mike rossi

Another thing Culver, Look at how everyone supported the NJ Bowhunters on the same issue just a few years ago: http://njoutdooralliance.org/legislative/alert_files/e0718766957d3410440688bef9631acb-7.html

Not at all because of that. They have been using this red herring for some time, they fooled me, I admit it, but a little more investigation and now another inconsistency. As I said, even without this new knowledge, this argument is fallacious, all the other reasons I gave stand true, but it apparently wasn't necessary to even get into all that.. Bunch of morons wasting everyone's time...

OOPs, well maybe oops, POST SCRIPT / CORRECTION: Please Re-tweet #SundayHunting and #SundayHuntinginNJForAll Is the premise that Sunday hunting will reduce waterfowl seasons even true? Not according the following, (we will make an inquiry to the USFWS to determine which is correct and report back). If determined that this premise was incorrect, do we assume it was an intentional lie or incompetence on the part of those asserting it? This is why the hunting community needs to be cautious about what source if info it follows and believes! This sort of misinformation also leads to debating mute points, thereby distracting the true issues at hand and hindering positive movement – (are they dishonest and crafty enough to do this intentionally or just talking out of their element)? In the 1960's, the Wildlife Resources Commission proposed eliminating the Sunday ban in order to gain additional days of waterfowl hunting under the pertinent federal regulations which govern that sport. These regulations count Sunday as a hunting day, and North Carolina loses waterfowl hunting days each year as a result. In other words, according to that paragraph, a Sunday hunting ban causes waterfowl hunters to lose a day, not gain a day. This is the direct opposite of the assertion made by some NJ waterfowl hunters who state Sunday hunting will result in shorter seasons….

Mustang51js and others engaged in the NJ controversy need to put the following in their fodder: Sunday Hunting for Waterfowl in NJ One of the premises of those opposed to Sunday hunting is that Sunday hunting would compromise waterfowl hunting by shortening the season. This rationale is based on the guidelines known as “federal framework” handed down to the states by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Primary management/conservation authority over migratory species is the USFWS. Secondary authority or jurisdiction if you prefer, is each state wildlife agency. Basically this means the USFWS sets parameters the states must work within in setting hunting regulations for migratory birds. A state may set regulations more restrictive than federal guidelines, but not less restrictive. The USFWS allows states to set duck hunting seasons no longer than 60 days. The season does not have to be continuous; it can be “split”. Waterfowl seasons do not have to be split, however they always are, because doing so maximizes hunting opportunity because it encapsulates non-migratory resident birds; the species-specific differences in migration timing; and weather events that drive or stall migration. Crows are also migratory birds which hunting regulations are guided by federal framework. In an effort to extend crow hunting season over the greatest span while keeping within the maximum number of hunting days allowed under the framework; state wildlife agencies have adopted a strategy which restricts what days crows can be hunted. For example in NY, crows may only be hunted on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays. In Pennsylvania crows may only be hunted on Fridays, Saturdays, and although a state prohibiting Sunday hunting, crows are one of the exceptions and may be hunted on Sundays. New Jersey and the other states also adopt the same strategy in setting crow seasons. Another way NJ and other states maximize hunting opportunity is by dividing the state into zones with seasons set in each zone based on migration and weather patterns. NJ has a “sea duck area” and three waterfowl zones; Northern, Southern, and Coastal. Not only can hunters drive to other parts of the state and hunt in different zones; sometimes they have to, because the northern zone may be frozen or birds may not have arrived in the southern zone yet. State biologists and the hunters on the waterfowl task force are aware of the timing of weather conditions and migration patterns of birds by species – and seasons are set accordingly. Hunters who are not on the task force have direct input to these seasons every August if they choose to participate in stakeholder input. New Jersey, if it adopts Sunday Hunting, has several options to prevent “shortening” of waterfowl seasons. The NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife and the waterfowl task force are familiar with these strategies and have used them before. (They are in fact currently in use). The simplest action would be to open Sunday and close a weekday. A likewise simple action would be for parts of NJ adopt New York’s Long Island Zone season structure, which allows hunting all seven days of the week. No doubt many of the birds that stage on Long Island feed the Raritan Bay and other parts of NJ. That being the case, how in the world would Sunday hunting in NJ be disadvantageous? NY set its Long Island Zone season for 2014-2015 as follows: (Keep in mind hunting allowed all seven days including Sunday). Ducks: November 27 to January 25; Sea Ducks: October 17 to January 31; Brant: November 27 to November 30 and December 21 to January 25: Snow Geese: November 24 to March 10; Canada geese: Western Long Island: October 11 to October 19 and November 27 to march 4; Central Long Island: September 2 to September 30 and November 27 to February 4; Eastern Long Island: September 2 to September 30 and November 27 to February 4. Long Island also has a Youth Waterfowl Season that was set for two days: Saturday November 22 and Sunday November 23. Recapitulation: Strategies for Setting Waterfowl Hunting Seasons already in practice for many years throughout the USA: 1) Split seasons 2) Divide into Zones 3) Restrict certain days. Crow hunting seasons use this strategy, but do NOT prohibit hunting on the days hunters are most likely to be afield. For example, most states allow crow hunting on Fridays and Mondays, because of three day holiday weekends or tendency for people to use vacation time on those days. Saturdays and Sundays as far as we know, always open days for crows. Pennsylvania, which prohibits Sunday hunting, does allow crow hunting on Sunday. From the perspective of increasing hunting opportunity, (if) closure of one day is deemed appropriate, do NOT close Sunday and certainly not Saturday, but rather a weekday.

