After a decade and a half working in the field of fish and wildlife management I can openly say change is a slow process. Without a clear and present threat of catastrophic consequences or the potential for similar dire results, change in wildlife management policy evolves more over the course of years and even decades rather than a short meeting and a call for a response. At least on a broad scale it’s pretty much the standard procedure, save for issues such as discovery of a snake head fish or some aquatic nuisance species threatening or the discover of chronic wasting disease or another possible wide sweeping negative result from unresponsive policy. Change is more a factor of patience and perseverance than most are willing to accept in this age of immediacy.
So when I read about the upcoming White House Conference on our wildlife policy my response was nothing like a touchdown celebration after a winning, last second score where the victory is immediate as the final results of a win are in and it’s game over. I can honestly relate as a hunter and working in the professional field I could easily type up dozens of reasons to turn the page and write this off. But those years of experience also help shape a personal work ethic revolving closer to trying and working to create an atmosphere for improvement. And with that the next opportunity to influence the future generation of conservation is on tap in coming weeks.
Scheduled to convene in the fall of 2008, the White House Conference on North American Wildlife Policy will focus on five core areas:
Discussions on the North American Conservation Model
State/Federal/Tribal Wildlife Management
Habitat Conservation and Management
Funding for Wildlife Conservation
Perpetuating Hunter Traditions
Don’t sift through the issues with the usual lackadaisical apathy. When the top of the list is the NA Conservation Model, my ears fold back and my tail starts to wag–no not really–but you could easily argue the North American model encompasses some of the most important wildlife and conservation building blocks for the future of our heritage. I’ve written on this in the past and continue to hold these elements in high regard for the decisions need to preserve our conservation legacy.
I won’t argue with a bit of hesitancy from hunters and conservation groups on the short term impact, but the first step is bringing to the front issues such as the funding for wildlife conservation. Make no mistake about it, the current world events and our economic issues on the local and national scale have created growing questions about the long term funding of wildlife management and conservation. We can’t afford to put our head in the sand and hope these funding short-falls will simply disappear. To do so would be irresponsible.
What would normally give me a bit of skepticism is when you check out the lists of dozens of groups and organizations coming to the table. A table and forum including the NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, Izaak Walton League and The Wildlife Society perk my interest as you peruse the list of stake holders you can understand not every organization will agree with each other’s priorities and political stance, but I’ve learned over the years if these groups and members
Working groups made up of some of the leading experts on wildlife management and hunting are crafting recommendations that will lead the way for the final plan.
The recommendations put forward by the wildlife community will be used by the current Administration, Governors and members of Congress to ensure that the final plan is non-partisan and will be successful no matter who is in the White House or controls Congress.
Realistically hunters, anglers, trappers and conservation minded voters realize the election can signal a 180 turn in conservation policy, but at the same time, we can’t use this as an excuse anymore. We’ve to much at stake to wash our hands from any responsibility for the future. If you belong to any or several of these organizations you’ve one foot in the door for accessing the stance and ideology represented at this potential watershed conference.
Will duck, deer, elk, quail and turkey hunters see an earth changing response from this conference? I doubt it, but is the potential for impact real? Undoubtedly as we’re talking about some of the heavy hitters when it comes to people and organizations with the potential for a lasting imprint, and this chance might just not come around. Think back on the nations populations of Canada geese, wild turkeys, elk, deer, antelope and an assortment of wild game which at one time or another over history has beat the odds to expand their population. The recovery and expansion didn’t happen with the click of a mouse, but no doubt if forward thinking groups had not pushed a conservation agenda, this conference may have been about threatened and endangered species than about how to better maintain and enhance the future of our outdoors.
About 15 years ago I attended my first game and fish advisory board meeting. I was a fisheries and wildlife management student at North Dakota State University, and had a goal of one day working in the natural resource field. I decided it might be a positive learning experience to attend this open public meeting, and it sounded like more fun than studying for a statistics exam.
I still recall then Game and Fish Director Lloyd Jones discussing the upcoming waterfowl season and regulations. Having hunted waterfowl I knew full well the needed difference between regulations for ducks as compared to upland game like pheasants and grouse.
