For the sunday hunting lovers/haters

Not all farmers oppose Sunday hunting and not all hunters favor Sunday hunting. That's what makes it such an interesting topic.

#1 reason for hunters leaving the sport per the PGC = LACK OF GAME
#2 reason for hunters leaving the sport per the PGC = LACK OF PLACES TO HUNT

Many landowners (not just farmers) oppose Sunday hunting and say they will post their land
Allowing an additional day to hunt will put additional pressure on a already depleated game resource

Given the above facts will someone please tell me how allowing Sunday hunting will do anything but make the situation worse.

I hunt Ohio every year and the landowners there are divided on the DNR enforcement and the landowner permits. It seems many don't want the DNR involved and several have given me verbal permission but won't sign a written permission slip. Never got one to tell me why they feel that way and I thought it best not to push the issue since they said I could hunt there.

As far as the lack of places to hunt, I feel that it can be attributed more so to a shift in the hunting culture and society in general.  LO liability has also shot up in recent years due to the sue happy idiots of America, which certainly hasn't helped.  I really don't think implementing SH would result in land being "posted" at a faster rate than it already is currently.  IMO what would slow it down some is giving LOs more control and enforcement options on their property.
 
 

ORIGINAL: S-10

Not all farmers oppose Sunday hunting and not all hunters favor Sunday hunting. That's what makes it such an interesting topic.

#1 reason for hunters leaving the sport per the PGC = LACK OF GAME
#2 reason for hunters leaving the sport per the PGC = LACK OF PLACES TO HUNT

Many landowners (not just farmers) oppose Sunday hunting and say they will post their land
Allowing an additional day to hunt will put additional pressure on a already depleated game resource

Given the above facts will someone please tell me how allowing Sunday hunting will do anything but make the situation worse.

 
Is # 2 Lack of places to hunt or lack of access?
 
Here is why I pose that question.  Access can be defined in two ways -- access as in a "place" to hunt or access in the "ability" to hunt, as in when hunting is accessable to the hunter.  If access is defined as a "place" to hunt, # 2 holds water in this discussion.  However, if # 2 is defined as the "ability" to hunt, then Sunday hunting would actually increase access by adding more possible accessable days.
 
As for the lack of game issues, how about a little reality break down. 
 
Squirrels -- Does anyone really think that adding Sundays will have that negative of an impact on the state's squirrel population?  Does anyone really think that being able to hunt squirels 24/7/365 would have that negative impact on the state's squirrel population?  Does anyone really care if it did?  In this case, lack of game is a non-argument.
 
Pheasants -- Except in very rare instances, pheasant hunting in PA is a put-and-take affair.  What the hunters don't harvest (kill, whatever), the predators do.  No holdovers are expected.  It is what it is.  In addition, with the PGC not replacing the flood lost pheasants and no hunter group is screaming about a 30% drop, lack of pheasants must not be such a big deal.  Further, with the PGC set to go to 200,000 birds in 2012, that would be an increase in pheasants.  Since the limit on pheasants is two per day, it would take 100,000 birds or 50,000 more limits of birds shot on Sunday to reduce the population to where it would have stood currently.  In this case, lack of game is a non-argument.
 
Grouse -- Grouse populations are cyclic in nature.  Some years are great, while others suck.  Again, the limit is two per day.  When was the last time anyone here limited out on grouse every day they hunted them?  Does anyone really think that they will find enough grouse during a down cycle to limit every Sunday and therefore cause an issue with the population or that during an up cycle that a few extra limits per season will have that negative of an effect on the population?  In this case, lack of game is a non-agrument.
 
Rabbits -- Loss of habitat is a real issue.  There just aren't as many places that hold a great population of rabbits (aside form your garden) as there were in the past.  But does any tried and true rabbit hunter, especially one with decent hounds, have any trouble at all finding enough bunnies to entertain them for the day?  Probably not.  After all, they breed like, well, rabbits.  So lack of game is a non-argument.
 
Quail -- closed season -- non-argument.
 
Hares -- niche species, one per day -- non-argument.
 
Woodchucks and crows -- really?  non-argument.
 
