Just a point of reference. Few are around who participated, but hens were INCULDED in the bag limits in certain states, I believe Oregon did in the early 1900's, also I have seen pictures of hunters in South Dakota, with clothesline stringers of roosters, hens, et.al. In the time between 1950-1975 Pennsylvania had a hen included in the bag, This was before released birds, when Pa. had a harvest of over a million birds, plus. Now of course we have hens included in the release birds in several states, there is little to suggest they will survive and reproduce. In the old days, bountiful habitat, excess hens were harvested to allow hunting opportunities. Success or lack thereof, in my opinion has less to do harvesting hens, then the loss of habitat. I have never been allowed a hen while hunting, and I am happy to give them a break, use them for dog training exercises. But I doubt that the possums, red-tailed hawk, skunks, snakes, starvation, ice storms, give hens a break. Which makes me doubt the voracity of the practice. After all, with bob white quail, we harvest both sexes, even though we know, that the male bobwhite fairly commonly with brood and provide parenting to chicks, sometimes after the hen hit the bricks, with a new beau! Basically, I claim it's discrimination against the brightly colored rooster, because he is readily identified. If we control the total harvest like we do quail. I doubt that we would see effects on the harvest, we are not seeing now, due to habitat pressure, might make the surviving hens wilder, providing wild characteristics to be passed on, rather than dim-witted hen who recreates dim-witted chicks, or gets mowed under the alfalfa. I believe this wildlife policy is based on TRADITION. like a circle pie plate, no square, because your mom used one! Here the poorly informed 1900's game departments did it, must be for a good reason? I believe with vast habitat, hens saved will produce more babies, just like the clucks in your game pen!