I also understood migratory species required more coordination between states, and specific species of ducks such as canvasbacks couldn’t withstand the harvest levels that blue-winged teal could. Then and now it was a complicated equation balancing hunter opportunity with buffering the species needing shelter.
For the most part it made sense, but I still recall the question I asked, and smile at most advisory board meetings when similar questions or comments are made. For the record, I asked, “Wouldn’t it be easier to just set the limit at three or four ducks and not have all these restrictions for shooting five or six?”
The response is still etched in my mind. “Are you looking for a job?” Jones replied, in essence summarizing the goal of wildlife managers and desire of hunters to have less cumbersome regulations.
What I’ve learned since then is that setting waterfowl limits, seasons, rules and regulations is a science, and it should be. What I mean is that biologists, researchers and administrators do the best the can with the data and tools they have for all vested interests — hunters and ducks alike.
Such is the case with a new set of duck regulations that will be in effect this fall. The new slate of regulations is called Hunter’s Choice, which in concept, is supported by hunters surveyed in a nationwide survey last year. Results from the survey indicate that about half the duck hunters preferred making selective choices within a daily bag limit, rather than having shortened or closed seasons for certain species, or reduced bag limits and season lengths for more abundant species to protect those species that have less harvest potential.
Under Hunter’s Choice this year, the duck season is 74 days for all species, so there is no closed season on pintails and canvasbacks while the regular duck season is still open. In the past few years, the seasons for pintails and canvasbacks had closed after 39 days.
To allow for a full season on pintails and canvasback, hunters will have to make some choices. The daily limit structure looks like this:
This fall the daily limit on ducks is five per day. The daily duck limit is the same as the mallard limit, which is five per day and 10 in possession. For instance, if all you shoot only drake mallards, you can take five per day. If your first duck is a gadwall, for instance, only four drake mallards are allowed the rest of the day.
The daily limit of five ducks can include only one hen mallard, or one pintail, or one canvasback. If you shoot a pintail as your first duck of the day, it would be illegal to shoot a hen mallard or a canvasback the rest of the day. If you shoot a hen mallard as your first duck of the day, you can’t take a pintail or canvasback or another hen mallard. In recent years when the pintail and canvasback seasons were open, hunters could take one of each, plus two hen mallards.
Those are the nuts and bolts of the waterfowl regulations this fall. Hunters no longer have to worry about taking an illegal duck on their first shot of the day. On the other hand, if a hunter chooses to take a pintail, canvasback or hen mallard, they’ll have to be extra cautious the rest of the day.
North Dakota is one of five states in the Central Flyway adopting Hunter’s Choice regulations on a trial basis. South Dakota is also included. Five other Central Flyway states will continue with a closed season for pintails and canvasbacks after 39 days.
At the end of the proposed three-year trial, waterfowl managers will evaluate the merits of Hunter’s Choice, for ducks and for hunters.
As waterfowl season approaches take a minute to review rules and regulations.
You might open your eyes to a few changes and hopefully Hunter’s Choice is a step closer to balancing hunter wants with sound wildlife management.
South Dakota is to pheasants what Colorado is to elk and North Dakota is to duck hunting and Minnesota to ruffed grouse. Sure you can find roosters in Minnesota and elk in Wyoming, but there’s a reason everyone from VP Dick Cheney to hosts of professional athletes and screen stars from Kevin Costner to Sly Stallone set their sites on South Dakota to fill their frenzy for pheasant hunting. And the 2008 fall is shaping up to be one for the ages.
The 2008 index, released Friday, put pheasant numbers at 8.56 pheasants per mile — that’s 64 percent ahead of the 10-year average. Last year’s statewide survey showed 7.85 birds per mile.”The survey results show a statewide increase of 9 percent in pheasant numbers,” said Game, Fish and Parks Secretary Jeff Vonk. “That’s amazing, considering the record- setting level of last year’s brood survey.”
Don’t pooh pooh these numbers, last year pheasant hunting in South Dakota was nothing to kick the ground about. with a harvest over 1 million birds for the 2nd time in three years. It’s a huge feat to not only maintain a stable population from record numbers but improve and grow the pheasant numbers significantly. Pheasant hunters across the nation have grown accustomed to hearing towns such as Mobridge and Chamberlain with a history of plentiful pheasants, and take the historically healthy numbers and start throwing numbers around like a 50% to 60% increase and you’ll find some amazed hunters. While across the board numbers are strong, the reality of a resident population compared to say ducks is you’ll find some regions of South Dakota even with statewide record numbers have for one reason or another taken a step back.
