What is the problem? If only roosters are shot, increased hunting pressure would not substantially
impact the pheasant population.
If there is increased pressure, huns start flushing at 100 yards and sharptails learn to flush at 200 yards.
With increased pressure, hunting success on public land declines, as birds relocate to areas that are private,
or require sweat-equity.
Seems like the bill addresses a perceived human crowding problem, not a bird population problem.
According to the statistics, only 1 percent of non-residents hunt more than 28 days,
if there is a substantial crowding problem, why not address it instead of effecting only 1%?
I don't know where you found the stat on %1 non resident resident length of stay.What is the problem? If only roosters are shot, increased hunting pressure would not substantially
impact the pheasant population.
If there is increased pressure, huns start flushing at 100 yards and sharptails learn to flush at 200 yards.
With increased pressure, hunting success on public land declines, as birds relocate to areas that are private,
or require sweat-equity.
Seems like the bill addresses a perceived human crowding problem, not a bird population problem.
According to the statistics, only 1 percent of non-residents hunt more than 28 days,
if there is a substantial crowding problem, why not address it instead of effecting only 1%?
Since we don't have any mandatory reporting I'm guessing any statistics you find is suspect.
There are areas where I believe this bill could alleviate some pressure. It's the same story, dwindling resource, increased demand.