up to them. Of course they suffer high mortality rates. They're ill fitted for survival. Like using goldfish stocked in a pond to argue that herons should be shot.

Bounties were cancelled, like you said, decades ago. If raptors and fox were actually able to kill so much game that reproduction failed to fill in the gap, how do we have any small game species left at all? It was already posted that pheasant stocking is roughly 1/10th what it used to be, and natural reproduction has tanked. Pretty obvious why there are less pheasant. Farmland, especially continuous farmland broken by woodlots has decreased hugely in the last 50 years, maybe that has to do with there being less rabbits? Grouse, at least up north, are doing well (more forest, less pasture and farmland). Squirrel seem to be doing real well down here, and I see plenty of hawks.

raptors suck
 
you would think that when farms grew up there would be MORE rabbits not less
 
protection of the hawk and owl need to end
 
majestic or not, there are too many of them
 
squirells/phesants are a lot harder to skin then rabbits.  it is also harder for big birds of prey to hunt in a woods.  maybe that is why there are still tree rats, but the only rabbits are the ones living under your tractor shed eating your garden.
 
I have a hell of a beagle dog, and getting one good run in a morning of hard hunting isn't all that great.

ORIGINAL: tippecanoe

raptors suck

you would think that when farms grew up there would be MORE rabbits not less

People suck.

What do you mean by "grow up"? Like, more woods, less brush and pasture?