The Mobridge area saw a 61 percent increase over last year, with 12.29 pheasants per mile. The Chamberlain area reported a whopping 22.56 pheasants per mile, a 36 percent increase over last year.Meanwhile, the Sisseton area saw a 47 percent decline, with 1.9 pheasants per mile. Around Watertown, the brood count fell 33 percent, to 5.93 pheasants per mile.
As with any numbers and wildlife population we must also take a closer look for what the future may or may not hold. When it comes to wildlife populations we cannot control the weather such as a cold, wet stretch during the peek hatch of mid-June when pheasant chicks cannot regulate their own body temperature and are susceptible to hypothermia mortality. A nasty winter of extreme cold and excessive snowfall can knock out pheasants locally and regionally–indeed pheasants face a full arsenal of limiting factors. And one variable controlled by humans is suffering from economic forces moving landowners to convert strong habitat, namely CRP into crops such as corn, soybeans and other commodities from grassland habitat.
The state lost about 260,000 acres in 2007 as farmers chose not to re-enlist in the federal CRP program and converted grasslands back into crop production. The state could lose another 500,000 CRP acres in the next three years as more contracts expire.
When the habitat component is subtracting acres to the tune of hundreds of thousands it would be irresponsible to hide the real threat this record rooster populations is facing an uphill battle to maintain, let alone increase the pheasant population in coming years. Even in the short term with the loss of 260,000 acres some localized populations may more subject to a local set of poor pheasant conditions. And the future of even more CRP vanishing from the prairie doesn’t appear to be slowing down anytime soon without an increase in CRP rental payment or a economic incentive for landowners to keep from converting grass to crop land.
Another aspect not realized by many hunters and some wildlife managers is the hunter social response unknowingly as the pheasants move to remaining habitat stands, so to do the hunters. A scenario of competition not only amongst pheasants for a shrinking habitat, but hunters to will follow from converted past pheasant fields into the remaining tracts creating competition and congestion. I’m not throwing up huge red flags, but more inclined to bring up real possibilities overlooked aspects when the mainstream media is simply reporting the stellar pheasant numbers and potential hunting this fall. Realistically our hunts are more a degree of satisfaction for right now and hedging our bets on tomorrow or next years, there’s no guaranteees.
Hunting and outdoors circles the past few years have been abuzz with rather subjective terminology.
At the coffee shop or gas station, topics such as hunting pressure, fair chase, ethics, hunting heritage and the essence of the hunt often lead to lively conversation and the need to make another pot of coffee.
I bring up these buzz words or phrases because nonhunters, or even hunters who may not have been active for a few seasons, may not be familiar with these terms, and even long-time hunters may have differing definitions of what these terms mean.
Now, there isn’t much question about practices that are legal and those that are not. Ethics and fair chase deal with what’s allowable within the law, but different people have different values or ethics about what’s acceptable within the law.
For instance, shooting a duck sitting on the water is perfectly legal. However, how many waterfowl hunters do you know who routinely shoot birds on the water? Any?
Other situations aren’t quite so one-sided. I wouldn’t dream of jumping out of a vehicle to try to get a quick shot at a rooster in a ditch next to a gravel road, even if the adjacent land wasn’t posted so I wouldn’t be violating any laws by doing so. I just don’t think a vehicle stopped in the middle of the road, accompanied by a guy running down the ditch with a gun, creates a very positive impression of hunting for anyone who might drive by at the time.
I don’t judge others for taking advantage of such opportunities, I just won’t partake myself. Same goes for practices like baiting of big game on private land. It’s legal, but a lot of hunters think it violates the premise of fair chase in hunting.
That’s the beauty and unique aspect of hunting. Each individual answers to themselves for decisions which they make within the legal constraints of existing law.
