This is a trend we're seeing all over the country as far as numbers dipping the last couple years, so it's nothing exclusive to Wisconsin, but I found it very interesting being the debates that have been had here recently. (All of which have been deleted because some want to derail each one for their own personal agenda of glorifying themselves or belittling others, which if that's your intention here, don't even post)
Here's the article: https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2019/06/08/spring-turkey-hunters-register-38-556-birds-second-lowest-20-years/1373278001/
The article is leaning towards the idea of nature balancing or leveling itself out, and that the flock peaked to a point in which there was too many turkeys. (i.e. so many turkeys doing crop damage that farmers were given x amount of tags based on property size to reduce population)
My thoughts are it comes down to more than one factor, but the one that gets blamed the most is lack of proper habitat management. Usually this is a jab against the states DNR or Conservation Department, saying they're not doing their jobs. I think the improper habitat "managers" are actually the hunters. Seems so many nowadays have the "must fill" or "need" to tag mentality.
While some say they don't do this for any recognition, they certainly take them home to their families and friends and get their recognition or approval, insinuating that if they don't bring home success they've somehow "stolen" time from their families. This is the group that surprises me the most. It's been stated and should be obvious that none should "need" to fill their tags to feed their family, you choose to do as such. If you're pushing that hard for money, just buy the frozen turkey at your local grocer, and guarantee you have food for your family.
The last group surprises me the most, but this next group is what disturbs me the most. There is a new group of hunters that must kill at all costs in order to flaunt their "trophies" big or small, as long as it's "legal" (I don't think the idea or type of person is necessarily new, I just think the Internet has magnified the issue) I put quotes on "legal" as many members of this crowd will cruise back country roads looking for toms to shoot out of their window, and as the morning goes on they might settle for a jake or even a bearded hen. So while they might be taking legal Birds they do it with illegal methods. I also think there's many wannabe Instagram stars that probably go out and shoot toms with rifles so they can pose with a dead bird every other day. Within the group of roadhunters there's a very small group of guys that shoot everything, though wrong, I believe these guys are the people doing it to actually feed their family. When any game is a "success" it becomes a near guarantee, and the $0.50 they spent on the shell and $5 in gas certainly does become cheaper than the supermarket.
Getting back on topic, I believe the numbers declining across the country have more to do with us hunters as "habitat managers" than anything. When you have people arguing that it's okay to shoot bearded hens simply because it's legal, and then justifying it with a more than healthy population, they aren't looking at the effect it's still taking. This is why I particularly chose Wisconsin as it's been in the center of this debate. It's no secret they have a healthier flock than some states even with the recent decline, it just can't go without saying that killing this "one" hen did nothing to effect the population. If even as little as 250 hunters in Wisconsin thought the same thing this spring, they alone took out likely 1000+ turkeys for the following year assuming each hen could have had three poults survive on average.
I know there's other factors at play like predator populations, weather during and post breeding, and harshness of winter, but in my opinion a BIG portion of the recent decline, all across the country, has more to do with us hunters than many of us care to realize or accept. What are some of your guys thoughts on this matter? This can be a CLEAN debate, or an appropriate display of opinion, but if you're intention is to belittle others or glorify yourself in ways that will make others want to belittle you, don't bother to muttle this thread PLEASE.
Seeing that i'm a old coder I can remember back when alot of states didn't have any turkeys or a viable population to hunt saying that! I believe as hunters we should all hunt legally and above all ethically and take care of this resource that we all enjoy
I believe some long time hunters here in southeast Missouri are discovering turkeys are not an unlimited resource. We had it good for a long time but our thin flocks have been in steady decline. For my specific area it's been a perfect storm. This is our fifth year of floods and heavy rain well into June. We have always had a healthy population of poachers, those who drive the roads and plenty who start their own season at the end of March. We have also had big portions of timber sold off the Mark Twain. No doubt timber harvest helps maintain a healthy woodland but I believe the timber sales have been managed with money in mind and not habitat. One last factor is the rise in hogs. In the past year or so it has become illegal to harvest hogs on NF. It also appears our conservation department is woefully ineffective at eradicating or at least keeping the hog population in check.
I may be way off but these are my personal observations over the last five years.
Good post HookedonHooks.
I think a lot of the Northern states that are now enjoying big populations are going to see them start to dwindle just like they have in the Southeast. 20 years ago no one would have thought about hunting Wisconsin or cared how many hens they kill. Our turkeys down south will probably never rebound to the plentiful populations we had. A lot of people heading north every spring to take advantage of the plenty. It's important to manage and take care of it while it's there. I can tell you when I was a kid Mississippi had so many turkeys hardly anyone hunted out of state and there seemed no end to the abundance. It can and will happen up north like here if people are not careful.
There are only two approaches that are going to have a lasting effect. Tighten regulations and nail poachers hides to the wall. You aren't going to beat the internet and the quest for recognition. So you either tighten legal methods of hunting and make it harder to kill them or cut back on bag limits. That and appropriate punishment for poaching.
All the above. Poaching is an issue but I think most are not good enough to have that large an impact on turkey populations as a whole. They want a bird, and make up a tale on their expert hunting. Locally in west Kentucky I think it's a combination of a couple of hard winters (ice and deep snow on the ground over two weeks, two years in a row) and disease. I hear chicken houses getting the blame for the spread of poultry disease and the state wildlife agencies do not have the political muscle to speak honestly on what they find. Kentucky is just now admitting a population drop the hunters have seen for years. Tennessee started a long term turkey population study the last year or two I've been told. Habitat management can always improve but I see unfilled and suitable habitat, so I tend to lean towards other explanations. I know local flocks have been wiped out with the advent of large numbers of feeders. Most hunt'em, and a turkey is vulnerable to feed.
I missed the part of the article where turkeys were responsible for crop damage and farmers were issued nuisance tags. Turkeys get a bad wrap. In California wine country they get blamed for damaging vineyards. They are bugging but since they feed during daylight only,and are seen,they get a bad wrap. Habit quality and predator control are real issues that we can control. The more food supply the more predators. No one traps or coon hunts like they did before Whitetail hunting rebounded and turkey restoration. Weather is not manageable. Cold wet Springs are hard on the hatch. I hunt a public area in a state thats not a great turkey state but the ground is well managed,for game and hunter numbers. A 1/3 of the estimated population is taken every Spring,on this spot. Fall is also managed but not a popular hunt. Add 10 birds for archery and gun. Turkey numbers rise and fall but seem to have leveled out. MO. is the best example of this. I hunted there in the early 90's. My area of my state didn't have a Spring season. It was awesome. The big floods of the mid 90's changed the landscape dramatically. It's still good hunting Spring and Fall but it's hunting and not killing. Managing land and predators is the best we can do.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Outlaw decoys and reaping and I think there will he a healthy rise in populations.
I see no reason to band todays legal methods of hunting if a state starts to see a bad decline on their bird population the only reasonable thing to do is stop nonresident hunting and cut back on their resident tags and the lengths of seasons more than likely the problems would be solved considering of course they have decent habitat and some predator control ect ect
I think predators and weather have more to do with a bad year or two around my area. Like was stated hardly anyone manages predators anymore. One predator that gets good at finding eggs or learns how to kill turkeys will wipe out way more than any poacher or a hunter that legally decides to shoot a bearded hen..
Quote from: 1iagobblergetter on June 10, 2019, 01:43:09 AM
I think predators and weather have more to do with a bad year or two around my area. Like was stated hardly anyone manages predators anymore. One predator that gets good at finding eggs or learns how to kill turkeys will wipe out way more than any poacher or a hunter that legally decides to shoot a bearded hen..
Completely agree.
If a states population is struggling first thing I would do is start season later to allow more breeding in peace my guess is many states open little to early
Quote from: Rzrbac on June 09, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
It also appears our conservation department is woefully ineffective at eradicating or at least keeping the hog population in check.
I may be way off but these are my personal observations over the last five years.
I agree on everything with you except the last point. Not many know it, but MDoC is using as much resources as they possibly can to eradicate hogs. They know that within the last five to seven years, there is no question a hog population establishing itself in the southern portion of the state, while at first they were just "wandering" herds of pigs from Arkansas. I think the DoC wasn't as open to the public of the hog problem, and that's why many believe they weren't doing enough. They currently trap hogs year round, and often radio collar big sows that will go back to their group after release. They then with the radio collars stage ground units around the hogs and then drop in on them with a Helicopter gunner. This has been highly effective for the state, but as other southern states have realized even at that it's hardly enough. They've elimated many groups of hogs on private and public lands as they begin to expand north, so they're effective in that matter, but as far as the problem in the south portion of the state it will be always existent unless a multi-state hog eradication plan would take place.
I don't understand the new law about making it illegal on NF to kill hogs at all, that was definitely a step in the wrong direction.
With the research I've seen the only way to control wild hog populations is baiting and trapping large numbers at one time. You just need the political will. And expose the animal rights nuts to be as misguided as they are.
Quote from: Bennett on June 09, 2019, 03:59:02 PM
Outlaw decoys and reaping and I think there will he a healthy rise in populations.
While it is highly disliked by the majority of the hunting community, reaping does not effect the population nearly as much as many would like to think. Also, decoys doubtfully make much of an impact either. Or at least there is no solid research other than what we see in videos to prove otherwise.
My biggest fear (and what I think most hunters should fear) is the govt stepping in to include more regulations/restraints on the general public. As noted here, many feel that outlawing this or that would actually help the situation, when the outcome is just more hoops that hunters must jump through...which ultimately results in hunter numbers dwindling even futher.
I have been ringing the same tune regarding dwindling turkey numbers for a few years now. Just take a look at any long term graph relating to turkey populations. There was a sharp incline in most areas in the late 80s-90s. Then in the mid 00s, a kind of plateau. Now we are seeing the dip. Things will likely settle down, but to make sure that happens, hunters as a group should settle down. Legal doesn't mean that you have to do it.
Another thing to mention is that many want to act like there is a giant crowd of "killers" out there. I can say that for every 10 turkey hunters I meet, it seems like there is only 1-2 guys that are just out to fill tags at all costs. Of course we have different tactics; some use deeks, some hunt private, some are die hard old schoolers, but for the most part, they take pride and show respect.
Remember guys. We are all in this together, division is what THEY want. And if you don't know who THEY are, just look at the latest decline in hunter numbers...THEY are the ones who love seeing that.
Quote from: HookedonHooks on June 10, 2019, 10:30:27 AM
Quote from: Rzrbac on June 09, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
It also appears our conservation department is woefully ineffective at eradicating or at least keeping the hog population in check.
I may be way off but these are my personal observations over the last five years.
I agree on everything with you except the last point. Not many know it, but MDoC is using as much resources as they possibly can to eradicate hogs. They know that within the last five to seven years, there is no question a hog population establishing itself in the southern portion of the state, while at first they were just "wandering" herds of pigs from Arkansas. I think the DoC wasn't as open to the public of the hog problem, and that's why many believe they weren't doing enough. They currently trap hogs year round, and often radio collar big sows that will go back to their group after release. They then with the radio collars stage ground units around the hogs and then drop in on them with a Helicopter gunner. This has been highly effective for the state, but as other southern states have realized even at that it's hardly enough. They've elimated many groups of hogs on private and public lands as they begin to expand north, so they're effective in that matter, but as far as the problem in the south portion of the state it will be always existent unless a multi-state hog eradication plan would take place.
I don't understand the new law about making it illegal on NF to kill hogs at all, that was definitely a step in the wrong direction.
. What I was told by conservation is that by shooting the hogs they would scatter down river which would make them harder to locate and trap them . This was on the Osage river a few years ago.
Quote from: HookedonHooks on June 10, 2019, 10:30:27 AM
I don't understand the new law about making it illegal on NF to kill hogs at all, that was definitely a step in the wrong direction.
I hadn't heard about any laws of National Forests around here that have outlawed killing feral hogs. However, wildlife officials basically have concluded that the best way to eliminate them is by using the aforementioned "judas pig" approach. Catch one, radio collar it, let it go so it returns to the main group, and then try to capture or kill as many of them as they can all at once.
The theory apparently is that shooting individuals out of a herd just scatters them out and makes it more likely that they will pair up and establish new herds in more places. Bottom line is, at least here in NM, they were not saying you couldn't hunt them on the National Forest, but that doing that was kind of counterproductive in eradicating them.
Of course, that only works if there is a serious program in place by wildlife departments and/or the Forest Service to actually try to eradicate them. Here in NM, when the hogs started to take hold, managers understood the implications and immediately got serious about getting rid of them. As far as I am aware, that approach has been pretty successful.
