Are we really hunting?

[Lawnboi]

IMO I would bet they just wouldnt take the kids if there was no youth season. Selfish parents are selfish parents.

But I have no experience with anyone either way so thats just my opinion. I dont even know if we have a youth season in NC. I dont care. Ill be taking my son with me next year anytime he wants to go with me.

Nothing wrong with that. I’m just sharing my experience with WI. There was no youth season when I was a kid, and I’m now at an age where I have watched it come and seen kids grow up with youth seasons.

I have zero issue with what some do about loss of bucks or hand outs. I think it’s hurting more the tradition of hunting than anything.

 

[Macintosh]

@Lawnboi, do you think that's universal? I dont, because it doesnt match what I see.

Starting from this: "you don’t see kids out like you used to anymore", which I think IS clearly borne out by the data we have, isnt there room for a lot of different explanations? It seems a stretch to me to think there is one main explanation at all, let alone to jump from there to "that's because they are out the first week of october in their own season". Those "own seasons" were in response to what you are seeing. According to the data we have in the US fish and wildlife surveys, the largest single reason that people arent hunting as much is basically because access has gotten much harder. I say basically because there are 5 or 6 different reasons that all boil down to "most people have to work harder to find a decent place to hunt close to home". There are also fewer adults hunting now than there were when i was a kid. And the adults with kids now have a different set of issues to deal with when getting their kids out. I am sure you are right in that there is some effect like you are saying--I just dont see that as the primary effect, based on what I see that is the exception. Still seems to me that any way to make it easier for kids to get out, OR make it easier for parents to fit that into everything else, is a win. The great thing is that there are 50 different states all dealing with the same issues, and while they look different everywhere, there is ample opportunity to compare notes, see what is working, and borrow those approaches elsewhere if it makes sense.

Regardless, there is still room for any parent to work within it as they see best meets their needs. If you prefer to take your kid to deer camp with the guys, nothing is stopping you. It just doesnt seem like anything but a net positive to me.

 

[Lawnboi]

@Lawnboi, do you think that's universal? I dont, because it doesnt match what I see.

Starting from this: "you don’t see kids out like you used to anymore", which I think IS clearly borne out by the data we have, isnt there room for a lot of different explanations? It seems a stretch to me to think there is one main explanation at all, let alone to jump from there to "that's because they are out the first week of october in their own season". Those "own seasons" were in response to what you are seeing. According to the data we have in the US fish and wildlife surveys, the largest single reason that people arent hunting as much is basically because access has gotten much harder. I say basically because there are 5 or 6 different reasons that all boil down to "most people have to work harder to find a decent place to hunt close to home". There are also fewer adults hunting now than there were when i was a kid. And the adults with kids now have a different set of issues to deal with when getting their kids out. I am sure you are right in that there is some effect like you are saying--I just dont see that as the primary effect, based on what I see that is the exception. Still seems to me that any way to make it easier for kids to get out, OR make it easier for parents to fit that into everything else, is a win.

Regardless, there is still room for any parent to work within it as they see best meets their needs. If you prefer to take your kid to deer camp with the guys, nothing is stopping you. It just doesnt seem like anything but a net positive to me.

I’m not saying it’s a huge deal. I just see a lot of kids hunting youth season, and missing out of the camaraderie and relationship building that hunting has given me. Maybe I’m an exception but I have seen this first hand as well, and not just a few people.

I have a young daughter now and I know that just taking her out to kill is not the way to help her learn what I have from hunting.

 

[Macintosh]

agree with that. Maybe I am fortunate, but the kids I see out hunting have both, and the additional tools seem to make it easier for parents to manage both. Without real data we each have to go off what we see, all I can hope for is that what I see is more representative of the majority than what you are relaying. For what it's worth, I think a lot of hunters struggle with finding that camaraderie, not just kids. I think it's part of why we're here on rokslide among other things. To me that points to other issues more so than it does a youth season being the culprit, but regardless I hear what you are saying.

 

[wind gypsy]

You really think kids are MORE likely to give up hunting if they have an easier intro, than if they never have a taste of success? Sorry, what I see does not support your claim. Besides, in at least the case of my state its also about creating an easier situation for parents to take their kids out. And for any hunter to be a mentor, without having to take time away from the regular seasons.

I think there is a happy medium. Stomping around in misery endlessly without any animal encounters can tamper the fire a bit. But being a trigger puller in a blind at a managed property where there's not a really question about deer being in front of you can certainly kill the whole mystery and pursuit aspects of a hunt that hooks people.

I recall vividly being 12, 13 and unable to sleep the nights before season just imaging what might be in the woods. Going out to public and being thrilled when i had a shot opportunity maybe 50% of the days. Now approaching 30 years later, chances of a buck showing up at my land that I'm not already familiar with are very small. I could plop a kid in a blind and know they have over 90% odds of a deer feeding naturally inside 100 yards. I enjoy the property work and watching how animals respond to it. The hunting part is less exciting.