Residents carry the most weight, but everyone should sign this petition. There is no consensus among biologists that Sunday hunting will stress game populations and I am not aware of any individual biologists disagreeing with that consensus. Why can you fish on Sundays but not hunt? The bow hunters are indeed opposed to this, as they enjoy Sunday hunting without gun hunters and want to keep it that way. Misinformed waterfowl hunters are also opposing Sunday hunting because waterfowl seasons set by the state must be no longer than 60 days per the USFWS. They are concerned that seven or eight Sundays will count toward the 60 days and that could prevent encapsulating migration. However, if this is a concern, the waterfowl task force can create split seasons and/or allow Sunday hunting but close a weekday. This is why most states restrict crow hunting to certain days, it is nothing unusual. The waterfowl task force revises seasons EVERY August and comments from the public about waterfowl seasons are taken at this time. Most of those running their mouths about this don't even participate in this annual stakeholder input This needs to be stressed to the waterfowl hunting community, because they are purposely being mislead so that they oppose Sunday hunting.

And we live in a state that does allow Sunday hunting. To us it is a no-brainer that banning Sunday hunting in NY would in fact impact license sales, participation, and both breeds of revenue. It would also impact us as individuals. From our perspective, it is difficult to understand the perspective of HUNTERS in other states who oppose legalizing Sunday hunting. I am sure hunters in the 41 states that hunt doves are likewise baffled by the opine of some hunters against dove hunting. I do not want to bash bow hunters, but it cannot be denied, that the hunters in Jersey who are opposed to lifting the Sunday ban are mostly bow hunters. (Jersey does allow Sunday bowhunting) There has also been some opposition by waterfowlers as well in that state. Wait until Jersey gets a mourning dove bill, how many times do the archers think they can oppose pro hunting bills and get away with denial they want a monopoly?

The Economics of Sunday Hunting by State Reports have been compiled about the subject of Sunday Hunting by Dunham and Associates; Southland Associates; and Responsive Management. (See links at bottom) NYDH is looking into them compiling a report on the lost opportunity to boost general economic activity AND conservation funding in the 8 lower states that do not allow dove hunting. NYDH also wants to quantify the additional Pitman Robertson Funds which the eleven states that do not allow Sunday Hunting and eight states that do not allow mourning dove hunting would generate if these bans were lifted. It seems to be overlooked among the hunting community and politicians that federal Pitman Robertson Funds, although are distributed back to states at a formula-based rate; the Fund itself is a pool of money each state contributes to. The smaller this pool (fund); the less money available to each state. In theory, the formula divides this money both fairly and to where it is put to use. However, the formula only considers land available for hunting and number of active hunters based on the previous five year average license sales. Besides the potential deficiencies with the formula used to distribute PR funds among the states; the lack of FULL participation among states should be considered. Rhode Island for example, cannot be expected to compare in neither open hunting land acreage nor license sales to states like New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Texas. However, Rhode Island, to it’s credit, does allow both Sunday Hunting and mourning dove hunting. Only one other northeast state (NY) allows Sunday Hunting and only one other northeast state (Pennsylvania) allows mourning dove hunting. To get back on track to the germane point, being that Rhode Island does everything in its power to maximize both hunting opportunity and conservation funding, yet receives among the least Pitman Robertson Funds. Based on the favorable performance of Rhode Island’s wildlife agency, legislature, and hunting community; perhaps with a larger allocation of federal wildlife restoration funds they can do even better. Rhode Island actually might be a leader among the states in driving favorable hunting-related policy with the least to work with. Kudos to Rhode Island! Should the formula used to distribute PR funds penalize small, populated states that allow FULL participation or should it be restructured to penalize other states which by prohibiting Sunday Hunting and/or mourning dove hunting thereby actually subsidizing anti-hunting at worst and failing to maximize PR contributions at best? Further Reading: Note: when distributing links to your networks never copy directly from an email, forum, website, or social media page. This will cause the link not to open and reader will receive a message that the link does not exist. Always open the link, refresh the page, and then copy the link from your browser. http://sundayhunting.org/SundayHunting/states/NewJersey.cfm http://sundayhunting.org/states/ http://sundayhunting.org/PDF/SundayHunting_EconomicImpact.pdf New Organization, Check out their petition, face book page, and Twitter page: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/613/895/250/new-jersey-sunday-hunting-bill-s699/ https://www.facebook.com/NewJerseySundayHunting https://twitter.com/NJSundayHunting