Quote from: 1iagobblergetter on June 10, 2019, 01:43:09 AM
I think predators and weather have more to do with a bad year or two around my area. Like was stated hardly anyone manages predators anymore. One predator that gets good at finding eggs or learns how to kill turkeys will wipe out way more than any poacher or a hunter that legally decides to shoot a bearded hen..
This is a very good point, and I do agree with this. There is clearly a lot of other factors than just one, and that's undeniable. The crash of the fur market in the last five years has had raccoon populations atrociously high. I trapped last year and didn't even skin a coon, it wasn't worth it to me for the price, and it was even up from the previous two seasons. I gave them to a guy that religiously does beaver and he said he sold them all green and averaged about $5 a piece.
For the guys who are very much against shooting hens (including myself) for reasons of protecting future turkeys, you better be making an effort to help eradicate predator populations and most particularly, the raccoon. I believe every SERIOUS turkey hunter should be trapping their local raccoons whether it's at the public land you hunt, or your own private. There's no question they're responsible for mortality rates higher than any other animal due to their keen ability to seek out nests and have egg breakfast. If you're serious about the turkeys and it truly is your passion, than it should be second nature to do other things to help sustain that resource. "Dogproof" traps are incredibly easy to use and very effective at catching raccoons. Even if you have no intentions of skinning or putting up fur, seek out a local trapper that would, or a coon dog trainer that would use them, most will be very accomadtiong if you're giving them to them for free. You're time invested will greatly improve your local turkey population, that I am sure of. I've witnessed it first hand.
Lastly, my point is mainly that there is a large group of us hunters that aren't looking out for the best of the resource we so much love. And it's us hunters that haven't fully accepted or realized we are still a portion of the problem. It's not just Jim Bob blasting turkeys out his window anymore, there is a HUGE group of people poaching nowadays, and that hurts. Add killing bearded hens in the spring, or any hen in the fall, and we are doing more damage than most are willing to accept. It's not solely on the guys taking "legal" birds, just as much as it isn't solely on the guys poaching, or the guys not doing their diligence in reducing predator populations, or guys killing over their limits. It's certainly a combination of these things, but of those, only two of them that can be reduced in a cut and dry manner. You're not gonna stop everyone from poaching, or over killing their limits. We can try and reduce them with harsher regulation, but we all know that will still only go so far. What can be done is reducing the number of hens getting killed by regulation adjustments, and we need to be more serious about predator control. For hens, maybe have an allotted number of fall hen tags or "any turkey" tags as states do with deer, then sell the rest as male turkey only permits. If a guy accidentally shoots a hen on a male turkey tag, turn yourself in, they're not gonna crucify you, they'll probably just make you fill your tag, and possibly give you a small fine, but often unlikely. For predator control, maybe give incentive to turkey hunters if they can do a certain amount of predator control during trapping season, if you buy a trapping liscense maybe get a reduced price for the turkey tag?
Quote from: Spurs on June 10, 2019, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: Bennett on June 09, 2019, 03:59:02 PM
Outlaw decoys and reaping and I think there will he a healthy rise in populations.
While it is highly disliked by the majority of the hunting community, reaping does not effect the population nearly as much as many would like to think. Also, decoys doubtfully make much of an impact either. Or at least there is no solid research other than what we see in videos to prove otherwise.
My biggest fear (and what I think most hunters should fear) is the govt stepping in to include more regulations/restraints on the general public. As noted here, many feel that outlawing this or that would actually help the situation, when the outcome is just more hoops that hunters must jump through...which ultimately results in hunter numbers dwindling even futher.
I have been ringing the same tune regarding dwindling turkey numbers for a few years now. Just take a look at any long term graph relating to turkey populations. There was a sharp incline in most areas in the late 80s-90s. Then in the mid 00s, a kind of plateau. Now we are seeing the dip. Things will likely settle down, but to make sure that happens, hunters as a group should settle down. Legal doesn't mean that you have to do it.
Another thing to mention is that many want to act like there is a giant crowd of "killers" out there. I can say that for every 10 turkey hunters I meet, it seems like there is only 1-2 guys that are just out to fill tags at all costs. Of course we have different tactics; some use deeks, some hunt private, some are die hard old schoolers, but for the most part, they take pride and show respect.
Remember guys. We are all in this together, division is what THEY want. And if you don't know who THEY are, just look at the latest decline in hunter numbers...THEY are the ones who love seeing that.
The only way spring GOBBLER hunting affects turkey populations is if you 1) disrupt breeding by hunting them too early, and/or 2) you decrease the number of breeding-age gobblers to a point where the number of gobblers left is so low that all of the hens are not getting bred. It is the extremely rare turkey population where #2 occurs,...and #1 is still up in the air for debate.
There is no doubt that turkey hunters have become more effective at killing gobblers in the spring. That has certainly been aided by the "discovery", if you will, of the effectiveness of decoys, in general, and gobbler decoys and fanning, in particular. Can the use of these tactics decrease gobbler numbers to a degree that significant numbers of hens do not get bred? Again, that is likely pretty rare,...but might occur under certain conditions.
Some of the perception that there are less turkeys overall is due to the fact that, in many places, there are fewer mature gobblers "out there" to be heard during the spring season. Again, that is because we are getting better at killing them,...which results in less carry-over of mature gobblers from year to year. Couple that with a few bad years of successful hatches,...and suddenly you have a lot fewer gobblers to hunt. That does not necessarily translate into fewer turkeys overall, but in terms of quality of our turkey hunting,...and overall satisfaction of hunters,...it can have significant impacts.
At the end of the day, it is nesting success that dictates your turkey numbers. In most cases, that is not a function of the number of gobblers you have.
Not to change the main topic.... but about the hog eradication. La lets private land owners shoot them at night over bait, we can shoot them year round without limit. I know a lot of dog hunters that run them all year not even making a dent. As far as the trapping I've seen a lot of it mostly catch the young ones. I've seen them on cameras at the trap sights the big ones won't go in and the small ones do and get trapped, making the older ones even more Leary of the traps. You can kill as many as you can on one section and they'll just move off and come back a few months later. La is supposed to be working on a way to sterilize the females but not sure how you'd catch enough to make a difference. La did a study that found you'd have to kill 80% of a hog population to keep it from growing. If you had a hundred hogs you'd have to kill 80 a year to remain at 100, nearly impossible. If only turkeys could populate as quickly. Poison would be a large scale souloution but then you'd have the non target animals and birds being killed. They have no predators really except maybe Black Bears in some areas or the occasional piglet caught by a coyote.
In Idaho there were very few turkeys (maybe 300-400) in 1982. Then F&G started transplanting as many as they could get from other states, so it was kinda like a newly introduced game bird. When that happens the new species "exploits" all available habitat and then crashes down to, usually, less than half the "boom" population in the habitat that is most suitable for them. That happened in Idaho and it took about 20 years for the boom and bust. I think, in all states, shooting from the road is illegal, so that's a poaching problem. Hunters have become more effective with the new decoys and equipment. The thing that bothers me the most is long range loads and shooting. There's no doubt in my mind that trying to shoot birds at 50 yds. plus has resulted in more wounded birds that die later. Overall, any species is regulated by the amount of habitat more than anything. Long term, it's habitat. Short term, it's weather. Here's the Idaho story. That's me in the photo. http://www.idahonwtf.org/foundingofIdahoNWTF.pdf
In most upland bird populations, it is my impression that hunting pressure is the least significant factor in bird production and populations.
Habitat is by far and large the most significant limiting factor in upland bird populations.
In California, our agricultural areas used to hold very large populations of pheasants in some areas, and there were also areas that had great populations of valley quail.
As farming practices and technology have improved, we see far less fallow areas in fields, and as water issues have become more of an issue, clearing ditches for improved water movement has been a tremendous loss of habitat and pheasant and quail populations in agricultural areas have dwindled to essentially nothing... This had nothing to do with hunting pressure, and everything to do with habitat changes and loss.
Here in California, two (or three) seasons ago, following several years of drought, was the absolute lowest population of turkeys or valley quail I have ever seen in the foothills. Turkey were scarce and quail were virtually non-existent in areas that had previously held good bird populations.
This spring following a couple years of good rain and habitat conditions we saw the highest populations of turkeys in the central valley I have ever seen... Ever. And I saw quail everywhere as well.
And... Let us say you are hunting a ranch that generally has 100 birds on it. And lets say due to drought or a hard winter, there is only enough food produced to support a population of 50 birds. Those birds do not have a discussion to decide who gets to eat and who does not... All 100 birds will continue to dwindle the food supplies until there is not enough food for any birds, and only the most fit will survive for the next season (far less than the 50 birds that the area is capable of holding).
Obviously following poor production years, over-harvesting plays a more significant role, but decreased populations of birds also generally mean decreased harvesting, often leading to hunters losing interest (especially the internet hero hunters).
It is my feeling and believe that the biggest role that hunters play in game populations, is in conservation, and being advocates for wildlife and conservation efforts.
If all hunters got together to raise money to pay the farming community to leave more set-aside areas, I believe that we would see a lot of game species significantly benefit. We cannot control the weather, but hunters certainly could play a role in conservation and habitat improvement.
Quote from: idgobble on June 10, 2019, 11:55:24 AM
There's no doubt in my mind that trying to shoot birds at 50 yds. plus has resulted in more wounded birds that die later.
100% agree. Every time I see or hear about the "clean miss" I wonder how many of those Gobblers run off to die. If you shoot a super tight choke and take a 10 yard shot I can see no pellets making contact but at 40+ yards I don't care how tight the choke or shot is there is a very high probability of hitting the Gobbler in the body. If you don't think so you've never seen a shotgun pattern.
Case in point Bartlett Kimbrough has a YouTube hunt from 2018 were he shoots at a Gobbler at about 40 yards using Longbeards. The Gobbler is clearly bodyshot doesn't go down he shoots him again keeps running and takes flight third shot downs him in the air off camera. That Gobbler was hit and killed the first shot, but without the neck or brain being hit he was going to get away. The shot scenario looked exactly like all the other "clean miss" videos. Exactly like the group shooting of Gobblers on the THP video. How many people keep hunting and keep wounding/killing Gobblers ...and I guess bearded hens?
I've arrowed Fall birds that had shot in them from Spring. Birds a tough.
The reason Missouri outlawed hog hunts is because people are releasing them for hunting opportunities. They were doing/are doing the same thing in IL.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
From my point of view I will add another possible contributing factor to lower numbers. I would say our turkey population is fairly steady where I live and the surrounding region. Our best days seemed to be the late 90s early 2000s. Now I believe we have a good population but not booming like it once was. I am referring to Ohio.
On our small property it has been my goal to increase our turkey population. I feel like the things I've done personally have certainly helped that. The things we've done have not been hard at all but take a little time and effort. The increase in sightings has been wonderful.
1.) trap coons and possums. We have trapped over 150 coons on 50 acres. Actually, I've trapped them all in the same 20 yard diameter. Add in another 50 possums.
2.) create nesting habitat- hinge cutting and general wooded maintenance with the wild turkey in mind have helped tremendously.
3.) food plots geared toward turkeys- rye, wheat, oats, left standing well into summer has created some ground for hens to raise their poults in some protection. The mature birds eat the seed heads all summer and the points have 2-3-4-5' of dense cover above their heads. We also have a constant supply of various stages of clover. Clover attracts bugs, bugs feed turkeys.
4.) no/low disturbance on our land. We rarely go places that will distrust or disturb the turkeys and deer. We never hunt our land. We just like to see and listen to the turkeys. I'd rather watch them at home than shoot them. I'm an avid turkey hunter but I am more of a conservationist and will do anything I can to enjoy seeing more of them.
Now comes the problem I haven't been able to deter yet. I'd love any suggestions. Coopers hawks have been terrible on the poults. Our hens have been very successful in getting their nests to full maturity and the hatching successfully. Last summer I could verify with certainty we had a minimum of 42 poults hatched on our small 50 acres. Of those 42 only 7 made to adulthood. 5 jakes and 2 hens. I believe Cooper's hawks moved in and hammered them. Have you seen a Cooper's hawk in action?! Wow! Those are some amazing avian predators. Their flight in the woods is incredible. I'm hoping the hawk population doesn't keep growing. I believe they're harder on young turkeys than any other predator. Does anyone else notice that? Any solutions?