Having some mystery and work put into achieving those encounters and successes are key for lots of kids IMO. My kids will go on youth days if they want but I'd rather the participation trophy seasons went away and we could just focus on them rather than myself during the regular season like my dad did for me.

 

[southLA]

Man i'm just walking around the woods. I guess you can say i'm hiking.

 

[JGRaider]

Good Lord, hunting seasons must be over in most places you guys live. Never have I wasted time, or understood why people worry and whine so much about what someone else is doing (as long as it's legal of course). Guess I'm lucky I can hunt 24/7/365 if I so choose, and so can my kids and grandkids. More power to 'em.

 

[rookieforever33]

what really happens

View attachment 990017

It is crazy some people do this. Nothing like making your kid an accomplice to poaching. Safe to say they are raising sh*tty hunters, and sh*tty people in general. Maybe the kids in my family are a little slow, but people that show pictures of their 6-9 year old kids hunting seem unrealistic to me. Kids that age are excited to be along at all, and I would assume those kill shots are pretty "staged" by the adults hunting with them. I personally wont let a kid that hasn't passed the hunters ed course to shoot at a big game animal. At that point its like a drivers permit, I'll sit next to them and coach, but they are driving the gun. That is what a youth season should be IMO.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

agree. Which is why in most states its a citizen board that largely defines hunting regulations, in cooperation with the state biologists and agencies. Every state is different, but for instance in my state this process, while the anti's have tried to hijack it same as everywhere else, is working pretty darn well. It's very easy to point to areas where this system has major problems (colorado, etc) and no one will argue that it's perfect, but it's also super easy to point to many areas where this system has worked, and continues to work, exceptionally well. It's not perfect, but it's one of the reasons why it's simply not correct to say that the regulations, which are to a degree a representation of what we find acceptable as a group of hunters, are "dictated by government". It's also a slippery slope putting ethics into either legislation or regulation, and many people (me included) are justifiably nervous about doing so. Especially since the opportunity-based conservation funding model we use benefits overall from bringing more people into the activity, or at least maintaining the people we do have, which means there is a clear, quantifiable negative that results from excluding or putting roadblocks in the way of participation. It's also a big part of the reason why I earlier said that if you dont know the difference between legislation and regulation, it's worth reading up on before having this conversation. The point I and a few others have been making all along in this thread though, is that its not clear from what people are complaining about here, that there is any actual reason beyond personal preference why these things (crossbows, youth days, whatever topic has come under this topic here in this thread) are problematic. If there is a legit problem being created, we should have a conversation about whether they should continue--but if you cant or arent pointing to a legit quantifiable problem, then it's nothing more than whining about someone doing it differently than you. MY morals and ethics arent decided by ANY other person, any more than they are by government. The question imo should be much more bout WHY someone thinks X, Y or Z approach is "more ethical". Is it purely preference? Or does it have an impact on others in the big picture? Two totally different situations.

I largely agree with what you wrote and haven't read the thread past page 1.

What I disagree with is saying something is ethical because it's legal as the driver. This has popped up a handful of times already "legal = ethical". There are a lot of things we can do or not do in CO that cross my personal boundary of ethics.

 

[207North]

It is crazy some people do this. Nothing like making your kid an accomplice to poaching. Safe to say they are raising sh*tty hunters, and sh*tty people in general. Maybe the kids in my family are a little slow, but people that show pictures of their 6-9 year old kids hunting seem unrealistic to me. Kids that age are excited to be along at all, and I would assume those kill shots are pretty "staged" by the adults hunting with them. I personally wont let a kid that hasn't passed the hunters ed course to shoot at a big game animal. At that point its like a drivers permit, I'll sit next to them and coach, but they are driving the gun. That is what a youth season should be IMO.

I wonder how much of this is adults shooting deer for the kids.

How much is grown men trying to justify a kid shooting a better deer than them by assuming the father took the shot.

 

[Macintosh]

I think there is a happy medium. Stomping around in misery endlessly without any animal encounters can tamper the fire a bit. But being a trigger puller in a blind at a managed property where there's not a really question about deer being in front of you can certainly kill the whole mystery and pursuit aspects of a hunt that hooks people.

I recall vividly being 12, 13 and unable to sleep the nights before season just imaging what might be in the woods. Going out to public and being thrilled when i had a shot opportunity maybe 50% of the days. Now approaching 30 years later, chances of a buck showing up at my land that I'm not already familiar with are very small. I could plop a kid in a blind and know they have over 90% odds of a deer feeding naturally inside 100 yards. I enjoy the property work and watching how animals respond to it. The hunting part is less exciting.