Turkeys -- From what I read on these boards (I don't hunt them), turkey populations are in a decline.  So adding a Sunday will have an impact on their population and could result in a lack of game.  However, since one is permitted to tag only one fall bird and one spring bird (without purchasing an extra tag), the only extra turkeys harvested on Sundays will be by those that, for lack of a better term, find an acorn -- those that routinely harvest (kill, whatever) a turkey without Sundays will have filled their tag anyway and once the tag is filled, it makes no difference how many more days there are to hunt because by law you can't hunt anyway.  In addition, if there were that great of a lack of turkeys, it is doubtful that there would be the ability to purchase an extra spring tag or the addition of afternoons to the spring season.  There may be an argument here based on lack of game, but it is weak to non-existent at best.
 
Bears -- Adding a Sunday to bear season could have a real impact on the population (since they wise up to being hunted on Saturday and use Sunday to hide, as one poster put it).  Unless, of course the season is changed from Saturday, Monday, Tuesday to Saturday, Sunday, Monday and cut Tuesday, resulting in the same number of days.  Again, there may be an argument here based on lack of game, but it is weak to non-existent as well.
 
Waterfowl -- Seasons are set by the feds who set them to include states that have Sunday hunting -- non-argument.
 
So basically, the lack of game situation getting worse is a non-argument in most cases and very weak where it exists at all.
 
Oh, wait, what about deer.  Ah, there is the rub (pun definately intended).  Going back to the turkey discussion, somewhat, since there is only one buck tag per backtag, the population can be impacted with the extra opportunity to hunt on Sundays.  But, with the changes in the AR regs that will result in an approximated 12% increase in the buck harvest (kills, whatever), without so much as a murmer, being passed, will the increase in the buck harvest (kill, whatever) be that significant?  Hard to say.  The antlerless is controled by allocation based on success ratio.  In other words, adjusting the allocations (and that is a huge IF) takes adding Sundays out of the equation because once a tag is filled, it doesn't matter how many more days there are to hunt, it is filled and the hunter cannot legally continue ot hunt.  So maybe, maybe, there is a slight argument here that there will be a greater lack of game than there already is. 
 
The question becomes, is that enough to kill (not really harvest, whatever) Sundays?  Does it really make the situation any worse than it already is?
 
 

Dar and 10- the talk bout written permission from the landowner will CERTAINLY have impact on the availability of 'places to hunt' for many and will  have large impact.
Many friends no longer hunt here because of it.
That is a major issue if it is pursued-bigger even than the Sunday thing by far.
Most believe they have land access covered- but wait a year or two and see what happens as folks start to 'limit' their permission signatures to just a few -if any.
  I know- this is PA not that little Ct- -wait and see- been there done that.

"Again, the only impact to the population is if someone that is normally a non-successful hunter actually harvests (kills, whateveR) a deer on a Sunday. Again, what wil the increase be?"

Dcnr seemed to thing it was going to matter when suggested/ordered pgc to look into it as a method to kill more deer....

Dcnr seemed to thing it was going to matter when suggested/ordered pgc to look into it as a method to kill more deer....

So did the Audubon when they started this thing in about 1999 or thereabouts.
So did Alt. It was one of his goals in the early days.
Sunday hunting has been a stated option to reduce the deer herd in every published discussion of wildlife managers,etc since before AR/HR.
The only ones who don't think it will make a difference are the ones who want to go full speed ahead and damm the torpedos-------BOOOOM

ORIGINAL: retired guy

Dar and 10- the talk bout written permission from the landowner will CERTAINLY have impact on the availability of 'places to hunt' for many and will  have large impact.
Many friends no longer hunt here because of it.
That is a major issue if it is pursued-bigger even than the Sunday thing by far.
Most believe they have land access covered- but wait a year or two and see what happens as folks start to 'limit' their permission signatures to just a few -if any.
I know- this is PA not that little Ct- -wait and see- been there done that.

Permission must be granted to enter anyones property any where. While some won't give "WRITTEN" permission they don't have to rather it be a reg or not. A verbal agreement is all that is needed. I will give verbal but not written. I will not put my neck on the line as far as being liable with a written slip being given. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

For the properties I have/had written permission from, I had them sign a waiver absolving themselves of any liability of my being on their property.  It can be a good selling point when trying to obtain permission.

DarDys, I completely agree with you on all/most points.  I feel in any given year I'll have the opportunity to tag a buck and doe.  I use a large portion of my earned vacation days doing so.  Allowing me to hunt on Sunday is not likely to affect my harvest totals over the long term.  It could however, affect the number of weekdays I need to take off in a given year to do so.