When I began hunting in the early 1980s, I don’t remember hearing much, if anything about hunting guides. I remember the late New York Yankees manager Billy Martin hunting geese in LaMoure County, and he stayed at the Omega Motel in LaMoure, not at a hunting lodge. I don’t remember if he hunted with a guide, but do know there weren’t any official hunting lodges and nobody knew of any licensed guides either.
As with most things in life, times change. I can’t imagine any professional athlete nowadays just pulling into LaMoure and getting a room for the night. Expectations and available services have changed dramatically, but the essence of the hunt remains intact.
I’m thankful that leaders over time have had the wisdom to protect the essence of the hunt, sometimes with laws that transform ethical issues. Preserving and protecting our strong hunting heritage should never be taken for granted.
And when it comes to fair chase, I won’t be one to judge a legal user of robotic ducks for waterfowl hunting or scent blocker for archery hunting. In fact, I vividly recall an old angler reminiscing about the invention of monofilament line and how critics argued it would ruin fishing as it was invisible. I’m living proof that no matter the line or lure, you can lead a fish to water but you can’t make it bite.
This fall, take a few minutes and recall hunts of the past that match your definition of hunting heritage, ethics and fair chase. Doing so may serve to balance your expectations and enhance your appreciation of those days when the game just doesn’t cooperate.
I’m not used to being so right so quickly. Day’s ago I wrung my hands and shook my head in disgust as valuable time and precious money was spent so one single deer with six legs could live, and I asked the first question as why this is considered acceptable? Why not either let the deer attempt to make it on it’s own or if needless suffering, euthanize? One animal of one species not considered endangered, threatened or even rare. For crying out loud this was a white-tailed deer in fact many states struggle with attempting to reduce their numbers into more tolerant levels, lest try to save one freak of nature.
And my last question was part hypothetical as I queried, “what if the deer only lives a few weeks” and wouldn’t ya know it Spyder, as this deer became to be be known, the 6 legged deer died from a “vascular accident”. What would’ve been better is if Spyder had become deer sausage and not lifted up as an icon.
Two days after last week’s surgery at Mars Hill Animal Hospital, Spyder died Aug. 20 in what veterinarians called a “vascular accident.”
“It appears that something must have clotted in his cardio system, or he had some kind of stroke,” said Dr. Joey Gross, one of the two surgeons who worked on Spyder. “We did an autopsy, but we’re not sure exactly what happened. It’s very unfortunate, and you hate to go through that and not have him have a normal life, but we were glad to at least get the opportunity.”
Two days? You’ve got to be kidding me? Personally I had a difficult time swallowing this story if the deer lived for 100 years , let alone two days. How any responsible scientist can argue a degree of success is beyond me. Whatever knowledge gained from the process of surgery to remove the extra appendages and research could’ve been better utilized on a real endangered species. or even a new venison recipe to entice more hunters to take up deer hunting and help thin the herd. Do we really need to determine how to keep more white-tailed deer living longer?
“It’s sad and frustrating because he was moving around and appeared to be eating and healing normally,” Gross said. “He was a very good-natured animal, and people got attached to him very quickly.”
Here’s a fundamental divide between wildlife managers and the growing culture of researchers who attach to their subjects and the anthropomorphism of subjecting a degree human characteristics to animals results in poor decisions justified. When the perceived ownership of a specific animal to a researcher is given priority over managing wildlife species as a hole we erode the culture of putting to much emphasis on animals. Last spring in Minnesota excessive debate simmered over the Minnesota DNR requesting a bear named Solo be euthanized and not saved and relocated. Around the same time a researcher was accused of harassing a hunter who had legally shot and killed a bear which was part of her research project.
Dare I say when the next news story surfaces an the animal has been named we’ve chipped another stone from the foundation of sound wildlife management.
And on the other side of the coin, so to speak, I’ll glady commend the multi-million dollar price tag for the long term benefits of winning the Heller court battle in DC a few weeks back. When it comes to the future of gun rights, the price tag cannot deter the need for vigilance in defending the 2nd amendment.
Lawyers who won the historic Second Amendment gun rights case in the Supreme Court — District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) — on Monday asked a federal judge to award them more than $3.5 million for attorneys’ fees, plus $13,215.30 for expenses and court costs. In a motion and memorandum filed with U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the attorneys said that they had achieved “one of the most profound and important victories available under our system of justice.”