Having some mystery and work put into achieving those encounters and successes are key for lots of kids IMO. My kids will go on youth days if they want but I'd rather the participation trophy seasons went away and we could just focus on them rather than myself during the regular season like my dad did for me.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. Maybe it's even on topic with the original thread--hunting has to be and mean different things to different people, or else it really does lose its relevance on a lot of levels. Seems likely to me that the "managed property" guy is pretty hard core, and will have an easier time curating their kids entry into hunting. That's great, but it's not everyone--I think it's not the majority. Around me, managed properties are BY FAR the exception. Plenty of private land, but very little of it is managed specifically for hunting in the manner the mainstream whitetail media portrays. Seems to me the youth seasons are more aimed at those folks who get out occasionally or hunt exclusively on public land or private by permission, both of which usually mean you're sharing it with everyone else. I think it's entirely plausible that those folks deal with a different set of issues, and to whatever degree this is an issue the solutions might need to look different. What I see in practice is really very much a middle ground kind of like what you are suggesting.

 

[bnewt3]

Heres a question for the group.

If food plots and bait are objectionable, what about planting oaks and apple trees and hunting over those? Are they also objectionable?

no rhetoric, legit question.

 

[wind gypsy]

That seems entirely reasonable to me. Maybe it's even on topic with the original thread--hunting has to be and mean different things to different people, or else it really does lose its relevance on a lot of levels. Seems likely to me that the "managed property" guy is pretty hard core, and will have an easier time curating their kids entry into hunting. That's great, but it's not everyone--I think it's not the majority. Around me, managed properties are BY FAR the exception. Plenty of private land, but very little of it is managed specifically for hunting in the manner the mainstream whitetail media portrays. Seems to me the youth seasons are more aimed at those folks who get out occasionally or hunt exclusively on public land or private by permission, both of which usually mean you're sharing it with everyone else. I think it's entirely plausible that those folks deal with a different set of issues, and to whatever degree this is an issue the solutions might need to look different. What I see in practice is really very much a middle ground kind of like what you are suggesting.

Very solid point.

 

[rookieforever33]

Heres a question for the group.

If food plots and bait are objectionable, what about planting oaks and apple trees and hunting over those? Are they also objectionable?

no rhetoric, legit question.

If you plant something that you need to wait 10 years to hunt over that is true "long range hunting"

 

[Macintosh]

@bnewt3 have you ever seen a perennial food plot?
perennial food plot = habitat
annual food plot = not habitat

I dont really care if people do either, but strictly from a distance that seems a pretty easy distinction to make. Also, I enjoy my apple trees and oak trees, so it must be OK if I do it. ("grin", just in case that wasnt understood). In truth my view of both is really predicated on what I enjoy about hunting based on where I live and what is available to me as far as where and how to hunt. If my access and hunting looked different I'm certain I would have a different approach.

Also, I can only wish my oaks will bear fruit inside 10 years. More like 20-25.

 

[WoolOverAll]

Heres a question for the group.

If food plots and bait are objectionable, what about planting oaks and apple trees and hunting over those? Are they also objectionable?

no rhetoric, legit question.

Good to go for me. I stick to native plants and have seen excellent results from it. There is a big difference between a field of corn and a cultivated native food plot.

 

[bnewt3]

@bnewt3 have you ever seen a perennial food plot?
perennial food plot = habitat
annual food plot = not habitat

I dont really care if people do that, but strictly from a distance that seems a pretty easy distinction to make. Also, I enjoy my apple trees and oak trees, so it must be OK if I do it. ("grin", just in case that wasnt understood)

OK, fair enough.

So if a farmer plants corn or soybeans as part of their living, should they have to refrain from shooting deer in or around the field?

 

[bnewt3]

Legit questions to gauge where the line exists.

 

[bnewt3]

IMO theres a pretty significant difference between dumping a bag of corn and planting a food plot(even an annual food plot). One pretty much only serves to gather and bulk deer. The other typically benefits many species; bees, birds, turkey, rabbits, etc, etc. Things you hunt, things you dont.

 

[Macintosh]

Not to me. To some it might.

But legitimately, the question was about using technology to make the activity easier. It's not a big leap to include manipulating the environment to make hunting easier. Maybe you can argue a difference in that regard between a food plot located and timed specifically for hunting, versus a legit farm crop, ie is one versus the other more a part of the landscape to be worked around rather than manipulated for specific purpose? Maybe, maybe not. Heck, somewhere on that continuum lies logging which happens to create deer food, and old abandoned homesteads on public land that happen to have a tangle of old apple trees that still produce fruit. Should I stay away from them too? Regardless, earlier I asked about what the quantifiable impact of these things was on the wildlife populations and others. ie, if Joe uses a crossbow, does that impact other hunters and wildlife populations in the big picture, and if so how? I would simply ask the same question here. If Joe hunts over a bean field or not, what is the quantifiable effect on wildlife populations and others? IMO beyond answering the question based on that criteria, it's preference.