Quote from: idgobble on June 10, 2019, 11:55:24 AM
In Idaho there were very few turkeys (maybe 300-400) in 1982. Then F&G started transplanting as many as they could get from other states, so it was kinda like a newly introduced game bird. When that happens the new species "exploits" all available habitat and then crashes down to, usually, less than half the "boom" population in the habitat that is most suitable for them. That happened in Idaho and it took about 20 years for the boom and bust. I think, in all states, shooting from the road is illegal, so that's a poaching problem. Hunters have become more effective with the new decoys and equipment. The thing that bothers me the most is long range loads and shooting. There's no doubt in my mind that trying to shoot birds at 50 yds. plus has resulted in more wounded birds that die later. Overall, any species is regulated by the amount of habitat more than anything. Long term, it's habitat. Short term, it's weather. Here's the Idaho story. That's me in the photo. http://www.idahonwtf.org/foundingofIdahoNWTF.pdf
Great article, Burk.
As has been stated many times already, there are a bunch of factors that all impact turkey populations. Fortunately, the reproductive potential of a game bird that can, under good conditions, raise a dozen or more young each year can quickly offset all of the negative factors,...if given the chance.
Unfortunately, those negative factors seem to be winning out in way too many places in the last decade or so. As has been discussed, there are places in the U.S. now where turkey numbers appear to have dipped so low that it may be impossible for them to recover,...without human intervention.
We need to get back to the "trap and transplant" mind-set that wildlife managers and the NWTF had back two to four decades ago. We seem to have forgotten that many of the turkey populations that exist nowadays are the result of those transplant efforts. There is no reason why that T&T mentality could not be replicated today.
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 10, 2019, 03:56:38 PM
We need to get back to the "trap and transplant" mind-set that wildlife managers and the NWTF had back two to four decades ago. We seem to have forgotten that many of the turkey populations that exist nowadays are the result of those transplant efforts. There is no reason why that T&T mentality could not be replicated today.
Texas recently purchased a large number of turkeys trapped off municipal airports in Missouri. They were transplanted to the northeast portion of the state where Easterns already been established.
This was more a nuisance removal, and Texas gave a higher bid than Oklahoma. Would be nice to see Louisiana and Arkansas put priority on buying turkeys when the opportunity does present itself such as those.
Quote from: HookedonHooks on June 10, 2019, 04:11:27 PM
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 10, 2019, 03:56:38 PM
We need to get back to the "trap and transplant" mind-set that wildlife managers and the NWTF had back two to four decades ago. We seem to have forgotten that many of the turkey populations that exist nowadays are the result of those transplant efforts. There is no reason why that T&T mentality could not be replicated today.
Texas recently purchased a large number of turkeys trapped off municipal airports in Missouri. They were transplanted to the northeast portion of the state where Easterns already been established.
This was more a nuisance removal, and Texas gave a higher bid than Oklahoma. Would be nice to see Louisiana and Arkansas put priority on buying turkeys when the opportunity does present itself such as those.
I have contacted the LWFD and emailed everyone I could find about buying and releasing turkeys here in Louisiana. There is Zero interest. Basically the ones in control either don't hunt/care about turkeys or hunt on private land that still has enough turkeys for them. The average hunter in La thinks about turkeys couple days a year and won't make any effort to force the LWFD to do something. The transplant idea is a solid one for a lot of reasons. We know it works, new genetics added to the stock would help, most of our turkeys are in small pockets with a lot of acreage between flocks inbreeding has to be an issue.
According to LWFD estimates the yearly harvest is down 43% since 2005. NWTF and LWFD estimated we had 80 thousand turkeys a year ago newest est are 50 thousand. Even if the estimates are off by 50% it ain't looking to good. The answer to all this was to move the season start date up by 1 week. We did make the top 5 worst states to hunt turkeys in.....so there is that. I guess were trying to be # 1 at something
In Middle TN I believe it is the prefect storm of the season being a little long, a 4 bird limit that should be cut, creeks and rivers flooding during nesting (not this year though), predators and poachers/trespassers. TWRA is lazy and would rather chase women than poachers/trespassers. They don't want to shorten the season and bag limit because that might cut the funding for their green trucks they like to ride around in.
Quote from: bossgobbler on June 10, 2019, 02:25:46 PMNow comes the problem I haven't been able to deter yet. I'd love any suggestions. Coopers hawks have been terrible on the poults. Our hens have been very successful in getting their nests to full maturity and the hatching successfully. Last summer I could verify with certainty we had a minimum of 42 poults hatched on our small 50 acres. Of those 42 only 7 made to adulthood. 5 jakes and 2 hens. I believe Cooper's hawks moved in and hammered them. Have you seen a Cooper's hawk in action?! Wow! Those are some amazing avian predators. Their flight in the woods is incredible. I'm hoping the hawk population doesn't keep growing. I believe they're harder on young turkeys than any other predator. Does anyone else notice that? Any solutions?
You've got a shotgun don't you?
Good point also shatcher. Tennessee has a 6 week season with a 4 gobbler limit. Kentucky is close to Tennessee literally and figuratively. Our habitat and geography is so closely matched but we have exactly half of your season and limits... 3 weeks, 2 gobblers. Why I sometimes doubt the 'wisdom' of our science, or at least what they tell us. Political BS seems to always win out.
Appreciate that post, tal. I think the world of my KY neighbors, but my neighbor lets a fellow from KY hunt and he'll kill 3 or 4 birds, good at it. My point is that he has no skin in the game, hunts the fringes of my farm and may even slip over. That's just one example.
You can point out the historical season totals to TWRA and all they say is 'we got plenty of turkeys'. Follow the money. It's all about selling licenses.
A lot of good posts and thoughts.
I would think states (I'm sure some do) would manage their flocks by geographical location. In the southeast we've flooded for the past 4 or 5 springs. I'm sure many have seen this area on the news. This year wasn't quite so bad but we've had lot of rainfall since the end of season. If birds have hatched and figure most have, the mortality rate has likely been high.
It would stand to reason to manage accordingly by region. Some parts of MO still have thriving flocks as many have likely witnessed this spring. Is it that hard to issue different tags, season dates and harvest limits. Maybe I'm expecting too much from MO.
No fun at all when somebody that knows a little about the game run's loose on ya. My small place was good for 35 years. Land sold around me though and most was leased. FEEDERS! And I'm talking dozens.... Year round.
Quote from: Rzrbac on June 10, 2019, 08:46:27 PM
A lot of good posts and thoughts.
I would think states (I'm sure some do) would manage their flocks by geographical location. In the southeast we've flooded for the past 4 or 5 springs. I'm sure many have seen this area on the news. This year wasn't quite so bad but we've had lot of rainfall since the end of season. If birds have hatched and figure most have, the mortality rate has likely been high.
It would stand to reason to manage accordingly by region. Some parts of MO still have thriving flocks as many have likely witnessed this spring. Is it that hard to issue different tags, season dates and harvest limits. Maybe I'm expecting too much from MO.
They have been doing that for deer for years and years. Northern MO has been hit by turkey declines , I know areas that are practically devoid of turkey which in the past were loaded. Other areas where people say that the population is at a lower level than when the birds were stocked. MO has traded turkey before for grouse and pheasant. Now restocking from areas with high populations in the state to areas that are low makes sense.
It's certainly not helping when these YouTube channels have shown hunting in Wisconsin pretty hard for the last couple years. Puts a state that may be a little off the radar in peoples minds to go hunt.
I think nature runs in cycles maybe not as many this year but in 3 years it might bounce back. I think for my area it was when corn got to be high priced and guys started clearing out their brushy areas so they could gain more crop acres. I can't blame them for wanting to make more money and the DNR doesn't have the money to fund programs to keep some of the farmers from clearing habitat.
Great post! I'm obviously in Wisconsin. I think it might be time to consider dropping the number of tags available to individual hunters. Something like two tags maximum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll also add that I would love to see regulations making it illegal to kill any hen in the spring season. The argument that the legal harvest of a bearded hen is allowed because it gives the shooter some protection in case of a misidentification is weak and pathetic at best. If you can't tell the difference between a Tom and a hen without a beard as visual reference you either need glasses or you shouldn't be turkey hunting. Waterfowl hunters have hunted for many years within the constraints that they must be able to differentiate between a hen mallard and a drake mallard during the early season when the birds are in their eclipse plumage and drakes closely resemble hens. I see no reason why turkey hunters can't be as responsible. Maybe it's time to petition the proper wildlife personnel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Wisgobbler on June 12, 2019, 04:12:19 PM
I'll also add that I would love to see regulations making it illegal to kill any hen in the spring season. The argument that the legal harvest of a bearded hen is allowed because it gives the shooter some protection in case of a misidentification is weak and pathetic at best. If you can't tell the difference between a Tom and a hen without a beard as visual reference you either need glasses or you shouldn't be turkey hunting. Waterfowl hunters have hunted for many years within the constraints that they must be able to differentiate between a hen mallard and a drake mallard during the early season when the birds are in their eclipse plumage and drakes closely resemble hens. I see no reason why turkey hunters can't be as responsible. Maybe it's time to petition the proper wildlife personnel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly,duck hunters are able to identify there targets in a matter of seconds while the target is in flight.Yet apparently some turkey hunters can't tell the difference between a hen or Gobbler standing still at 40 yards or less. We don't need such wandering round the woods with a loaded gun.
In Western NY the bird population has dwindled dramatically. On DEC website from 2002 to 2014 the population dropped like a rock. Finally DEC reacted by reducing fall season by two weeks. Why this took so long is another story. There has been radioed banded hen studies with no solid answers. DEC mostly point towards "wet" springs and predication for decline, "poor hatch". Up north 4 hours from here population is good, strong, saw it for myself, further east towards Delaware county good, south, not so good. Seems to be pockets of birds. Hearing PA population down also and hearing something about a study about "west nile" ? Haven't seen the article. Anyway a long time ago, mid 1950's, a DEC wildlife biologist, Fred Evans, started trapping and transferring birds in NY, Allegheny state park. (Google that) They sent birds to Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ontario Canada and elsewhere. Your all welcome. So I am now asking our DEC to look into having some birds trapped and transfer and sent back from those states we helped years ago..... What say you ?
Quote from: tal on June 10, 2019, 09:52:23 PM
No fun at all when somebody that knows a little about the game run's loose on ya. My small place was good for 35 years. Land sold around me though and most was leased. FEEDERS! And I'm talking dozens.... Year round.
You should contact your local game warden, it is illegal to feed wildlife in KY from March 1- June 1...
Quote from: Bay1985 on June 12, 2019, 05:38:16 PM
Quote from: Wisgobbler on June 12, 2019, 04:12:19 PM
I'll also add that I would love to see regulations making it illegal to kill any hen in the spring season. The argument that the legal harvest of a bearded hen is allowed because it gives the shooter some protection in case of a misidentification is weak and pathetic at best. If you can't tell the difference between a Tom and a hen without a beard as visual reference you either need glasses or you shouldn't be turkey hunting. Waterfowl hunters have hunted for many years within the constraints that they must be able to differentiate between a hen mallard and a drake mallard during the early season when the birds are in their eclipse plumage and drakes closely resemble hens. I see no reason why turkey hunters can't be as responsible. Maybe it's time to petition the proper wildlife personnel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly,duck hunters are able to identify there targets in a matter of seconds while the target is in flight.Yet apparently some turkey hunters can't tell the difference between a hen or Gobbler standing still at 40 yards or less. We don't need such wandering round the woods with a loaded gun.
Eh, I'd have to disagree with some of the points made here. I am from SE Arkansas and will say that i have shot more than my fair share of hen mallards to make out a limit. There are factors that come into play when "wing shooting". It is almost impossible to distinguish a hen from a drake at first shooting light, stray BBs knocking down doubles, group shooting, etc.
Same can go for shooting a bearded hen IMO. One has to remember that ALL turkey hunters have to start somewhere. Not all were afforded someone to carry them, show them the ropes, and give them a good foundation to build a true wildlife manager. I have never shot a bearded hen, but I will admit two times it nearly happened. Both instances were in a situation when I thought a tom was by itself, in thick vegetation, saw a turkey with a beard, and when their head popped into an opening, I had my finger on the trigger. Now, put someone in that same scenario that doesn't have field experience and didn't have someone (my dad) to educate me in the RIGHT way, I could totally see someone making a mistake.
Now take that mistake; a guy shoots a bearded hen. As a manager, I would prefer that person place a tag on that bird and shorten their season a little bit. The effect that will occur will be a guy finding a root wad and discarding of the evidence, all while walking away with the same number of tags.
