Predators versus Target Numbers / Opportunities

[LittleM]

OK its New Years Eve and I am home alone and bored.  Kids at friends and wife had to work.  So I started perusing that other site and some of the stuff I read really aggravated me, so I came back here to start a civilized and educated discussion.

 

Some of what I read pertained to the same old thing:  too many fox and coyotes eating all the small game and deer resulting in less numbers equaling less for "me" to shoot at, leading to the "have to kill them all" mentality.  Then, I read that there are too many hawks (eating all the pheasants, rabbits, and squirrels) and it's a shame that they can't be controlled (shooting them).  Really?  REALLY?

 

So I started thinking.  Maybe there is an increase in numbers of raptors (not really true, but for sake of argument roll with it) and other predators.  And I wondered some more.  Maybe by stocking pheasants, the numbers of predators are being artificially propped up (again, roll with it for a while).

 

So I started thinking some more, and here's my question(s):  Should the Division of Fish and Wildlife be in the business of releasing into the environment (stocking) non-native species, specifically the ring-necked pheasant?  Given that (from what I've heard) they are on the brink of bankruptcy, would it not be better to cut that program and all the expense that goes with it and instead, use the resources and personnel (they can keep their jobs) for habitat management?  Management that might benefit native species (i.e. ruffed grouse) and thus provide more of those more challenging "targets" for those "me's"? HMMMMMMM

 

BTW, I saw three dead pheasants on the shoulder of west-bound Route 80 this afternoon on my way home from work.  Too many cars cutting down on "my" targets, non-native though they are ................

 

PS.  Only brook trout should be stocked in the eastern rivers .................

 

PPS.  Olive were planted on WMA's and that turned out to be a bad idea ..............

 

PPS.  I have no issues with eradicating all red fox, as they are non-native.  But, in front of my wife and daughter, I would deny that I ever said this ...........

 

Happy New Year. 

[boomsox24]

Little M I see some of your points. The pheasant stocking program is paid through pheasant tags. No pheasants equals no pheasant tags to buy. I think the state needs to invest in reintroducing wild pheasants. It will take time and money but in the long run it will help. Also quail projects are already in the works for example the Haines properties (cranberry bogs)in the pines is introducing I think a 100 or thousand quails from Georgia and managing the land. I personally think we have to many yotes. We never saw them in the lines till about 1997. Now they have exploded and aren't slowing down. Stocked pheasants were in the pines well before those predators moved back in.

[Rusty]

OK its New Years Eve and I am home alone and bored.  Kids at friends and wife had to work.  

 

More importantly, is alcohol a factor in your current state of mind?

 

 

So I started perusing that other site

 

Well there's your first mistake, alcohol or no alcohol.  

 

 

I read that there are too many hawks (eating all the pheasants, rabbits, and squirrels) and it's a shame that they can't be controlled (shooting them).  Really?  REALLY?

 

We are overrun with rabbits and squirrels at my place.  Where there's habitat there will be critters.  But sadly, most of our forests have been allowed to mature to a state where there is very little habitat down at ground level.

 

There has been a significant increase in the numbers of vultures, especially the blacks, but I have not noticed an increase in hawk numbers.  Although, we have had a nesting pair of red-shouldered hawks the last couple of years and that has made me very happy.  And of course the eagles are bouncing back, but if you have a problem with that you need a good beating.    

 

 

Should the Division of Fish and Wildlife be in the business of releasing into the environment (stocking) non-native species, specifically the ring-necked pheasant?  

 

As far as the pheasants being non-native, as long as they are not invasive (non-native and causing harm) I have no problem with stocking them.  And seriously, after the Columbian Exchange (1492 . . .  blah blah blah) even our stinking worms are not native so there is no going back.  As American as apple pie???  Really???  Tell Ireland to give back their potatos and tell Italy to give back their tomatoes.  

 

Pheasants occupy a niche that is unoccupied and they provide a recreational opportunity that would otherwise not exist.  Personally I have never gone pheasant hunting or shot a single pheasant but I am all for providing these opportunities for others.    

 

As far as the cost, does the money collected from the pheasant stamps cover the cost of raising and releasing pheasants?

Edited January 1, 2015 by Rusty

[Rusty]

would it be better to cut that program and all the expense that goes with it and instead, use the resources and personnel for habitat management?  Management that might benefit native species (i.e. ruffed grouse)?