We are contending , however, that Sunday hunting will result in more license sales as well as additional PR funds. It will also increase both recruitment and retention of hunters. Here are some reports on the economics of Sunday hunting (we are looking into having an economist do one for dove hunting, by the way) http://sundayhunting.org/PDF/SundayHunting_EconomicImpact.pdf http://sundayhunting.org/states/ http://sundayhunting.org/SundayHunting/states/NewJersey.cfm

PR Funds do NOT come from license revenue. They come from an excise tax on hunting-related products. License revenue is used to leverage PR funds, which are actually matching grants that have to be applied for. States most often use license revenue for their end of the match...

Help our friends out in NJ legalize Sunday firearm hunting. Only 11 states do not allow full Sunday hunting and this is impacting all of us as Pittman Robertson Funds are pooled from all the states and then distributed back. The lost funding opportunity to the PR program caused by 11 states that do not allow Sunday hunting and 8 states that do not allow mourning dove hunting is yet to be quantified. (But it will be)... The collective loss over the decades is certainly very large (9 digit or more). Every passing year more economic and conservation fund opportunity is lost. Don't continue to subsidize anti hunting, sign the petition! http://www.thepetitionsite.com/613/895/250/new-jersey-sunday-hunting-bill-s699/

If you are asking me my opinion, I don't know. As I said, this paper is going to be one of those things that sticks around for a long time. The authors did a real good job of building a complex maze and I wouldn't be overly surprised if this paper will necessitate one agency or another to waste resources debunking it. I think the best course of action is not setting ourselves up for this in the first place. I and others have cautioned against alienating nature enthusiasts, the contribution of non hunters to conservation, being informed and being thorough. Some in the hunting community enjoy fighting with the antis and some pro hunting organizations make a good buck from these battles. I for one,who does not profit from it, am tired of fixing what others break. One suggestion I will make, is be prudent about which hunting organizations you support. Some are over the top and instigate this sort of thing.

The paper and the accompanying article also mislead readers with the part about predator control. Modern game management uses much less predator control to enhance game populations than in the past, and in reality it is more common for wildlife agencies and hunters to disagree about predator management strategies. Granted, out west, there is more political pressure for agencies to manage predators due to the lobby of livestock ranchers and elk hunting guides, but even in the western states, the predator strategies are different than the ones of 80 years ago. The authors want to reinforce the belief that hunters dollars and monopoly presence on advisory commissions influence outdated predator strategies. That belief is fostered to get conservationists to side with the antis. The topic of the paper is about who pays for conservation funding, but the part about predator control doesn't fit into the topic. Why is it included? Obviously because this "study" is a propaganda piece... Irrelevance is one tip off to propaganda...