Again, over regulation isn't the outcome any hunter should be wanting. We already have enough laws on the book. People who want to break laws will, there is no amount of regulations that will solve that. If there isn't a measurable result from a regulation, it is useless...which is exactly what taking away the allowance of shooting bearded hens would be.
Quote from: Spurs on June 13, 2019, 08:52:51 AM
Quote from: Bay1985 on June 12, 2019, 05:38:16 PM
Quote from: Wisgobbler on June 12, 2019, 04:12:19 PM
I'll also add that I would love to see regulations making it illegal to kill any hen in the spring season. The argument that the legal harvest of a bearded hen is allowed because it gives the shooter some protection in case of a misidentification is weak and pathetic at best. If you can't tell the difference between a Tom and a hen without a beard as visual reference you either need glasses or you shouldn't be turkey hunting. Waterfowl hunters have hunted for many years within the constraints that they must be able to differentiate between a hen mallard and a drake mallard during the early season when the birds are in their eclipse plumage and drakes closely resemble hens. I see no reason why turkey hunters can't be as responsible. Maybe it's time to petition the proper wildlife personnel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly,duck hunters are able to identify there targets in a matter of seconds while the target is in flight.Yet apparently some turkey hunters can't tell the difference between a hen or Gobbler standing still at 40 yards or less. We don't need such wandering round the woods with a loaded gun.
Eh, I'd have to disagree with some of the points made here. I am from SE Arkansas and will say that i have shot more than my fair share of hen mallards to make out a limit. There are factors that come into play when "wing shooting". It is almost impossible to distinguish a hen from a drake at first shooting light, stray BBs knocking down doubles, group shooting, etc.
Same can go for shooting a bearded hen IMO. One has to remember that ALL turkey hunters have to start somewhere. Not all were afforded someone to carry them, show them the ropes, and give them a good foundation to build a true wildlife manager. I have never shot a bearded hen, but I will admit two times it nearly happened. Both instances were in a situation when I thought a tom was by itself, in thick vegetation, saw a turkey with a beard, and when their head popped into an opening, I had my finger on the trigger. Now, put someone in that same scenario that doesn't have field experience and didn't have someone (my dad) to educate me in the RIGHT way, I could totally see someone making a mistake.
Now take that mistake; a guy shoots a bearded hen. As a manager, I would prefer that person place a tag on that bird and shorten their season a little bit. The effect that will occur will be a guy finding a root wad and discarding of the evidence, all while walking away with the same number of tags.
Again, over regulation isn't the outcome any hunter should be wanting. We already have enough laws on the book. People who want to break laws will, there is no amount of regulations that will solve that. If there isn't a measurable result from a regulation, it is useless...which is exactly what taking away the allowance of shooting bearded hens would be.
Great Post!! ...And it clearly demonstrates the dilemma that wildlife managers face. Again, to me, the only reasonable solution is to just say,..."Hey, we really don't want you to shoot bearded hens in the spring season (and here's why), but if you do, put your tag on it and take it home".
I also think that wildlife management agencies should have mandatory harvest reporting of both gobblers and bearded hens. It would be great if we could also get hunters to 'fess up to accidentally shooting beardless hens, as well. But we all know that is a pipe-dream.
Our hunting group has a standing policy that if someone accidentally shoots a hen (it does happen on rare occasions), we report it. In forty years or so, there have been a handful of those incidents,...always accidental shootings of unseen hens or "flyers" from the pattern. Wildlife managers are always appreciative,...although surprised we do it,...and invariably that results in a minimal fine (about $50 bucks),... and with the added benefit of great respect from our CO's and wildlife officials.
A young man I work with sent me this shortly after season closed this year. It touches on several things that have already be discussed in this thread it just add's some numbers pertaining to Missouri. I also added a link to a survey that the MDC did in 2011 that basically stating that the folks taking the survey found turkey population was on the decline but didn't see a need to shorten season or bag limits. To me the whole thing boils down to any given area is only going to be able to support the amount of wild life the habitat will allow. Habitat to me would encompass Food, Cover and Predation.
2019 & 2018 – Worst Missouri Spring Turkey Hunting Seasons in 17 years.
Welcome to the NEW NORMAL - Missouri has become the LOST TURKEY HUNTING MECCA in the early 2000's highlighted in every magazine, outdoor TV show Missouri Spring Season Statewide has fallen off the shelf and has become a secondary thought of a place to travel for turkey hunting.
You won't read this from the Missouri Department of Conservation, National Wild Turkey Federation and the Missouri Media will only regurgitate what they put out.
Don't believe me look up the information and good luck with that because most is not published anymore has to be requested.
Not one thing by itself, but all together will influence major population decline.
1. Price of furs near all-time low, less trappers, more predators, no extended days for trapping. 2. Missouri Wild Hog Population Highest ever estimated 70,000 3. Black Bear Population Highest ever 2012 - 350 today estimated closer to 600. 4. Habitat Lose both Private & Public land Hunters are older, 5. Armadillos population on the rise and expanding north, may not eat eggs but destroy nest in searching for insects and grubs. 6. 17 years of bad hatch due to weather not likely. But some years yes. 7. More efficient fall hunting methods. 8. Fall Hens still being shot - Dead hen can't lay eggs and may not matter when population was higher, but now it does.
Word on the street that the Missouri Biologist and Directors are pushing for an all-day spring season and with no change to fall firearms or archery season for turkeys. Now Some interesting number on Statewide Hunters and Spring Turkey Harvest numbers for past 17 years.
2019 - Turkeys 38,780 - 2nd Lowest Harvest in 17 years 2018 - Turkeys 35,787 - Lowest Harvest in 16 years. 2017 – Turkeys 43,356 2016 – Turkeys 48,374 2015 - Turkeys 48,432 2014 – Turkeys 47,601 2013 – Turkeys 46,141 2012- Turkeys 44,766 2011 – Turkeys 42,220 2010 – Turkeys 46,194 2009 – Turkeys 44,713 2008 - Turkeys 46,134 2007 - Turkeys 48,472 2006 – Turkeys 54,712 2005 - Turkeys 57,743 2004 – Turkeys 60,744 Most Turkey ever killed 2003 – Turkeys 58,421
Extra info
2018 Fall Firearm Turkey Season Summary The 2018 fall firearms turkey harvest total was 2,170, which was 25% less than the 2017 harvest total.
Regional harvest totals were:
• Central (334; -17% from 2017)
• Kansas City (241; -19% from 2017)
• Northeast (251; -3% from 2017)
• Northwest (219; -13% from 2017)
• Ozark (242; -53% from 2017)
• Southeast (267; -27% from 2017)
• Southwest (394; -26% from 2017)
• St. Louis (222; -21% from 2017)
At the statewide scale, the turkey hatches of 2016 and 2017 were tied for the lowest on record since our turkey brood surveys was initiated in 1959
Comparison of average Missouri Trappers Association Fur Auction prices over the last five trapping seasons with a five-year average. Just one example of a Predator - Raccoon
2017-18 $4.86 -26,340 Sold 2016-17 $2.77 - 32,106 Sold 2015-16 $5.84 - 34,758 Sold 2014-15 $7.75 -85,497 Sold 2013-14 $13.04 – 134,715 Sold 2012-13 $20.79 - 138,865 Sold
If you want to understand how that effect population These number are reflective across the board on less predators been taken. 2017 Wild Hog Reports in 45 counties in Missouri per USDA APHIS map and Mark Twain National Forest population estimates of 20,000 to 30,000.
in Missouri for the first season that included crossbows (2016-2017), of the 2,304 turkeys harvested under archery methods, 853 were with crossbows." (2017-2018) of the 2,426 turkeys harvested under archery methods, 45% or 1,113 were with crossbows.
"The Tennessee Fish & Wildlife Commission significant changes in the state's hunting regulations this last fall 2018 - For turkey hunters, the biggest change was banning the killing of hens during the fall season. Every hen that survives through the fall will be around to nest the following spring. The Commission agreed with that logic." But NOT MISSOURI
Did you know that 1974-75 - Bag limit reduced to 1 bird due to poor hatch in 1973. Guess they don't care about that for the last 17 years.
Link to 2011 survey
https://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/2011turkhunterinfo.pdf
Interesting stuff Hillbilly.Wonder how many turkey tags were sold and how many trappers sold coon?
Figure most know I'm not a fan of MO, lived here all my life. My job forced me to aware of MO politics. I can say from experience, you are only likely to encounter a game warden on the first weekend of the season. Everybody know that, each year I tell them I appreciate their efforts but the poachers were in the woods a few weeks ago. I tell them it's not hard to hear shotguns when the birds start gobbling.
This winter I called our local game warden about a sick deer by my house. I left 3 messages and never heard back from him.
Clearly the issue is much more than a problem of people shooting bearded hens, that's a peeve of mine personally so I guess I tend to emphasize that more. We obviously need to do more to curb predation. I grew up running a trap line and way back in the '70s I remember that most of the young guys I knew did the same. Fur prices were high and lots of guys I knew owned walkers or blue tick hounds and ran coons all night. That's beautiful music still to my old redneck ears lol.
I've been watching some YouTube videos of guys calling coons in the daylight hours from den trees with electronic callers. I'm going to use some of my deer archery season up to do this. I care about turkeys and turkey hunting a lot more than deer anyway.
It seems to me also that in general the mindset of many hunters has shifted from hunter/conservationists to hunter /glory seeker. I can't change everyone's views and rightly so but I can do my best to kill predators, exercise good judgement in not intentionally killing hens during the spring hunt, shooting either male birds or Jenny's during the fall hunt and educating as many people (gently) as I have access to.
Social media is a double edged sword to us.... many of us like to share our successes with like minded hunters, honestly that comradely that we share is something to be cherished but for some it leads to numbers killing and fishing for "likes". Too often some feel that numbers of birds killed is the measure of a great hunter.
Some of the issues we face going forward can be solved by mentoring new hunters and going back to our roots as fundamentally conservation minded stewards like those before us who initially laid the foundations for us and start treating turkey hunting as a heritage rather than a competition sport.
I think personally I'd rather be thought of as a hunter who was a great conservationist than as a great hunter. Obviously we have a big task before us. But it's nothing in comparison to the challenges faced by the men who saved the wild turkey to begin with.
We need to become much more proactive in our sport. I know many here are. And my hat is off to them. I'm primarily speaking to myself and others like me who honestly could do more... I say these things respectfully and without malice and they are just my thoughts after careful consideration and after reading the responses of many here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: owlhoot on June 13, 2019, 10:57:24 AM
Interesting stuff Hillbilly.Wonder how many turkey tags were sold and how many trappers sold coon?
I found this in the 2011 survey pertaining to permit sold vs turkey reportedly harvested.
Missouri's first modern spring turkey hunting season was held in 1960. Less than 1,000
hunters participated in the 3-day season, which was open in 14 counties and resulted in a harvest
of less than 100 turkeys. Since this early season, the popularity of spring turkey hunting has
increased dramatically. Spring permit sales exceeded 50,000 for the first time in 1980 and
100,000 in 1998. In 2003, over 130,000 spring turkey hunting permits were sold in Missouri; in
2004, over 60,000 turkeys were harvested during the spring turkey season.
Central Illinois had a peak in the late 90s early 2000s, when I first started hunting down there I was scouting some creeks for deer sign, I had noticed I couldn't find any coin tracks, weird since where I previously hunted coons were everywhere!
Talked to some locals and the coons had gotten distemper and were virtually wiped out. Bird population exploded.
Coons and other best robbers are at a high again and I also believe that bush honey suckle is a huge issue!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Wisgobbler on June 13, 2019, 11:51:20 AM
Clearly the issue is much more than a problem of people shooting bearded hens, that's a peeve of mine personally so I guess I tend to emphasize that more. We obviously need to do more to curb predation. I grew up running a trap line and way back in the '70s I remember that most of the young guys I knew did the same. Fur prices were high and lots of guys I knew owned walkers or blue tick hounds and ran coons all night. That's beautiful music still to my old redneck ears lol.
I've been watching some YouTube videos of guys calling coons in the daylight hours from den trees with electronic callers. I'm going to use some of my deer archery season up to do this. I care about turkeys and turkey hunting a lot more than deer anyway.
It seems to me also that in general the mindset of many hunters has shifted from hunter/conservationists to hunter /glory seeker. I can't change everyone's views and rightly so but I can do my best to kill predators, exercise good judgement in not intentionally killing hens during the spring hunt, shooting either male birds or Jenny's during the fall hunt and educating as many people (gently) as I have access to.