I am more likely to use the extra vacation days to fish steelhead.  If there's any argument at all then it's Sunday hunting will decrease the steelhead population as there is no season limit on them!

ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter

For the properties I have/had written permission from, I had them sign a waiver absolving themselves of any liability of my being on their property.  It can be a good selling point when trying to obtain permission.

Your right, in away. Most don't know that an expensive NY Lawyer (so to speak) would laugh at such because most waivers don't mean jack as far as one getting hurt. Same as if you posted your land and one got hurt one can still sue.It's not right or fair but this is what this country has come to.

Used to be that two parties used to settle differences on their own or trust was a good ole hand shake but lets face it folks, this is 2011 and everyone wants a piece of what you own. All in all you really can't blame the landowners for denning one permission to hunt. One must first develop a good relationship with a property owner and get to know each other before turning one loose to hunt. Don't show up the morning you want to hunt.

Many also think that just because there as no signs one can enter and hunt. Wrong. There are many stimulations that come into play as far as trespassing and one must educate themselves, get permission rather written or verbal before entering private land. If a WCO tries to cite for trespassing, he can't unless the landowner is behind it.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

If a WCO tries to cite for trespassing, he can't unless the landowner is behind it.

I have stated this a hundred times but folks still do not understand..

As written currently ... A Pa. game warden CAN NOT fine anyone for trespassing UNLESS some other game code is being broken or it is a safety zone .....

Finally we agree on something. I think I hurt my knee when I fell out of the chair. I'm getting a lawyer ! LOL

The Landowner Liability Act

What does it all mean?

A landowner who allows someone on their property (without charge) to engage in one or more of the listed recreational purposes, is not liable for injuries to the person or the person's property.

Of course, anyone can sue anyone for anything. However, in each case which has gone to court in which this act was used as defense, the landowner has won the case. So it is posted but not true. Ask any atternoy.

Note that landowners do not have to make the land "safe" for the activity, nor do they have to warn persons of any "danger" that may exist. Once again this is not "always" true.

This does not relieve persons engaged in a covered activity from exercising care to themselves or to the landowner's property.

If a landowner charges a fee to use the land and an injury occurs, the landowner may be held liable.

If the landowner wilfully or maliciously causes an injury, the landowner may be held liable.

This act does not give persons the right to trespass on private property.

So If you are a landowner be selective who you let on your property. As a hunter you can try and convince the landowner that they are not responcable for liability. Both must be fully edcucated to be safe.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

If I recall my recent E-mails correctly someone on the game and fisheries committee has proposed a bill to try to get approval for WCOs to be able to enforce for trespassing by licensed hunters without a game code violation being needed too....

BUT we will have to see just how far that gets .. I have my doubts ??

Remember the educated will only prevail. Verbal permission is only needed to do anything on private land.Again the parties must have trust in each other. A unregistered ATV is legal on private land with permission but they (DCNR) try and make you think it must be registered and insured if not ridden on your own property. Not true.

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

If I recall my recent E-mails correctly someone on the game and fisheries committee has proposed a bill to try to get approval for WCOs to be able to enforce for trespasssing by licensed hunters without a game code violation being needed too....

BUT we will have to see just how far that gets .. I have my doubts ??

Now that would be a step in the right direction and a bill I could fully support.



If you are in the act of hunting as stipulated in the game code, then a WCO should be able to cite you for Tresspassing/hunting with out permission. You are hunting and breaking the law....

Did the written permission slip thing when I lived in Colorado.
You didn't step foot on Private groung without the landowners permission. They even had nice little cards you filled out, lisc #, vehicle color/make, and a phone number that you gave to the landowner.
The second half of the card the landowner signed and you carried with you.

Had no problems with it or getting permission from landowners.

People in this state have had it way to easy for many years.
They just drive down the road and jump out and hunt where ever they dam well please without getting permission. Might weed out some of the slobs to lazy to get permission.

This would also help get rid of all these dam yellow posted signs that dot our highways and spoil the view..

I also agree but written vs verbal is something we could ague about for a while so we won't go there. Written would be proof that one is permitted to hunt private when approached by a WCO sitting on a road or patrolling private at the request of the landowner. Agreed some places are out of hand as far as trespassers. On very large tracts the owner has his hands full. As long as the deer herd is low A lot of those yellow signs going to stay up as many now manage their own deer and charge hunters to hunt. Just my .02 cents.