Red tailed hawk #s in Pa.
02-27-2006, 05:03 PM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,621
RE: Red tailed hawk #s in Pa.
What about the rabbits? Where did all the rabbits go?
Ever notice all the rabbits inside the city limits during the summer?
My brotherlives in a small town . Everyone there only has a small yard.Every year he plants a garden and hasproblems with rabbits. One day I was at his place and saw 5 all at the same time in his yard. I know that in most places in PA you can see this many rabbits,in the summer, in peoples yards. The problem is, that these areas are inside city limits and you can not hunt there. The same thing goes on at a co workers place. He has rabbit problems in his garden inside city limits.
I have an idea to bring back the rabbit population in state game lands and coop farms. Why doesn't the PGC make an appearence at the next Cub Scout, Boy Scout or sportsmans clubsmeetings. Local deputies or Commissioners could make an appearence at these meetings with blue prints to build live traps for catching rabbits [and reveal my plan]. The Scouts or club members could then make these traps and set them in urban areas. They could even have a phone number for people to call that are having problems with rabbits that are getting in their gardens and such. The scouts can set the traps and have the deputies come get the rabbits. [maybe PGC orsome college would be interested in putting ear tags in a few of these rabbits to keep tabs on them much like they do with duck's leg bands. Maybe some future biologists could cut get their start on this rabbit project] They could then release these rabbits on state game lands or coop farms that have suitable rabbit habitat. Now in the fall they can see how many of these rabbits are taken by the amount of ear tags that are turned in.( offer some kind of insentive) This is pretty much the same thing that they did to get turkeys established. Some people may not like the idea of trapping rabbits in the summer when they have young in the nest. So maybe they could trap them earlier in the spring. Anyway, I think the idea would work. Why can't the PGC come up with something like this? I'm sure this idea could be tweeked in a way to make it affordable. The Scouts or even sportsmans clubs would be paying for the cost of the traps. They could even drop the rabbits off at a designated spot,to be tagged,to save the PGC the cost of gasoline.
So, who's arm do I got to twist, in the PGC, to start something like this?
Ever notice all the rabbits inside the city limits during the summer?
My brotherlives in a small town . Everyone there only has a small yard.Every year he plants a garden and hasproblems with rabbits. One day I was at his place and saw 5 all at the same time in his yard. I know that in most places in PA you can see this many rabbits,in the summer, in peoples yards. The problem is, that these areas are inside city limits and you can not hunt there. The same thing goes on at a co workers place. He has rabbit problems in his garden inside city limits.
I have an idea to bring back the rabbit population in state game lands and coop farms. Why doesn't the PGC make an appearence at the next Cub Scout, Boy Scout or sportsmans clubsmeetings. Local deputies or Commissioners could make an appearence at these meetings with blue prints to build live traps for catching rabbits [and reveal my plan]. The Scouts or club members could then make these traps and set them in urban areas. They could even have a phone number for people to call that are having problems with rabbits that are getting in their gardens and such. The scouts can set the traps and have the deputies come get the rabbits. [maybe PGC orsome college would be interested in putting ear tags in a few of these rabbits to keep tabs on them much like they do with duck's leg bands. Maybe some future biologists could cut get their start on this rabbit project] They could then release these rabbits on state game lands or coop farms that have suitable rabbit habitat. Now in the fall they can see how many of these rabbits are taken by the amount of ear tags that are turned in.( offer some kind of insentive) This is pretty much the same thing that they did to get turkeys established. Some people may not like the idea of trapping rabbits in the summer when they have young in the nest. So maybe they could trap them earlier in the spring. Anyway, I think the idea would work. Why can't the PGC come up with something like this? I'm sure this idea could be tweeked in a way to make it affordable. The Scouts or even sportsmans clubs would be paying for the cost of the traps. They could even drop the rabbits off at a designated spot,to be tagged,to save the PGC the cost of gasoline.
So, who's arm do I got to twist, in the PGC, to start something like this?
02-28-2006, 02:03 AM
#22
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: Red tailed hawk #s in Pa.
ORIGINAL: patrkyhntr
Jim, if you really want to save game animals from predators, you should start hunting the predator that has the greatest effect upon prey populations. Please let me know where you are hunting them. I want to be as far away as possible.
Jim, if you really want to save game animals from predators, you should start hunting the predator that has the greatest effect upon prey populations. Please let me know where you are hunting them. I want to be as far away as possible.
Studies have shown the high toll preditors are taking on nesting birds and rabbits.
Keep your head in the sand and blame it all on land loss.God forbid setting some traps all killing off some of these killers.
And if you are the predator that is the cause all the problems maybe you should take a look at how you live.
02-28-2006, 06:54 AM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lancaster pa
Posts: 3,015
RE: Red tailed hawk #s in Pa.