This paper is also flawed by the following incorrect premises: 1) Composition of advisory boards prevents access to policy participation by non hunters 2) Non hunters do not otherwise (outside advisory boards) have access to policy participation Referring to the argument made by the paper is that the composition of (advisory) committees are favorable to hunters. This is indeed true. The appointees of these committees are always hunters and/or farmers or ranchers. Anti hunters have argued for years that these boards should have anti-hunters on them. A couple things come to mind about that. First, as a conservationist, small game and waterfowl hunter I myself do not feel well represented by these boards either. Second, in every state, including NY; state wildlife agencies (DEC) are limited in what regulations they can enact without legislative approval. For example, the Commissioner of the DEC (currently Joe Martens) can close any hunting season, but cannot authorize a new hunting season without legislative approval. So, the anti hunter or non consumptive user, along with the so-called unorganized hunter (doesn't belong to a club or has his own views) have access to the policy making process during the public review period, which is almost always part of new regulations or changes to existing regulations. During this 6 to 8 week public input session individuals and organizations may express their viewpoints. Conservationists, anti hunters, and hunters alike often complain that the public input sessions are just games and seem to believe that just because they commented that their recommendations should have been followed. Obviously, it doesn't work like that. Even when someone's idea is not accepted by the DEC during public input; organizations and individuals still have an opportunity to influence policy through the legislature. We often make inferences that politics do not belong in conservation policy, but the reality is that in every state and at the federal level as well, the system is indeed structured so that lawmakers have the ultimate say so. This is actually a form of checks and balances against the charges made by this paper (and elsewhere) of collusion between sportsman and wildlife agencies. The system does not necessarily fail when the outcome favors hunters; but the system does fail when lawmakers make unscientific decisions and hand back to the DEC ideology-based frameworks from which to work. To bring this back around to the primary point: the charges that the composition of advisory committees limit the influence of non hunters fails to consider the legislative part of policy making. That charge is particularly wrong in NY for a variety of reasons. First, the districting of the assembly favors down state. Second, both the Senate and the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committees ( which are not to be confused with the citizen advisory committees discussed up to this point) not only have down state representation; they also are seated by a number of anti-hunters. For example Senator Avella is an anti hunter who is a member of the SECC. Assemblyman Cyronowitz is an anti hunter who is a member of the AECC. It is not accurate to say that anti hunters do not have a voice in conservation policy in any state, but especially in NY.

Doc, The paper concludes that hunters are NOT paying for it. Also, your statement is reinforcing the secondary message of the paper, that non hunters are not given equal access into the policy making process. The premise that non hunters do not have equal participation in policy decisions is not true. Those who wish to participate can do so. However, participation does not mean drive unsound policies or demand the agency adopts an anti-hunting stance. The recent mute swan controversy right here in NY is a prime, recent example of everybody's ability not only to participate, but to persuade a state wildlife agency - anti hunters did indeed influence policy. Even though the law NY legislature passed which would have FORCED the DEC to do what they want was VETOED; the DEC is still planning to compromise with the antis even though not mandated by law. it is a farce that anti hunters or non consumptive users do not already have a voice in wildlife policy, they do. Anti hunters however, classify an agency not adopting their ideology as not having a voice. They have a voice and when you.others imply they do not or should not , it fuels the myth and facilitates their agenda. If you throw in "because hunters pay and they do not" as you did, you load more fuel. Based on the paper (valid or not yet to be seen) not only is it fuel, but you position yourself into a losing argument... You and others want to beat to death the Preservation Vs. Conservation mantra; which is an oversimplification that really bears no relevance to this issue. You guys pounded on both sides of killing a deer with a crossbow is the same as a compound for what 3 years? And meanwhile the entire issue was considering other things. That seems to be the path this discourse is trying to go.

They want participation and representation in conservation, but some label their approach to conservation as "preservation". Even some wildlife professionals make a distinction between preservation and conservation, but that concept has little relevance to who funds conservation.