Social media is a double edged sword to us.... many of us like to share our successes with like minded hunters, honestly that comradely that we share is something to be cherished but for some it leads to numbers killing and fishing for "likes". Too often some feel that numbers of birds killed is the measure of a great hunter.
Some of the issues we face going forward can be solved by mentoring new hunters and going back to our roots as fundamentally conservation minded stewards like those before us who initially laid the foundations for us and start treating turkey hunting as a heritage rather than a competition sport.
I think personally I'd rather be thought of as a hunter who was a great conservationist than as a great hunter. Obviously we have a big task before us. But it's nothing in comparison to the challenges faced by the men who saved the wild turkey to begin with.
We need to become much more proactive in our sport. I know many here are. And my hat is off to them. I'm primarily speaking to myself and others like me who honestly could do more... I say these things respectfully and without malice and they are just my thoughts after careful consideration and after reading the responses of many here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Being proactive without the backing of most game agencies is extremely tough. Speaking on WI, I have nothing but praise for the habitat development on their public lands. I have hunted three seasons up there (was there working for two then came back for a week for one season). REAL food plots, legit timber thinning, controlled burns, and dynamite nesting habitat. Down south, habitat development on public property has become a thing of the past. In a few areas that I grew up cutting my teeth, they used to have somewhat of a game plan. We had decent food plots, they weren't scared of thinning timber, and controlled burns happened every February. Now, none of that happens to any measurable degree.
What many people need to figure out is that turkey populations are relative to MULTIPLE issues. There isn't just one or two simple fixes. Like you said, everyone has that one thing that really touches a nerve. Mine in AR is the lack of information passed on to the general public by the Game and Fish agency. We have some really sketchy guys on the commission who obviously have ulterior motive (mainly on the duck hunting side of things). That has created a huge void when it comes to turkey hunting due to the lack of involvement.
Quote from: Spurs on June 14, 2019, 09:00:08 AM
Quote from: Wisgobbler on June 13, 2019, 11:51:20 AM
Clearly the issue is much more than a problem of people shooting bearded hens, that's a peeve of mine personally so I guess I tend to emphasize that more. We obviously need to do more to curb predation. I grew up running a trap line and way back in the '70s I remember that most of the young guys I knew did the same. Fur prices were high and lots of guys I knew owned walkers or blue tick hounds and ran coons all night. That's beautiful music still to my old redneck ears lol.
I've been watching some YouTube videos of guys calling coons in the daylight hours from den trees with electronic callers. I'm going to use some of my deer archery season up to do this. I care about turkeys and turkey hunting a lot more than deer anyway.
It seems to me also that in general the mindset of many hunters has shifted from hunter/conservationists to hunter /glory seeker. I can't change everyone's views and rightly so but I can do my best to kill predators, exercise good judgement in not intentionally killing hens during the spring hunt, shooting either male birds or Jenny's during the fall hunt and educating as many people (gently) as I have access to.
Social media is a double edged sword to us.... many of us like to share our successes with like minded hunters, honestly that comradely that we share is something to be cherished but for some it leads to numbers killing and fishing for "likes". Too often some feel that numbers of birds killed is the measure of a great hunter.
Some of the issues we face going forward can be solved by mentoring new hunters and going back to our roots as fundamentally conservation minded stewards like those before us who initially laid the foundations for us and start treating turkey hunting as a heritage rather than a competition sport.
I think personally I'd rather be thought of as a hunter who was a great conservationist than as a great hunter. Obviously we have a big task before us. But it's nothing in comparison to the challenges faced by the men who saved the wild turkey to begin with.
We need to become much more proactive in our sport. I know many here are. And my hat is off to them. I'm primarily speaking to myself and others like me who honestly could do more... I say these things respectfully and without malice and they are just my thoughts after careful consideration and after reading the responses of many here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Being proactive without the backing of most game agencies is extremely tough. Speaking on WI, I have nothing but praise for the habitat development on their public lands. I have hunted three seasons up there (was there working for two then came back for a week for one season). REAL food plots, legit timber thinning, controlled burns, and dynamite nesting habitat. Down south, habitat development on public property has become a thing of the past. In a few areas that I grew up cutting my teeth, they used to have somewhat of a game plan. We had decent food plots, they weren't scared of thinning timber, and controlled burns happened every February. Now, none of that happens to any measurable degree.
What many people need to figure out is that turkey populations are relative to MULTIPLE issues. There isn't just one or two simple fixes. Like you said, everyone has that one thing that really touches a nerve. Mine in AR is the lack of information passed on to the general public by the Game and Fish agency. We have some really sketchy guys on the commission who obviously have ulterior motive (mainly on the duck hunting side of things). That has created a huge void when it comes to turkey hunting due to the lack of involvement.
Excellent points made, guys. Good to see this kind of thoughtful discussion going on. I couldn't agree more with your comments. :icon_thumright:
Quote from: 1iagobblergetter on June 10, 2019, 01:43:09 AM
I think predators and weather have more to do with a bad year or two around my area. Like was stated hardly anyone manages predators anymore. One predator that gets good at finding eggs or learns how to kill turkeys will wipe out way more than any poacher or a hunter that legally decides to shoot a bearded hen..
i agree with this as well
What spurs said. Real hunters using our natural resources. No better information.
Quote from: Dtrkyman on June 14, 2019, 08:45:50 AM
Central Illinois had a peak in the late 90s early 2000s, when I first started hunting down there I was scouting some creeks for deer sign, I had noticed I couldn't find any coin tracks, weird since where I previously hunted coons were everywhere!
Talked to some locals and the coons had gotten distemper and were virtually wiped out. Bird population exploded.
Coons and other best robbers are at a high again and I also believe that bush honey suckle is a huge issue!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is an example of a new population growing. Don't know what you consider central IL but central IL didn't have a modern Spring season until ~ '95. Populations where growing after introduction in the late '80s and haven't been hunted. Again, more prey equals more predators. The region is doing well but it is agricultural land. Small wood lots,crp, crops. Good habitat for a bird once thought to need thousands of acres of continuous timber. Land that holds ~ 30 birds per 1k acres of good habitat. Not bad for a state thats not really a turkey hunting destination. IL suffers from what all good Whitetail states suffer from. Leases tie up land that gets limited hunting. It's hard to kill a turkey on land with no access. This is a small percentage of decreased overall harvest. IL is also about 95% privately owned. Buffalo county WI comes to mind when compared to IL. I wonder what the overall harvest is compared to "the good 'ol days". When did leasing become the norm in Buffalo county ? When did that area have its first modern Spring season?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Public, private it don't matter. Turkey hunting is what you make of it. I spent a month and a few days camping and turkey hunting. The beginning of my second year of turkey hunting in Georgia back in the around 1990. Turkey population was healthy as far as my research went and from the state park officer( an avid turkey Hunter himself)who I became good friends with. For the 1st month during an unusually cold spring I heard 0 gobbles. That was with getting up every mourn at 3:30am and going to spots where I had seen sign and seen turkeys on private adjacent to public land. They just we're not gobbling. The 1st turkey I shot in GA was I when I sat on the end of Ridgeline that dumped into private property and made like a turkey fight cutting on my diaphragm and loud fighting purrs on pot. A hen from down below took acception to my calling and fired back. I gave her exactly what she was giving me and it wasn't yelps or cutts it was a mixture of both combind and not in any order. It was like baby talk but only from a turkey. She came out of private sassing like that and I gave everything right back at her. When I see her 20 yrds below a Tom fires off( the 1st gobble I heard in GA In about a month. She moves off to my right as I duck my head so she can not see my eyes and he comes out of private gobbling his head off. He comes up to where she is and as luck would have it behind a patch of may apple. He was strutting back and fourth buy would only stick his head out beyond the brush to see the other turkeys that were supposedly there. As he was moving left I cutt at him to try and get him to expose himself.The hen cutt back and started moving away cutting. He gave one last look in an open spot in the brush about the size of your hand but my bead was waiting for him because he Stuck his head in there a couple times to look while he was moving back and forth. 2 days later I had to go home because I promised my mother I'd be home for Easter! Only heard one other turkey gobble that trip but that's a whole different story. The next year in pasture next to the state park where I was camping there were 15 or more Jake's strutting around every day right next to the road. The next year I brought a buddy down and turkey were gobbling everywhere!
Ok I just wrote a book on here and I hit one button and it all disappeared....aaarrrggg
,
I will now try and summarize what I wrote. It is true that when animals are introduced new to habitat they explode and fill the habitat even to the extent of over-population. I have watched this happen and both Ohio and Kentucky. They will then fall off and come back to what is a holding pattern or as known by Wildlife managers as carrying capacity. Things that influence that is land use, predators, season weather, food and last and least hunting. Before game laws hunting was one of the top along with habitat loss. As a youth I worked with my dad farming, managing timber land and with a corporate CEO who had a private WMA that we farmed for. My dad always left grain and cover for wildlife. We only select cut timber. My cousins won national tree farm of the year once and my dad won the state conservation award for farmers (an award they no longer give to my knowledge). We hunted and trapped fur bearers hard for winter income.
Jump forward 40 years. Both my dad, one cousin and the corporate guy are gone. My brother in-law took over the farm in the late 70s and instantly bulldozed out fences rows and woods lines. Plowed up 20 acres my dad always left for nesting cover. The land that the CEO had, sold and the timber cut hard, a real estate developer split the farm land into lots and now homes and mowed lawns sit where quail roamed. State lands were rarely timbered and then only select cuts, now they ravage it for every dollar. I trapped hard and a good year was 25 raccoons. In the 80s and 90s I learned to grade fur and graded for a large fur auction. We sold tens of thousands of pelts. I actually bought into the company as a partner. In the late 90s we went broke and closed when we could no longer make a profit. After that fur market broke coons exploded. I would set traps just to keep them out of my garden and garage. I caught 13 in my garage one year. I do think they impact birds. It is normal to see the population fall off and develop a carrying capacity. Hunting will rarely change this with the current laws. Yearly reproductive success accounts for variations. So the things we can control is land use (including habitat mngt.), harvest and public awareness. Predator control is only a player in extreme cases as they usually balance out with available prey, but I agree coons are at an extreme level. You can research work by Aldo Leopold on predator control in the SW U.S. and see it is a mistake to eliminate all predators. Another player is invasive species that influence habitat and are competition (i.e. Hogs). For the most part it is human attitude towards are resources that have the most impact....to take from the land and not give back. I do think that this is changing somewhat and many are gaining conservation awareness again, it's a cycle. The down side is what we have lost in many cases can not be recovered. As hunting wanes and less young people take it up conservation suffers. Hunters will sacrifice maximized land use and profit for conservation, but non hunters (as a rule) will only have ancillary interest in conservation, providing only basic funding to ease their conscious as consumers and to have pretty places to play. With the death of the American outdoorsman come the decline of conservation and species. TAKE THAT PETA!
Again,...all good points being made. After all is said and done, the one thing that we, as turkey hunters, can change is our attitudes. That is,...quit killing so many of them!...and do something positive for insuring their future well-being! I know that hurts some feelings of the "the limit is one-a-day for sixty days so I gotta kill sixty turkeys" crowd, but there reaches a point when populations fall that you have to stop with that attitude!
Just because the limit was a zillion back when the turkey population was ten times what it is now does not mean you still need to kill a zillion today. I know that is hard for some folks to accept, but when turkey numbers fall to a certain point, we should be willing to accept the fact that maybe we should leave a few more of them in the woods for the future.
I am one of the "you can't stockpile turkeys" crowd,...but I am also one of the "just because the limit is four or five gobblers does not mean I have to kill that many to prove I am good at this" crowd, as well. For hunters, there is a balance to be had between hunting opportunity and the pile of dead turkeys you can stack up and the well-being of the resource,....not necessarily in terms of quantity,...but most definitely in terms of quality, at least when talking about spring gobbler hunting.
On public land in particular, having too many of the "I'm gonna kill every gobbler I can, and then I'm gonna gather up every other person I know, take them out, and show them just how great a turkey hunter I am" crowd is eventually going to destroy the quality,...and possibly the quantity,...of the hunting there.
Catch and release fishing is considered to be a noble endeavor nowadays. Perhaps, turkey hunters should adopt a new mantra of "call 'em in, but let some of them walk away" mantra, too.
Quote from: Ozarks Hillbilly on June 13, 2019, 12:08:32 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 13, 2019, 10:57:24 AM
Interesting stuff Hillbilly.Wonder how many turkey tags were sold and how many trappers sold coon?
I found this in the 2011 survey pertaining to permit sold vs turkey reportedly harvested.