For what it’s worth, I say thank you. Thank you to the masses of level headed, like minded thinking hunters, anglers, trappers, conservationists and gun rights advocates. Our collective mind is more representative of society than the few who spend to much time thinking and not enough time enjoying the outdoors.
Hunters and wildlife managers for decades have walked a virtual tight rope with hunters wanting to push the wire a bit higher in using the latest and greatest technology and devices to maximize their time outdoors. Joining them on the tight rope are managers and researchers working to balance the hunter demands without harming the population and to a degree compromising the essence of the hunt.
In my everyday work I’ve embraced technology and look for every real and perceived advantage to complete the task more efficiently and effectively. Implementing and utilizing the latest electronic communication and computer tools is a must in this “now” world we live in. But as much as I seek out the next great thing for work and communication, when it comes to my time outdoors I prefer the modern technology of 20 years ago compared to the latest inventions in hunting gear and equipment. With the exception of carrying my cell phone or other safety equipment, the actual tools I use are about as modern as a VCR. So it should come as no surprise I’ve never used a robo duck and have no plans to. But I’ve no qualms about others who choose to use the robo-duck. That’s the draw of the outdoors, we can each mold and shape our time outdoors within the laws to our personal choice.
The hunting community is buzzing about Arkansas ending a three year ban on spinning wing decoys and allowing their legal usage for waterfowl hunting. I can’t imagine how much input was received both for and against this regulation over the last three years. For many it was a line in the sand issue, where many hunters were in favor of their use as their perceived ability to draw waterfowl within closer range for more efficient shooting. On the other end was the management argument presuming higher kill rates and increased total take which may force agencies to adjust seasons and/or bag limits consequently to protect populations. Arkansas was one state that didn’t wait to find out what the impact would be, they banned the use of spinning wing decoys.
It was three years ago when the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission made the decision to ban Mr. Robo. Was the original decision a bad one or did the Commission bow under the pressure of an unpopular decision?
I’ve never been much of a then kind of guy, I prefer to focus my attention more on the now, granted it’s easy to judge after the fact a possible mistake in this decision of a few years ago, but I think agencies have been painted into a corner with evaluating technology and the management impact for populations from resulted hunting use. While the US Fish and Wildlife Service made no across the board decisions where the use of spinning wing decoys may have been prohibited, but think about the process of a new device working through the testing process and then hitting the market only to be restricted? If the product is allowed under current rules and regulations it’s hard to suggest a product to be banned before knowing the implications.
Statistical reports from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife say that there was no noticeable difference in the harvest rates or population levels. In an effort that mirrors herding cats, that decision doesn’t surprise me as statistics can say whatever you need them to say.
I for one can nod my head in agreement the variable use of statistics and arguing for or against and there’s so many variables in waterfowl hunting from behavior of hunters across the board with even local weather impacting the waterfowl migration which could argue either way for the use or elimination of spinning-wing decoys.
Apparently a survey indicated that the majority of people wanted spinning wing decoys back. It’s a slippery slope when we begin making wildlife management decisions based upon public opinion surveys - remember those dang buffalo.
One part I agree on is we need to hesitate if social wants from hunters out-weighs the best interest of the wildlife resource, it’s been a point of contention for more than a century of game management, where agencies are tasked balancing the desires of hunters with the health of the wildlife population. As it stands Arkansas sporting goods stores will be buzzing with the supply and demand of the robo duck and if it’s anything like the advancement from VHS to DVD and now even more portable devices the next invention is probably already in production. I’ll guarantee the next advance in hunting equipment will be scrutinized and odds are unless there is some smoking gun issue within the current rules and regulations hunters will snap it up to gain advantage on the game and the competition between other hunters attempting to lure them in. And with this protocol the resulting impacts won’t be measurable for a few years and then we’ll see what changes will be made in response. It would be nice if the process was revered, but as we’ve seen in Arkansas it’s not always the way hunters or even managers would like it. But it’s the hand we’ve been dealt.
As a young hunter growing up in the field 20 years ago, morning doves were synonymous with the kick off to autumn. At that time, dove hunting opened earlier than any other major bird season, so doves were top priority for a week or two until we could hunt sharp-tailed grouse and partridge.