Joe, First off, NYDH is looking to fill positions, however, all positions for calling people liberals, tree huggers, and complaining about the democrats are filled. As a matter of fact we are trying to phase out those jobs and lay off many people. Problem is the unions are fighting us, the CSCF, USSA, TRCP, NSSF, SCI, NRA and other trade unions who actually (per their websites) receive donations from Shell oil ("titanium supporter); Exxon mobile ( platinum supporter); PB oil and gas ( gold supporter); American gas association (bronze); duke energy corp - bronze; independent petroleum association of america- bronze; Hess corporation- bronze... The references to the organizations that you listed (hsus, defenders) do indeed indicate a red flag, so does the fact this paper is not published in any peer reviewed journals, although the authors in the acknowledge section offer thanks to some hsus lady for her review; they also thank a former state biologist.... This paper, although flawed, is never the less serious business. The hunting community as well as state wildlife agencies will be confronted with this paper soon, often, and for a long time, perhaps forever... The seriousness is so grave, that addressing it with the typical sportsmen's rant is only going to worsen the situation. As I said, the average tax payer pays for conservation, Assuming the figures of this paper are correct, the average hunter pays the same as all tax payers, plus six percent more. The average bird watcher or nature enthusiast, will pay the same as all tax payers and then, according to this paper more than six percent extra of hunters. While the attitude you and other hunters express rejects the bird watcher, (this papers underlying message) claims the birder and all tax payers who don't even realize they are paying for this; are all on one side against the hunters. And/or hunters are getting the most benefit thus robbing other groups money. When hunters alienate nature enthusiasts they are actually reinforcing the propaganda aspect of this paper. Another point of the paper, that you seem to be missing, is that some anti hunters do want part of conservation. They just want different approaches. The paper is advocating for their participation. Please rethink the last two sentences in your post number 11 with that in mind. You are restating the stock argument used by hunters and wildlife agencies that hunters pay for conservation and those opposed to hunting do not. However the paper is purposely debunking your statement... If you tell me the sky is blue, and I say no it is red, and then you give reasons why it is blue, my response should not be restating no, it is red. My response should address your rationale for saying it is blue. Otherwise , I sound like an idiot... If i call you names and/or stereotype you, I sound like a bigger idiot. Most impartial observers would then side with you without any motivation to hear any more from me...

The governor (who probably hunts himself being from PA) the liberals, here we go again, even when it is in a state most of us don't hunt.. Here is the rule change proposal along with the commentary for the PGA's rational. There are much more important issues on this plan, such as the PGA acquiring additional state game land - yet these right bent pro hunting orgs narrow in on THIS issue, and so many of you follow like sheep... I want to reiterate, although I am not one who sees much value in either youth seasons, mentored youth, mentered adult hunts when set by state law, I am not passionately against them. Secondly, my comment earlier to culver, about skeptical success rates of very young kids has been somewhat verified by numerous internet chatter by fathers claiming thier 6,7, 8,9 year olds have all ready taken 2,3, 4 deer.... Below is the relevant section extracted from the draft. If someone wants the complete link - to read about much more important proposals, I will post it.... PROPOSED RULE MAKING G. Amend 58 Pa. Code § 147.804. Commentary: The Commission has received extensive public comment regarding concern over the appropriateness of young children’s abilities to utilize high-powered firearms to harvest big game, as well as allegations of adults utilizing the harvest tags of mentored youth unlawfully. Wildlife Conservation Officers have encountered evidence of the allegations in several enforcement operations this past hunting season. The removal of eligibility for mentored youth under the age of 9 to harvest big game is intended to minimize both concerns expressed in public comment. The Commission is proposing to amend § 147.804 by removing deer and turkey from the list of species mentored youth under the age of 9 are eligible to harvest. CHAPTER 147. SPECIAL PERMITS Subchapter X. MENTORED HUNTING PROGRAM PERMIT § 147.804. General. * * * * * © Species limitation. (1) [A mentored youth’s hunting eligibility is restricted to the following species: squirrel, woodchuck, coyote, deer and wild turkey.] The hunting eligibility of a mentored youth under the age of 9 is restricted to the following species: squirrel, woodchuck and coyote. (2) The hunting eligibility of a mentored youth 9 years of age or older is restricted to the following species: squirrel, woodchuck, coyote, deer and wild turkey. (3) A mentored adult’s hunting eligibility is restricted to the following species: squirrel, ruffed grouse, rabbit, pheasant, bobwhite quail, hares, porcupine, woodchuck, crow, coyote, antlerless deer and wild turkey. * * * * *

Good article by a good organization! http://backcountryhunters.org/images/Public_Lands_Report.pdf