Missouri's first modern spring turkey hunting season was held in 1960. Less than 1,000
hunters participated in the 3-day season, which was open in 14 counties and resulted in a harvest
of less than 100 turkeys. Since this early season, the popularity of spring turkey hunting has
increased dramatically. Spring permit sales exceeded 50,000 for the first time in 1980 and
100,000 in 1998. In 2003, over 130,000 spring turkey hunting permits were sold in Missouri; in
2004, over 60,000 turkeys were harvested during the spring turkey season.
Interesting.
So to add the total numbers of spring turkey hunters for 2017 was 137,050 . Which was 10% less than 2016 and 7% less than the previous five year average.
Total harvest was 43,343 for 2017. This is 10% less than 2016 and 8% below the previous 5 year average.
This is a significant drop from 2004 total of 60,000.
Good point Gobblenut. I am fortunate I have almost total control of turkey hunting on over 1,000 acres. I control that harvest as well. I keep tabs on what I think is there and I set the limit at 25% of the mature gobblers can be removed, if the right circumstance occurs I'll allow a jake or two. I regularly get hit up by the local crowd about how I get to hunt "that honey hole all by myself". Sure that makes my life pretty sweet come turkey season, but it is a "honey hole " because it is controlled. every part of this property is managed, from timber to farming and land use. I am proud to say it's a showplace as to what can be done and has won national awards. We do fall hunt it and that limit is 3-4 fall birds and any gobbler counts towards spring as well. This spring I accounted for 14 mature gobblers and we took 3 off. A neighbor did call one off onto him and that made 4. Last fall we took one hen. I estimate the resident flock at 40-50 birds total. I think we're doing good as it seems like the numbers are about the same every year. I know this would be hard to do on public land, but it is a model that works. Now my numbers are conservative and we could probably survive a 50% harvest across the board, but it would no longer be a honey hole and a couple bad nesting years would really hurt.
Found this map from the 1975 book Hunting the American Wild Turkey by Harbour. A lot has changed in 44 years. Wisconsin along with several NE states had no season some had no turkeys at all. La was ahead of both Tenn and Kentucky and now they have 10 time more turkeys than we do. We have less turkeys today then Mississippi had in 1975? I've said it before a lot of the Northern states are in the high population phase of the turkey reintroduction. It will not always be like it is today. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190615/a009685df7a925fc5c1b106aa585a1f7.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That population map is very incorrect for my state. It says 3500 and the actual population was probably 350. Maybe they added a "0" by mistake.
We hear all the arguments regarding populations. My belief is that it's a multifaceted problem.
I know there are guys that shoot over the limit and use bait and do all sorts of things that are detrimental to turkey populations. They need to be weeded out or need to change their ways.
As far as seasons coming in later, I'm not so sure about that. Once hens are bred, they stay fertile for weeks, so I'm not sure that's a huge issue.
I KNOW that we've had Spring weather that's been wet and cold. I KNOW that poults don't generally survive that.
I also know that there has been a major increase in the number of predators since the fur markets have declined. Hens are killed on the nest and nests destroyed by raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes and coyotes.
I know people say that coyotes aren't a major turkey killer, but I've witnessed them attacking decoys and I've had a number of friends who have had coyotes come to their hen yelps. That tells me coyotes are having success at killing turkeys.
I also know that some game commissions, N.J. notably, that want to sell tags more than they want to have a stable population.
So what's the solution? I think addressing all these things, aside from weather of course, is the best we can do. The problem though, is, I think, weather. Weather is probably the most dramatic determiner of population density...
I'll put money on the weather as being the number 1 cause of lower turkey numbers in Wisconsin. The winters over the last 2 year's have been BRUTAL. When you get and keep 30 inches of snow and 35 below temps for most of the winter and then get a foot to 18 inches of snow as late as the middle of May Mother Nature is going to take a fair share of your wildlife. Nothing to eat and below zero temps will kill wildlife. BRUTAL WINTERS up there.
Brutal winters kill turkeys, yes. Wet, cool springs are hard on poult survival, yes. But many southern states have sharply declining populations and winter kills are not an issue and we haven't had numerous consecutive years of cool wet springs. In these instances, habitat loss, forest/ag management conflicts, and predators are likely the main causes of falling numbers of wild turkeys. It certainly is alarming and the issue is almost nation wide. Could it also be caused by herbicides and pesticides? Until there is a definitive answer I do not believe anything should be ruled out.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don't forget biological reasons. A couple years ago mn had an outbreak of avian flu which decimated domestic fowl. It was said that wild populations would not be effected and it appears that didn't happen. Who knows maybe it's possible for a mutation and a jump to wild populations. Here in the northern states the cold weather during winter kills the bug how about southern states? Just a thought.
I have wondered if introducing some new genetic stock would help after many years. Geneticist will tell you that there is enough diversity within the gene pool, but I wonder if new birds might spark some hardiness in the reproductive stock.
Quote from: eggshell on June 16, 2019, 07:29:42 AM
I have wondered if introducing some new genetic stock would help after many years. Geneticist will tell you that there is enough diversity within the gene pool, but I wonder if new birds might spark some hardiness in the reproductive stock.
Guess it might, maybe could. However, if that theory about it taking time for predators to "develop a taste" for turkeys when birds are first relocated holds any water, then wouldn't the opposite also be true? That is, naive birds put in a foreign landscape with seasoned predators that key in on turkeys. Easy pickings...
Quote from: eggshell on June 16, 2019, 07:29:42 AM
I have wondered if introducing some new genetic stock would help after many years. Geneticist will tell you that there is enough diversity within the gene pool, but I wonder if new birds might spark some hardiness in the reproductive stock.
Totally agree,...not only from the standpoint of genetic diversification and "hybrid vigor", but also just from the standpoint that the more birds that are there, the greater the potential for recovery from down cycles in populations. Again, it all comes back around to restoring the aggressive "trap and transplant" attitudes that used to exist and now seem to have faded.
There are plenty of places around the country where turkey depredation issues still exist,...that is, farmers and folks, in general, complaining about too many turkeys. There is a simple solution for lack of turkeys in some places versus the overabundance of turkeys in others. It just takes money to implement that solution.
Therein lies the problem. You want to see more turkeys where populations have declined. Then 1) pressure your wildlife management agencies to reinstitute "trap and transplant" and 2) "put your money where your mouth is",...that is, establish a funding base for doing that.
Of course, we have to overcome the mentality of "we will just let nature take its course, not intervene, and see what happens". Sure, we can take that approach,...but why? We know that "trap and transplant" works tremendously well for establishing wild turkey populations. Why is it that the same mentality cannot be applied to supplementing existing populations that are struggling?
Some argue against that based on the "carrying capacity" theory,...which is generally applied in circumstances regarding over-population of species due to over-protection or a lack of a sufficient mortality rate. The carrying-capacity theory just does not apply in many of the areas experiencing turkey declines. Those declines are being caused by a lack of sufficient "population recruitment",...that is, "nesting success",...over time.
Again, we have covered all the bases as to why recruitment is failing,...predators and climactic/environmental factors (spring flooding, fires, ag practices). Those factors are likely to continue over time.
So what is the obvious solution if we want more turkeys somewhere that their numbers are crashing and there is a continued lack of population recruitment in the form of poult survival? Put more adult birds in the population by getting back to that "trap 'em and transplant 'em" mentality,...and find a way to pay for it!
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 16, 2019, 09:27:42 AM
Put more adult birds in the population by getting back to that "trap 'em and transplant 'em" mentality,...and find a way to pay for it!
I know a place where you may could get some boxes. Might even sell them to you at a reduced rate, especially if you allowed them to put their company logo on the boxes. I'll pm you the info. :newmascot:
Quote from: guesswho on June 16, 2019, 09:44:25 AM
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 16, 2019, 09:27:42 AM
Put more adult birds in the population by getting back to that "trap 'em and transplant 'em" mentality,...and find a way to pay for it!
I know a place where you may could get some boxes. Might even sell them to you at a reduced rate, especially if you allowed them to put their company logo on the boxes. I'll pm you the info. :newmascot:
That "place" is where the "attitude adjustment" needs to begin. :icon_thumright:
:z-winnersmiley: :icon_thumright:
I still see habitat as being the key to any form of wildlife. If you have a area that once was teaming with game and no longer is we need to look at what has changed in the area. In my area of south central Missouri I can take you to area's of the Mark Twain NF that a couple of years ago were beautiful hardwood forest and now they look like someone has used them for practice bombing missions. Acres and acres of what once were old grown up fields full of native summer grasses weeds are now used as cow pasture full of fescue.
Predators need to be kept in check for sure. I don't know how much of a roll predators other than man play in healthy adult turkey population. Nests and poults are targeted by many predators. I think nesting and brood cover along with a diverse year round food supply is key to a healthy turkey population in any area.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
NWTF, Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever I am not a deer hunter but I would assume any deer hunting organization all preach on habitat improvement. Must be something to it IMHO.
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 16, 2019, 09:27:42 AM
Quote from: eggshell on June 16, 2019, 07:29:42 AM
I have wondered if introducing some new genetic stock would help after many years. Geneticist will tell you that there is enough diversity within the gene pool, but I wonder if new birds might spark some hardiness in the reproductive stock.
Totally agree,...not only from the standpoint of genetic diversification and "hybrid vigor", but also just from the standpoint that the more birds that are there, the greater the potential for recovery from down cycles in populations. Again, it all comes back around to restoring the aggressive "trap and transplant" attitudes that used to exist and now seem to have faded.
There are plenty of places around the country where turkey depredation issues still exist,...that is, farmers and folks, in general, complaining about too many turkeys. There is a simple solution for lack of turkeys in some places versus the overabundance of turkeys in others. It just takes money to implement that solution.
Therein lies the problem. You want to see more turkeys where populations have declined. Then 1) pressure your wildlife management agencies to reinstitute "trap and transplant" and 2) "put your money where your mouth is",...that is, establish a funding base for doing that.
Of course, we have to overcome the mentality of "we will just let nature take its course, not intervene, and see what happens". Sure, we can take that approach,...but why? We know that "trap and transplant" works tremendously well for establishing wild turkey populations. Why is it that the same mentality cannot be applied to supplementing existing populations that are struggling?
Some argue against that based on the "carrying capacity" theory,...which is generally applied in circumstances regarding over-population of species due to over-protection or a lack of a sufficient mortality rate. The carrying-capacity theory just does not apply in many of the areas experiencing turkey declines. Those declines are being caused by a lack of sufficient "population recruitment",...that is, "nesting success",...over time.
Again, we have covered all the bases as to why recruitment is failing,...predators and climactic/environmental factors (spring flooding, fires, ag practices). Those factors are likely to continue over time.
So what is the obvious solution if we want more turkeys somewhere that their numbers are crashing and there is a continued lack of population recruitment in the form of poult survival? Put more adult birds in the population by getting back to that "trap 'em and transplant 'em" mentality,...and find a way to pay for it!
??? Shouldn't you try to first figure out what's wrong, what's holding them back before you just dump more birds out??? Seems like there is a place and time for restocking but not just because they are on the decline. At some point, it becomes put-n-take like trout streams in the east.
So whats wrong in your opinion Spurs Up?
Some time ago. The 70's and early 80's I have seen stocking turkey programs work very well.
The places were picked by the Missouri conservation department? Some areas were thought by some to be less than ideal.
The birds did well in the top areas along with not so great areas. Now birds are declining in all these areas.
You would imagine that those responsible would have chosen the best habitat before stocking the birds?
You would also imagine that they would not stock or re-stock turkeys in areas loaded with predators, turkey eaters or nest robbers?
What if genetic diversity is the problem? It's a pretty simple task to try Trap and transplant....I done it for years, I know. I also know as state that insisted they could manage their native stock for years and finally broke down and moved in some new birds and bingo the stocks exploded.
Quote from: eggshell on June 16, 2019, 11:43:49 AM
What if genetic diversity is the problem? It's a pretty simple task to try Trap and transplant....I done it for years, I know. I also know as state that insisted they could manage their native stock for years and finally broke down and moved in some new birds and bingo the stocks exploded.
I can see that. But...what if genetic diversity (whatever that looks like) is not the problem? Isn't there as much or more risk in diluting the gene pool with birds that are not adapted to or well suited for the particular area? Seems like that could be counter-productive. Basically make matters worse if any interbreeding took place.
Quote from: owlhoot on June 16, 2019, 11:41:56 AM
So whats wrong in your opinion Spurs Up?
Some time ago. The 70's and early 80's I have seen stocking turkey programs work very well.
