DuckDawg, I have finished my turkey scouting and I’m back. First, I would like to say that me and I hope all on here agree that habitat is the most important factor in successful small game management. It really stood out today as I drove around the area that I grew up. Clean farms, no fence lines, cleared creek banks, overgrown areas gone. Bush-hogs, bulldozers and weed-eaters have killed more small game than sportsman or predator ever will. This I truly believe. The debate on this subject was the killing of hawks or birds of prey. I still do not have a problem with the killing of birds of prey doing harm to a persons property. I have witnessed a hawk camping on a covey of young quail for a week. I have witnessed hawks camping out on a barn-lot of chickens too. I am not advocating the full eradication of the birds or an open season. I am saying that a person should be able to protect their property and should be premitted to keep them in check. I know this will never happen. For whomever tries introducing it will be committing political suicide. I have now answered your question in full. May I ask one of you or others? It seems that the biggest argument against any removal of birds of prey come from biologist. Their defense is, birds of prey kill nest robbers. That I can’t argue, but something was left out. They kill ANYTHING they can. Birds of prey will kill, rats, mice, quail, chickens, snakes, skunks and cats. Now the question, why do we have open season on Yotes and a season on Bobcats and foxes? Hawks and owls eat the exact same diet as foxes and Bobcats, with the exception of some seed, but hawks are not to be touched, while Yotes are to be eradicated year ‘round? This does not seem to be a balanced equation. From a scientific standpoint, I see no difference. It all seems to be a social standpoint. Hope you had a good field trial. Anyone that hunts with a dog must be a decent person.