Jim,
I did read the link you posted but I see it quite a bit differently. You on one hand are looking at it and saying if we kill of the predators then the duck population will increase which is true but WHY should we need to do that? You must look at the broader picture. Here is a quote from the same article that you posted.
"Since we settled the praries man has had a dramatic effect on the landscape. Wetlands have been drained, native wetlands have been lost and new and increasing predator populations are foraging in the remaining cover, and as a result the duck factory is operating well below historic levels."
If you look at the entire problem without any bias you can see that land loss is the real problem. If man would have left the wetlands alone then the percentage of successfull nests would have been more than sufficient to maintain a healthy duck population. However, the wetlands were not left alone and now there is a much smaller piece of land that is required to maintain the same population that the original parcel was capable of. As a result the only way to perform this little magic trick is to kill off the predators and increase nesting success within the land that is left. Yes, it's easy for everyone to throw stones and say "it's all the predators fault" but when you step back and look at the real picture man is clearly to blame. Of course, man is never one to take responsability for his actions either, so therefore predators must once again become the whipping boy.
I did read the link you posted but I see it quite a bit differently. You on one hand are looking at it and saying if we kill of the predators then the duck population will increase which is true but WHY should we need to do that? You must look at the broader picture. Here is a quote from the same article that you posted.
"Since we settled the praries man has had a dramatic effect on the landscape. Wetlands have been drained, native wetlands have been lost and new and increasing predator populations are foraging in the remaining cover, and as a result the duck factory is operating well below historic levels."
If you look at the entire problem without any bias you can see that land loss is the real problem. If man would have left the wetlands alone then the percentage of successfull nests would have been more than sufficient to maintain a healthy duck population. However, the wetlands were not left alone and now there is a much smaller piece of land that is required to maintain the same population that the original parcel was capable of. As a result the only way to perform this little magic trick is to kill off the predators and increase nesting success within the land that is left. Yes, it's easy for everyone to throw stones and say "it's all the predators fault" but when you step back and look at the real picture man is clearly to blame. Of course, man is never one to take responsability for his actions either, so therefore predators must once again become the whipping boy.
02-28-2006, 10:08 AM
#24
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: Red tailed hawk #s in Pa.
ORIGINAL: bearklr
Jim,
I did read the link you posted but I see it quite a bit differently. You on one hand are looking at it and saying if we kill of the predators then the duck population will increase which is true but WHY should we need to do that? You must look at the broader picture. Here is a quote from the same article that you posted.
"Since we settled the praries man has had a dramatic effect on the landscape. Wetlands have been drained, native wetlands have been lost and new and increasing predator populations are foraging in the remaining cover, and as a result the duck factory is operating well below historic levels."
If you look at the entire problem without any bias you can see that land loss is the real problem. If man would have left the wetlands alone then the percentage of successfull nests would have been more than sufficient to maintain a healthy duck population. However, the wetlands were not left alone and now there is a much smaller piece of land that is required to maintain the same population that the original parcel was capable of. As a result the only way to perform this little magic trick is to kill off the predators and increase nesting success within the land that is left. Yes, it's easy for everyone to throw stones and say "it's all the predators fault" but when you step back and look at the real picture man is clearly to blame. Of course, man is never one to take responsability for his actions either, so therefore predators must once again become the whipping boy.
Jim,
I did read the link you posted but I see it quite a bit differently. You on one hand are looking at it and saying if we kill of the predators then the duck population will increase which is true but WHY should we need to do that? You must look at the broader picture. Here is a quote from the same article that you posted.
"Since we settled the praries man has had a dramatic effect on the landscape. Wetlands have been drained, native wetlands have been lost and new and increasing predator populations are foraging in the remaining cover, and as a result the duck factory is operating well below historic levels."
If you look at the entire problem without any bias you can see that land loss is the real problem. If man would have left the wetlands alone then the percentage of successfull nests would have been more than sufficient to maintain a healthy duck population. However, the wetlands were not left alone and now there is a much smaller piece of land that is required to maintain the same population that the original parcel was capable of. As a result the only way to perform this little magic trick is to kill off the predators and increase nesting success within the land that is left. Yes, it's easy for everyone to throw stones and say "it's all the predators fault" but when you step back and look at the real picture man is clearly to blame. Of course, man is never one to take responsability for his actions either, so therefore predators must once again become the whipping boy.
But since I by law am not allowed to kill off some of the idiots that destroy nature with out any reason or thought ,I am forced to kill the other predators. [
]
02-28-2006, 10:21 AM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lancaster pa
Posts: 3,015
RE: Red tailed hawk #s in Pa.
I agree with your statement 100% Jim. I think it's an excellent point. I would MUCH rather take back the land than kill off the predators as I'm sure everyone on the forum would want to do. I just wanted to point out that even though the predators are being killed to keep nature in check it really isn't their numbers that are growing rather the land they are forced to hunt shrinking. As far as I see it they are in the same boat we are.