The places were picked by the Missouri conservation department? Some areas were thought by some to be less than ideal.
The birds did well in the top areas along with not so great areas. Now birds are declining in all these areas.
You would imagine that those responsible would have chosen the best habitat before stocking the birds?
You would also imagine that they would not stock or re-stock turkeys in areas loaded with predators, turkey eaters or nest robbers?
Guess I'm not following you. I'm sorry. Did Missouri put turkeys in areas that already had turkeys in any significant number?
Everything I've ever heard restocking works where there is suitable habitat and no or too few birds to repopulate the area through breeding. No argument from me. But to put turkeys on top of turkeys because they are declining strikes me as government waste. Seems like money and efforts could be better spent elsewhere. At least until they can get a handle on what's going on.
Quote from: Spurs Up on June 16, 2019, 10:59:59 AM
??? Shouldn't you try to first figure out what's wrong, what's holding them back before you just dump more birds out??? Seems like there is a place and time for restocking but not just because they are on the decline. At some point, it becomes put-n-take like trout streams in the east.
We know what is wrong already. We are not getting enough population recruitment due to nesting failure/poult survival because of the factors already mentioned. The entire trap and transplant program across the country was, in essence, a "put and take" program. We "put" turkeys in places they had either never existed or had been extirpated,...and we have been "taking" them ever since.
Habitat can surely be an issue in turkey populations. However, if we have learned one thing about wild turkeys from the T&T programs, it is that wild turkeys are very adaptable,...and have an extraordinary ability, as adults, to avoid predation. They survive in places that wildlife managers had no idea they could survive. Not only that, but they thrive in those places. Based on that alone, I personally do not believe habitat is the limiting factor in most, if not all, population declines.
If we, as turkey hunters and conservationists, want more turkeys somewhere, it ultimately comes down to accepting the fact that we have to act on that desire,...and then deciding what is the best and most acceptable way to achieve it. We talk about predator control, but the fact is that societal acceptance of killing one species to increase other species has changed over the last half century. Trapping, and the fur trade, has fallen into disfavor,...and is unlikely to return.
On the other hand, Increasing a species numbers by adding to the existing population is much less distasteful to a lot of folks. Telling people that you are going to "fix" a problem by adding live animals is much more acceptable to them than telling them you are going to kill a bunch of critters so that you can increase another critter's numbers. Add to that the idea that we are trying to increase the one species at least in part because we want more of them to hunt just adds another layer of debate that we don't really want or need.
So, at the end of the day, looking at all the circumstances involved, I believe the solution to our dilemma is to accept that the "put and take" mentality might be the most satisfactory,...as well as the most productive,...answer to our problem in a number of ways. Increasing genetic diversity by introducing more birds is a proven population invigorator. Having more adult birds in a population logically increases the likelihood of some of those adult birds successfully nesting and raising young. ...And the presence of more turkeys increases hunter satisfaction,...if that hunting is done in a controlled and scientific manner.
It's a "win" all the way around. It is just a matter of convincing those that need to be convinced that it is the best way to go,...and then figuring out how to pay for it...
Quote from: Spurs Up on June 16, 2019, 01:43:03 PM
I can see that. But...what if genetic diversity (whatever that looks like) is not the problem? Isn't there as much or more risk in diluting the gene pool with birds that are not adapted to or well suited for the particular area? Seems like that could be counter-productive. Basically make matters worse if any interbreeding took place.
That is a great question. ...And the answer is that, from past research and restoration efforts, those concerns have been insignificant when compared to the realized benefits. The benefits have been shown to far outweigh the possible negative impacts. Increasing genetic diversity in populations and the concept of "hybrid vigor" have been demonstrated to be very positive elements in restoring populations of numerous species, including wild turkeys.
If the concern is about genetic dilution of subspecies through the introduction of other subspecies,...well, that cat's been out of the bag for quite a while now. However, there is no reason why geographically isolated populations of the same subspecies cannot be introduced to each other to achieve the desired positive benefits.
GN, I'll yield to you and others more knowledgeable than I. Got a question... If they are dying faster than they are reproducing (is that what you mean by recruitment?), why won't that happen to the ones they transplant? If that's the case, the population would increase only by the amount transplanted and would continue the same rate of decline. That's just like put and take trout. Can't imagine that on any sizeable scale with turkeys. Seems like a fool's bet.
Quote from: Spurs Up on June 16, 2019, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 16, 2019, 11:41:56 AM
So whats wrong in your opinion Spurs Up?
Some time ago. The 70's and early 80's I have seen stocking turkey programs work very well.
The places were picked by the Missouri conservation department? Some areas were thought by some to be less than ideal.
The birds did well in the top areas along with not so great areas. Now birds are declining in all these areas.
You would imagine that those responsible would have chosen the best habitat before stocking the birds?
You would also imagine that they would not stock or re-stock turkeys in areas loaded with predators, turkey eaters or nest robbers?
Guess I'm not following you. I'm sorry. Did Missouri put turkeys in areas that already had turkeys in any significant number?
Everything I've ever heard restocking works where there is suitable habitat and no or too few birds to repopulate the area through breeding. No argument from me. But to put turkeys on top of turkeys because they are declining strikes me as government waste. Seems like money and efforts could be better spent elsewhere. At least until they can get a handle on what's going on.
Just asking what you thought was wrong?
I don't know if it's really turkey on top of turkey?
I know areas now that were once populated but now to see or hear one is next to impossible.
Some others 1 or 2 bird where there used to be 10-12.
Don't know if turkey were stocked were there was already quite a few though. Shot some in the early 80's that were tagged. Was told they were released close to that area.
As mentioned East Texas is currently stocking birds from Missouri and other states to an area with very low populations low enough they have closed the season in several counties. The area once had a decent population. In a few years we will have an answer of how we'll transplants work. My money says there will be a population boom just like the first transplants in the 70s and 80s time will tell.
As far as the "put and take" I have never heard of any state hunting the birds right after release, there was at least a few years before hunting would be allowed and most of the transplants would be dead by then of natural mortality. Otherwise you'd may as well hunt a preserve like they do with quail. I know in La it was 5 years after the release before hunting was allowed on some land a friend leased for deer in the early 1990's.
Quote from: Spurs Up on June 16, 2019, 02:19:40 PM
GN, I'll yield to you and others more knowledgeable than I. Got a question... If they are dying faster than they are reproducing (is that what you mean by recruitment?), why won't that happen to the ones they transplant? If that's the case, the population would increase only by the amount transplanted and would continue the same rate of decline. That's just like put and take trout. Can't imagine that on any sizeable scale with turkeys. Seems like a fool's bet.
Again Spurs Up, great comment. Yes, basically populations fall when there are not enough young that reach adulthood to offset the adults that are dying in the population. You are correct in stating that the transplanted birds might not solve that problem. However, it could be reasonable to assume that the more adults you have in a population, the more likely you are to have successful recruitment over time. That is what we have to hope for. If the recruitment problem is not temporary based on some set of circumstances that are going to correct themselves naturally over time, then the population will eventually disappear. We have to decide if we want to accept that fate,...or attempt to do something about it.
You are also correct in stating that it is comparable to "put and take" fish stocking,...to a degree. The history of the trap and transplant efforts to establish turkey populations across the country has demonstrated that turkey numbers can increase dramatically, and in a relatively short time frame, with the introduction of relatively small numbers of birds. In addition, there are plenty of places around the country where turkeys are abundant and could be taken for reintroductions or supplementation of struggling populations.
Supplementing populations may, or may not, stave-off the disappearance of our turkey populations in certain places. It would certainly lessen the speed of that,...and might give us time to figure out a way to solve the problems. It is also possible that the introduction of new turkeys might, in itself, solve the problem for reasons already mentioned. The ultimate question boils down to,..."Is it a bad thing to try to find out"? Personally, I think it is a good,...and proven,...idea.
Recruitment is the adding of new individuals to maintain or even add to current level, in essence it is survival of new poults into the adult population. Just like the army recruits to maintain levels of personnel to replace outgoing personnel. In time of need/war they recruit more than maintenance levels to compensate for higher than expected losses. if needed this is done by drafting personnel....taking from within the population at will instead of by volunteers.
I agree problems need to be identified and addressed when present. With that said, the highest danger is transporting disease not putting birds where they won't adapt. We've proved they will adapt. Research any animal husbandry industry and you'll find that they monitor genetic diversity very closely. Gobblenut is right new stocks when brought in often bring a vigor with them. Normally there is not a problem if you started with a diverse population, but I think what happened with many of the trap and transplant programs a bulk of all birds were taken from a few individual sites and thus was built off a very small genetic pool. Perhaps sometimes all within one family group. I think to introduce vigor, agencies will need to go to other geographic regions for stock. Hens and poults should be targeted for moving. If one new hen is successful and rears 1 hen to adulthood the next year there are two and then 4 and 8 and 16, at that point the original hen is probably dead, but still the gain is only minus one in the fifth year. Assuming 50/50 sex ratio that is also 16 gobblers in year 5. In that aspect supplemental stocking does add. Now you may need to move three hens to get that one successful breeder. In fisheries we often stocked to add success to endangered stocks, not just put and take.
One point that I concede is carrying capacity is indeed a factor and we need to ask ourselves; are the stocks really in danger? Have we had multiple years of failed recruitment due to weather or some natural cause. Has that cause passed. If it has been gross loss of habitat then dumping more birds won't fix it. Is food lacking (typically not the case with today's agriculture). However, feeding will prop up populations, but I am not a fan of it.
Some of us are just spoiled. We got used to the explosion level and now that populations have leveled out we're not satisfied. Most states average around 5 birds per sq mile for the whole state, but we all think on the terms of 15-30 or more per sq mile in our hunting areas. I'm not sure what is a sustainable number, but on our farm I have kept a pretty close watch and it seems that we consistently hold around 20-30 per sq. mile. As I said before that is a tightly managed farm.
Her's an interesting article:
https://www.popsci.com/wild-turkey-decline/
Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR. I wonder if it's affecting turkeys. Here's what a range scientist friend pointed out to me and he's correct: Higher temps and dryer summers have resulted in chukars moving higher in elevation, even if it's only a few hundred feet, to spend more time there. Bunch grass, which provides cover and seeds for food, has died out by 50%. There used to be, only 15 years ago, noticeably more of it. These are subtle things that most people wouldn't notice and they happened very gradually. Based on what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some subtle change in habitat that is affecting turkeys in some parts of the country. I'm sure there are other factors, too, that have been mentioned here. Overall, I don't think shooting bearded hens is a major factor. How many bearded hens have you ever seen? I do think wounding gobblers by long range shooting has had a major effect. That's one of my pet peeves. Imagine telling hunters that, with a 3.5" magnum and the new loads, they can be effective at 75 yards! That's the gun and ammo manufacturers and salespeople saying that. Most guys can't tell the difference between 65 and 85 yards but it only takes 1 pellet in the right place to fatally wound a turkey, even if it lives for another month. When a pellet pulls part of a feather into a wound it can easily turn into gangrene a couple weeks later. I've shot chukars that had gangrene and wouldn't have lived much longer.
Quote from: idgobble on June 16, 2019, 05:03:57 PM
Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR. I wonder if it's affecting turkeys.
Of course it is,...but you don't want to mention the "CC word" around here.... Too many climate scientists on here that disagree with that assessment.... ;D :toothy12: :toothy9:
(....and I fully expect we will here from some of them shortly.... ;D )
As long as we have enough turkeys for the next 12 years.
Quote from: guesswho on June 17, 2019, 08:14:43 AM
As long as we have enough turkeys for the next 12 years.
:TooFunny: You're optimistic,...then again, you're a little bit younger and still have that youthful enthusiasm. Me,..I'm hoping to last a few less than that,...or at least until we're all medium rare... :toothy12: :angel9:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article224470505.html
They changed the Fall season a few years back and last year made it so NR can't buy permits on-line. Not a very good article.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: fallhnt on June 17, 2019, 01:18:24 PM
They changed the Fall season a few years back and last year made it so NR can't buy permits on-line. Not a very good article.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Didn't they go from 4 fall tags to just 1 a few years ago?
Dogs and 3.5 months season. Dogs while pheasant hunting?
What's all wrong in the article in your opinion?
A couple of things that haven't been mentioned, unless I missed it.
Season start dates and length should be analyzed and adjusted yearly, IMO.
This topic is taboo with a lot of hunters, when you start talking about pushing back start dates and shortening seasons.
Almost every podcast I listen to, that involves a turkey biologist and turkey populations, this comes up as a way to stabilize turkey numbers.(Along with a lot of the ideas mentioned already.)