I think the emergence of an early Canada goose season a few years back has taken some of the early fall spotlight once directed at doves. However, doves were, and still are today, a respected and highly popular game bird.
Their small body size and manic flight pattern combine to put doves near the top in terms of degree of difficulty to bag. Veteran dove hunters have always related that shooting a limit of doves with a box of shells (25) is a pretty tough challenge.
In recent years, I haven’t specifically hunted doves as much as I once did. What used to be full day dove hunts have become a couple of hours or an evening walk along the edge of a sunflower field to hopefully get a crack at a few doves making their way between feeding fields and their roost.
Mourning doves typically nest from April through September, and may raise more than one batch of young during the nesting season in the North. In warmer climates, they can rear five or six clutches. The typical nest contains two white eggs, with an incubation period of 13-15 days. Young are in the nest from 12-15 days before they can fly.
Currently, biologists across the country are trying to learn more about doves. 26 states participating in a three-year study, during which more than 85,000 mourning doves will be trapped and banded. Biologists hope to determine harvest rates, estimate annual survival, provide information on geographic distribution of harvest, and develop and refine techniques for future banding.
The banding project got started in 2003, when doves were trapped in and fitted with small metal leg bands.
Mourning doves are the most numerous migratory game bird in North America and more doves are harvested by hunters than all other migratory game birds combined. Dove hunting is serious stuff in most states. In 2003, for example, the No. 1 dove harvest state was Texas, where hunters bagged 3.9 million birds.
Mourning doves aren’t as actively pursued elsewhere as the are in Texas. In 2003, only about 35,000 doves were shot in the state or North Dakota. People don’t often recognize doves as viable targets because they are so small. Plus, a good portion of the birds leave the state before the season even opens on September 1.
As the mourning dove banding study continues and data is analyzed, more questions will be answered. So far, doves banded in North Dakota have been taken Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Mexico.
An interesting find this summer is that researchers have recaptured several birds banded in the state last year. These returns identify doves that survived a long migration south, a return trek north, and a host of other hurdles that include predators, weather and hunters.
This fall, as you cruise by doves perched above a waiting sunflower field, imagine the places those birds may have been.
Without a blink I can look you in the eye and relate growing up I never imagined the issue of in the field harassment to be an issue for legal hunters. IA poacher caught illegally spotlighting deer and drawing the ire of a local would seem justifiable, but the other possibility was not on the mind of this young hunter in the Midwest.
Now as a mid-life adult, I’ve resolved that nothing will surprise me. And while growing up in the mid 80s I was exposed to the increasingly obstructive tactics of anti-hunting organizations which conceived the reality of a law abiding hunter being accosted. These “anti” groups generated headlines for their organizations by protesting and disrupting legal activities. What followed were states reacting to protect their hunter citizens from these insurgents. As a hunter you can thank your state law makers if your protected from law against being harassed while legally in the field.
Q: Is there some kind of regulation that makes it unlawful for someone to interfere with or harass a hunter or angler who is hunting or fishing lawfully?
Yes, according to Game Warden Lorraine Doyle, the Fish and Game Code has a section which protects hunters and anglers rights to lawfully fish and hunt for game in California.
And in California as compared to say Wyoming you may be glad that protection is afforded where anti-hunting groups and individuals may be more likely to intentionally attempt to disrupt a hunt. Speaking of intent, here in lies the problem as don’t think just having a regulation on the books ensures you as a legal and protected by law hunters, will never encounter a problem.
(a) A person shall not willfully interfere with the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, fishing, falconry or trapping at the location where that activity is taking place.
(e) In order to be liable for a violation of this section, the person is required to have had the specific intent to interfere with the participation of an individual who was engaged in shooting, hunting, fishing, falconry or trapping.
(f) For purposes of this section, “interfere with” means any action which physically impedes, hinders or obstructs the lawful pursuit of any of the above-mentioned activities, including, but not limited to, actions taken for the purpose of frightening away animals from the location where the lawful activity is taking place.