 

The Division has finally been able to start managing forest habitats on our WMAs.  Go take a walk on Weldon Brook.      

 

The problem has been Trenton, F&W biologists fully understand what needs to be done.

 

The cost is not an issue because the Audubon Society provides biologists/foresters for the planning work and the loggers get to keep the wood they cut. 

Edited January 1, 2015 by Rusty

[Rusty]

Only brook trout should be stocked in the eastern rivers .................

 

I'm not sure how BucksnBOWS would feel about this??   

 

 

I have no issues with eradicating all red fox, as they are non-native.  But, in front of my wife and daughter, I would deny that I ever said this ...........

 

 

[Rusty]

P.S. I was gonna respond with a quick sarcastic remark but then you had to go and say this . . .     

 

 so I came back here to start a civilized and educated discussion.

[LittleM]

Alcohol was involved, but really only minimally .............

 

I seriously doubt (I have no data and don't really care to look for it) that the pheasant stamps pay for the entire stocking program ............

 

I know they are in the management game but I think it should be a priority while some of the other programs start to take a backseat.

 

I realize that we can't go back to when there were no invasives, BUT .....................

 

I seems to me that the Division perpetuates a vicious cycle where they, for example, stock pheasants to sell more stamps so they can stock more pheasants to sell more stamps.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Division (well, maybe one thing - see below) as you all know I pretty much volunteer a good part of my time to them, albeit the ENSP.

 

I understand that the Division is pushing ENSP to de-list the bobcat and open it up to trapping.  You know, another revenue source (see my pheasant argument, above).

[BowhunterNJ]

Interesting points and discussion, but I can only speculate what trying to establish a natural pheasant population would entail.

They would need money for it, which in the current stocking comes from the stamps, but if you didn't allow hunters to hunt them...that wouldn't bode well.

Also if you "overstocked", hunters would still probably kill the majority (at least too many to allow a natural repopulation).

I hunt Colliers Mills for deer from time to time and it gets pounded by pheasant hunters from all over (multiple states).

I think the state would never "let go" of that income.

 

I can't see raptors being problematic here...really at any point.  There is a ton of small game for them to forage on from mice, to rabbits, to squirrels.  While I don't see a ton of rabbits in the areas I hunt, I do see an absolute TON of squirrels.  I mean an absurd amount.  Perhaps they are just smarter than other prey, but the yotes, foxes, and raptors aren't really putting a dent in them.  You also don't see many squirrel hunters anymore...at least I don't.  I may have to take that up next fall...just to try them, never have eaten one.

 

That brings up a good question...are rabbits just inherently easier prey for predators?  Or is it more of just a strictly habitat thing in respect to not seeing many in central/southern NJ?

In places I've been in Ohio, it's loaded with rabbits...and they are hunted fairly heavily by hunters, as well as predators.

 

Regarding foxes and coyotes,  I don't think hunters will ever be able to eradicate them without some serious effort/pressure.  Most hunters don't hunt them and trappers aren't looking to eliminate them, just sustain them.  That and predators (especially coyotes) are just too damn smart to "all" be killed.

 

Bears on the other hand, have become increasingly problematic over the years (decades) in northern NJ...so it's good to see the hunts re-established for them.  Just goes to show how hunting provides an excellent tool for managing wildlife and environments...has always been that way, and always will be that way!

[CJ3a]

Deer follow the food. Bad acorn crop or farm fields barren equal fewer deer. Zone 3 hunting is an example of a few bad years of acorns make for slow deer hunting. Find a new spot or just bitch and moan about bad management practices. Food+shelter=deer.

[LittleM]

 

 

Find a new spot or just bitch and moan about bad management practices.

My original post had very little to do with deer and deer hunting, especially as it pertains to me.  It was more of a hunter / person attitude post................

[CJ3a]

Little M that was not directed at you. I just think that when hunters cannot find there target animal the predators get the blame first. The hawk rant on the other site was disturbing.

Edited January 2, 2015 by CJ3a

[LittleM]

Gotcha.  Yes, I thought it was disturbing, as well.  I see we are on the same page.  Thanks.

[Rusty]

Alcohol was involved, but really only minimally .............

 

Sherioushly occifer, i'm only a little drunk.