I still do not intend on delving into sorting out the assertions of this paper, but I want to clarify my earlier statements about the paper's references. On the last page of the references, the authors' list the USFWS's and US Census Bureau's financial reports. I am familiar with those and nothing in them supports the authors' conclusion hunters pay for less than 6% of conservation. The other two pages of references indicate sources such as the HSUS, the world's largest anti hunting organization. Obviously the HSUS's data is not credible and citing them makes the paper questionable... Furthermore, since the paper was formatted according to journal guidelines, and one of the authors was a medical doctor, I am sure they know to list ALL sources of their information, if not in the reference section, citing within the text (for ancillary info). It isn't good enough to list, for example, that the Nature Conservancy spends X dollars on land. Not only is the information source unclear, but the use of the land is not described in express terms, only implied to be conservation lands. Additionally, some hunters are Nature Conservancy members and donate to them. The biggest misleading premise of this paper is that taxpayers contribute X dollars. because hunter's pay taxes too.. It would be more accurate to say hunters pay 6% more than the average taxpayer on conservation, and other conservationists also pay more than the average taxpayer. Instead, the paper concludes that "hunters only pay 6% of the amount invested in conservation." That argument is akin to manipulating statistics to validate a premise. I think (think) I already know the charade they are playing, it is a game of context and they are taking it upon themselves to redefine conservation spending. Never the less this is a mess that likely will have to be dealt with. I wonder if the organizations representing hunters that have not been 100% accurate on these matters will pay THEIR attorneys to sort this out to the tune of a lot of money? Lets hear it SCI, CSF, NSSF, USSA, and to a lessor extent the NRA, are you all going to untangle this mess?

Both the Nature Conservancy and Audubon contributed to the legalization of the crossbow in NY, citing the Nature Conservancy study of the impact of deer on the forest understory. And some of the lands owned by these organizations are open to hunting. Sometimes lands they own are transferred to the DEC. However, the individual members who do not understand hunting are not encouraged to change their outlook by the attitude of that sign. Which, by the way, has been widely circulated around the internet for some time, as well as a similar one...

This sort of thing is STUPID: (and not all bird watchers are opposed to hunting) http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2012/03/08/Birdwatchers_sign_t470.jpg?84974f3f373deb0dda0f75a22ddd9b7d3a332b26

I have seen papers that appear to be legitimate, but after a closer look, are not. The majority of references on the last three pages tell me to look closer. Statistics can be summarized to say anything you want. Although the numbers in this paper are not statistics, it seems the story is told in a way that meets the agenda of the two authors, one an engineer the other a retired physician,,,, It will take a long time to tear this paper apart though, they did a heck of a fact scrambling job. Never the less, the funding isn't the real issue. If people were not opposed to certain activities, and hunters had a more varied line of premises, the funding would not be challenged. I had cautioned not only about hunter behavior and certain forms of hunting, but also about trivializing the contributions of non hunters. I was correct, this paper is going to be the main weapon of the antis... I know I don't have the time to debunk it, like I said these two did a bang-up job of twisting the facts.... Here is the actual paper: http://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SMITH-1.pdf

Culver, I was thinking the same thing. As a matter of fact, I said in that post "I don't know what the facts are".(I also said collective punishment is unfair) But I heard this from several hunters, on different days, in different locations.. You know as well as I do that often what you hear from a handful of hunters is often pervasive throughout the hunting community. However, for all I know, maybe some incredulous harvest data exists? How would you believe something like 500 gobblers bagged by seven year olds? I am just throwing that out, but like someone else said, we havent heard PGC's take on this. The article by the USSA just leaves that to our imagination.... More info needed, as they say...

I don't agree with all of this, but some of it is true. In any event, it signals that there are more and more discussions about change. These sort of articles and internet chatter are becoming more and more common. Agencies are starting to make formal change as well. There also is an active movement to get congress to approve a "wildlife conservation stamp" nicknamed the "non hunter stamp". Notice specific reference made to trophy hunting, predators and coyote contests... All of this has been on the radar for some time, this isn't brand new, but I would still consider it the tip of the iceberg.... http://www.wyofile.com/study-non-hunters-contribute-most-to-wildlife/

I have talked to a number of PA hunters out in the field. Several have told me the hunting community is skeptical about the success rate of seven year old girls (and boys). Apparently the success rate on turkey and deer for kids 7 or 8 years old is about the same as experienced adults. This was assumed to be the result of the mentors doing the shooting. Although the USSA indicates in this article it is "only a few law breakers" I dont know what the facts are. I do know that the USSA are quite the rabble rousers and I agree with maybe half of what they push. The other thing to look at is the nature of the law breaking. Even if it isn't widespread, teaching kids to poach is a direct contradiction to the purpose of the youth program. I think the purpose of the program has to be consider too, not just how many people are poaching. As unfair as it is, the use of "collective punishment" is not unheard of in the world of hunting. A few idiots often cause private and public lands to be closed to hunting. I am biased here. I wanted to stay out of this, but since I am aware of what the HUNTERS are saying in PA, I was compelled to comment. I have to admit I am not a fan of neither youth seasons, mentored hunt programs,of this kind, nor the USSA...