I’m drawing out some legal holes to better help hunters understand the legal descriptions of what is going to be considered when a situation evolves. First and foremost the legally engaged hunter should not be overlooked. Say your in the field and the state law requires you to have signed your license and you’ve forgotten to take sign your name and technically failing to do so you are not legally engaged in the activity of hunting. I know it’s a loophole, but you can understand these groups seeking to slip off from prosecution will expose any potential legal culpability. What about the definition of shooting and hunting? If you are in the field and not pulling the trigger are you hunting? I hate to imagine the attorneys deciphering the intent of this. Another portion of this which jumps out to me is physically impedes, hinders etc. Which could make the argument verbal harassment is not a violation or protection through this specific law. I’d venture to say within this realm if your legally hunting waterfowl and someone intentionally scares away the ducks, you’ll again be at the mercy of the system where the legally acting hunter was disrupted but not to the extent prosecution for hunter harassment would take place, as you were not harassed but the quarry was and proving the intent is another variable which waters this down even more. I’ve come to the point in this discussion for all practical purposes during hunting if your not physically assault in the field, you’ll find little protection and you might almost make the argument those interfering with the hunt would have more protection in terms of their legal right to interfere with your hunt. And for the matter if your physically assaulted while hunting or not hunting you’ll find protection from laws protecting all citizens and that’s not good enough. click here for a full list of states with hunter harassment protection
It’s the backside of August and two of my favorite pastimes – hunting and football – are about to mix like peanut butter and jelly, or better yet, sausage and sauerkraut for this full-blooded German.
While hunting, fishing, trapping and other outdoor activities are my profession, football, among other sports, is a nonwork outlet so for me, nothing could be better than weekends in autumn.
There’s little I enjoy more than a Friday evening scout for doves, ducks or whatever season is open and, on the way home, pulling into a local high school football game. It only gets better if it’s a game between schools that have no more than nine players on each side of the ball.
Saturdays provide opportunities for a quick stop to take in a few quarters of an outdoor college football game, or to time an afternoon break to listen to local college football teams grind it out on the radio.
Sometime in the future, perhaps by the time my children are old enough to participate, I wonder if those high school athletic events might also include activities that are more closely related to hunting and fishing.
Let me explain. Hopkins High School in Minnesota already has a school-sponsored trap and skeet team. Across the country in recent years, the National Archery in Schools program has been a resounding success, and is starting to develop. In North Dakota, the Prairie Rose State Games added family fishing as a noncompetitive activity for the 2006 statewide event. The PRSG also include archery, rifle silhouette, skeet and sporting clays shooting events.
I realize there’s a distinct difference between hunting and competitive shooting with bow or gun. I’m not a fan of hunting or fishing contests that reward those who can shoot the most grouse or catch the most walleye. In fact, I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum.
But find me a kid who can’t throw a spiral or hit a home run, yet can put a nice-sized fish in the live-well or a drop a rooster with one shot, and he or she can experience the same confident smile and internal sense of accomplishment that come from a touchdown pass or three-point basket.
I enjoy high school football and other sports, but not everyone plays them, and for those who do, the activity is not necessarily a life-long pursuit. Shooting sports are all-inclusive, and they are easily continued after high school days are over.
I’m not suggesting there’s a greater benefit from archery in schools or high or competitive skeet shooting than playing football or volleyball. But I do know that some kids who would not take part in the “traditional” sports might stand in line to sign up for something like archery.
Hunting and fishing will always involve a core segment of the population. However, as our state population becomes more urban and less rural, we need to develop more opportunities for introducing hunting, angling or trapping to kids who most likely would not otherwise become involved.
Hunter education is a large part of training new hunters, but most of those who take part generally have the means and ways of getting out into the field. A growing number of wildlife clubs offer junior club activities. Youth-only hunts have served to give young hunters a jump start.
It’s seldom that I hear of a hunter or angler who didn’t begin hunting or fishing until later on in life. For the most part they were exposed early on, enjoyed it, and will continue throughout life.
Organized activities centered on skills that hunters and anglers also use can develop confidence, character and an interest in spending time outdoors.
As you spend time hunting or fishing this fall, and listening to or watching high school football, l imagine how much better your archery or shotgunning skills would be if you’d have spent a couple hours a day, five days a week practicing with skilled instruction.