Quote from: owlhoot on June 17, 2019, 01:57:27 PM
Quote from: fallhnt on June 17, 2019, 01:18:24 PM
They changed the Fall season a few years back and last year made it so NR can't buy permits on-line. Not a very good article.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Didn't they go from 4 fall tags to just 1 a few years ago?
Dogs and 3.5 months season. Dogs while pheasant hunting?
What's all wrong in the article in your opinion?
They made the Fall season change a couple years ago. They make it sound like Fall is the problem. Fall turkey dogs. An eastern tradition.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Chordeiles on June 17, 2019, 03:24:42 PM
A couple of things that haven't been mentioned, unless I missed it.
Season start dates and length should be analyzed and adjusted yearly, IMO.
This topic is taboo with a lot of hunters, when you start talking about pushing back start dates and shortening seasons.
Almost every podcast I listen to, that involves a turkey biologist and turkey populations, this comes up as a way to stabilize turkey numbers.(Along with a lot of the ideas mentioned already.)
My view on shortening season is that there is no actual data to back up those claims. The only time that it has ever been proven to work was when populations were almost nonexistent. I honestly think that most states (like My home of AR) have done this as more of a "feel good". What happened in Arkansas was several years of bad luck IMO. May/June flooding going on 5 years now, exploding hog population, social media and all the bad that comes with that, and EXTREMELY bad timber management by private timber companies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a few toms have been harvested before they got to mate a hen, but I have serious doubts that very many hens weren't sitting on eggs by the beginning of June.
Quote from: Spurs on June 17, 2019, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: Chordeiles on June 17, 2019, 03:24:42 PM
A couple of things that haven't been mentioned, unless I missed it.
Season start dates and length should be analyzed and adjusted yearly, IMO.
This topic is taboo with a lot of hunters, when you start talking about pushing back start dates and shortening seasons.
Almost every podcast I listen to, that involves a turkey biologist and turkey populations, this comes up as a way to stabilize turkey numbers.(Along with a lot of the ideas mentioned already.)
My view on shortening season is that there is no actual data to back up those claims. The only time that it has ever been proven to work was when populations were almost nonexistent. I honestly think that most states (like My home of AR) have done this as more of a "feel good". What happened in Arkansas was several years of bad luck IMO. May/June flooding going on 5 years now, exploding hog population, social media and all the bad that comes with that, and EXTREMELY bad timber management by private timber companies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a few toms have been harvested before they got to mate a hen, but I have serious doubts that very many hens weren't sitting on eggs by the beginning of June.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if this plan had ever been implemented by a state or not. It sounds like AR gave it a shot and it really didn't help. Sounds like y'all have had a slew of problems for sure.
In VA we're only allowed to hunt until noon for the first 3 weeks of a 5 week season. I was always told that it was to curb hen disturbance during the laying period. Didn't know that idiots were actually shooting them! Here's something I found while doing some surfing.
Q: Why is spring gobbler hunting limited to noon during portions of the gobbler season?
A: During Department research to determine survival rates of wild turkey hens, it was discovered that at least 6% of the hen population is poached during the early part of the spring gobbler season. The rate could be as high as 9% if birds with transmitters that disappeared under suspicious circumstances are included. We believe accidental kills of hens primarily occur early in the season when hens are with gobblers. The risk that a hen will be shot drops sharply when they begin incubating a nest. The peak of onset of incubation is normally the first week of May. By delaying all-day hunting until most of the hens are incubating nests, we reduce potential additional incidental or intentional kill that would likely occur with all-day hunting early in the season.
Edit:I'm not saying I think every state needs go with a half day plan. I just found it interesting.....and surprising.
IL stops at 1. Noon stop time is tradition. Has no scientific basis. Mushroom hunters are in the woods all day posting pics of turkey eggs. Lots of hens get shot when near gobblers in the Spring.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Chordeiles on June 18, 2019, 02:47:24 AM
Quote from: Spurs on June 17, 2019, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: Chordeiles on June 17, 2019, 03:24:42 PM
A couple of things that haven't been mentioned, unless I missed it.
Season start dates and length should be analyzed and adjusted yearly, IMO.
This topic is taboo with a lot of hunters, when you start talking about pushing back start dates and shortening seasons.
Almost every podcast I listen to, that involves a turkey biologist and turkey populations, this comes up as a way to stabilize turkey numbers.(Along with a lot of the ideas mentioned already.)
My view on shortening season is that there is no actual data to back up those claims. The only time that it has ever been proven to work was when populations were almost nonexistent. I honestly think that most states (like My home of AR) have done this as more of a "feel good". What happened in Arkansas was several years of bad luck IMO. May/June flooding going on 5 years now, exploding hog population, social media and all the bad that comes with that, and EXTREMELY bad timber management by private timber companies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a few toms have been harvested before they got to mate a hen, but I have serious doubts that very many hens weren't sitting on eggs by the beginning of June.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if this plan had ever been implemented by a state or not. It sounds like AR gave it a shot and it really didn't help. Sounds like y'all have had a slew of problems for sure.
In VA we're only allowed to hunt until noon for the first 3 weeks of a 5 week season. I was always told that it was to curb hen disturbance during the laying period. Didn't know that idiots were actually shooting them! Here's something I found while doing some surfing.
Q: Why is spring gobbler hunting limited to noon during portions of the gobbler season?
A: During Department research to determine survival rates of wild turkey hens, it was discovered that at least 6% of the hen population is poached during the early part of the spring gobbler season. The rate could be as high as 9% if birds with transmitters that disappeared under suspicious circumstances are included. We believe accidental kills of hens primarily occur early in the season when hens are with gobblers. The risk that a hen will be shot drops sharply when they begin incubating a nest. The peak of onset of incubation is normally the first week of May. By delaying all-day hunting until most of the hens are incubating nests, we reduce potential additional incidental or intentional kill that would likely occur with all-day hunting early in the season.
Edit:I'm not saying I think every state needs go with a half day plan. I just found it interesting.....and surprising.
I would actually be more understanding of a mid day stoppage than a later season. It seems that the states that don't allow afternoon hunting have better opportunities for roosting, better morning gobbling, and just generally better hunting experiences.
Quote from: fallhnt on June 18, 2019, 07:52:00 AM
IL stops at 1. Noon stop time is tradition. Has no scientific basis. Mushroom hunters are in the woods all day posting pics of turkey eggs. Lots of hens get shot when near gobblers in the Spring.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
While that is true in regards to mushroom hunters, removing some amount of disturbance should help in theory. As I stated previously, I am more understanding of a mid day stoppage than a late start. Seems to me that a later season would give more opportunity to run into hens.
Of course this is all just theory, my main concern is removing hours from turkey hunters. That is what has happened in AR. Our season has been reduced to near nothing, our population is declining at a rapid rate, and our G&F has no extended plan to abate these issues. Too many knee jerk reactions IMO.
Speaking of that half-day hunting theory, the research is valuable and I applaud wildlife managers for making the effort and obtaining information that might be of value. However, the real question comes down to whether or not half-day hunting has appreciable benefits,...i.e. has the noon closure demonstrated a reduction in hen mortality to a degree that it is of any significant value in terms of its positive benefits to struggling turkey populations?
In the case of the Virginia policy, the question becomes whether or not managers have followed up on their initial research to determine what impact the noon closure has had on the resource? Did they continue their research and come up with data that actually shows real benefits to turkey survival? ....Or did they just arbitrarily conclude that since a few hens were being shot that the solution was just to penalize hunters?
Did those researchers somehow obtain data that shows that significant numbers of hen deaths occurs from hunters shooting them while hunting in the afternoon? Perhaps they have done the follow up and have data to support the noon closure. If so, I would like to hear about it. My gut reaction based on my own personal hunting experience is to call B.S on that entire premise. I would bet my good leg that the vast majority of hens are shot in the morning when the also-vast majority of hunters are in the woods.
The point made about other recreational users being in the woods is right on target. Has there been research done to determine what impact human disturbance in all forms has on hen nesting and the corresponding affects in terms of nest success/failure? If not,...why not? ....And if such research showed that mushroom hunters,...as well as the myriad other recreational users,...were more of a problem that hunters, would those folks also be banned from doing "their thing" in the woods after noon?
The point of this diatribe is that wildlife managers need to look at the "big picture" rather than getting into the mind-set that because hunters are the ones "pulling the trigger" then they must be the culprit in terms of struggling turkey populations. Admittedly, that might be the case in certain, isolated situations/circumstances,...but it is not the case in the large majority of instances. ...And even if hunting might be the problem, choosing noon closures as the solution would be way down the list of choices to be made,...in my opinion.
Now, before I get accused on contradicting my position stated in other posts, let me be clear that hunters need to understand that arbitrarily shooting hens because they were "in the way" of their gobbler,...or because they happen to have grown a beard,...is not a good idea. In the long run, it may not have any significant impact on the resource, but it is best just not to take that chance. The more hens that are in the woods, the more eggs that are laid,...which might hatch into little turkeys,...which might grow to be big turkeys,...of which some might be big gobblers!
I have been fortunate to hunt turkey a lot! Guided hundreds of hunts and have taken many friends to hunt as well as many kids and first timers.
In all of that hunting I have never seen a hen get shot that was in the vicinity of the target bird, never even saw another gobbler get it, one friend killed 2 with one shot that had no idea the other bird was in the way so I think this is a non factor in my experience.
Poor hatches due to weather and nest predators are the largest factors and good nesting habitat.
Where I have hunted Michigan the last few years has some of the nastiest cut over thickets anywhere and the bird numbers are fantastic
Some properties I hunt in west central Il. have a bush honeysuckle issue, those woods have no ground cover and birds likely can not even fly up to roost in that junk!
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 18, 2019, 09:01:47 AM
Speaking of that half-day hunting theory, the research is valuable and I applaud wildlife managers for making the effort and obtaining information that might be of value. However, the real question comes down to whether or not half-day hunting has appreciable benefits,...i.e. has the noon closure demonstrated a reduction in hen mortality to a degree that it is of any significant value in terms of its positive benefits to struggling turkey populations?
In the case of the Virginia policy, the question becomes whether or not managers have followed up on their initial research to determine what impact the noon closure has had on the resource? Did they continue their research and come up with data that actually shows real benefits to turkey survival? ....Or did they just arbitrarily conclude that since a few hens were being shot that the solution was just to penalize hunters?
Did those researchers somehow obtain data that shows that significant numbers of hen deaths occurs from hunters shooting them while hunting in the afternoon? Perhaps they have done the follow up and have data to support the noon closure. If so, I would like to hear about it. My gut reaction based on my own personal hunting experience is to call B.S on that entire premise. I would bet my good leg that the vast majority of hens are shot in the morning when the also-vast majority of hunters are in the woods.
The point made about other recreational users being in the woods is right on target. Has there been research done to determine what impact human disturbance in all forms has on hen nesting and the corresponding affects in terms of nest success/failure? If not,...why not? ....And if such research showed that mushroom hunters,...as well as the myriad other recreational users,...were more of a problem that hunters, would those folks also be banned from doing "their thing" in the woods after noon?
The point of this diatribe is that wildlife managers need to look at the "big picture" rather than getting into the mind-set that because hunters are the ones "pulling the trigger" then they must be the culprit in terms of struggling turkey populations. Admittedly, that might be the case in certain, isolated situations/circumstances,...but it is not the case in the large majority of instances. ...And even if hunting might be the problem, choosing noon closures as the solution would be way down the list of choices to be made,...in my opinion.
Now, before I get accused on contradicting my position stated in other posts, let me be clear that hunters need to understand that arbitrarily shooting hens because they were "in the way" of their gobbler,...or because they happen to have grown a beard,...is not a good idea. In the long run, it may not have any significant impact on the resource, but it is best just not to take that chance. The more hens that are in the woods, the more eggs that are laid,...which might hatch into little turkeys,...which might grow to be big turkeys,...of which some might be big gobblers!
I think you may have the original meaning behind mid day stoppage. The original intent was to allow turkey to "do their thing" in the afternoons with as little intrusion as possible. Now I'm not sure the "statistical" time at which most turkey do their breeding, but most turkey hunters would choose to hunt mornings more than afternoons. That is the reason for half days. To give turkey time to settle, breed, then roost relatively unmolested.
Now of course, there are hikers, mushroom pickers, turkey scouting, etc. But in the grand scheme, I am willing to bet that there is a massive decrease in human intervention when afternoon hunting is closed.
I have hunted several states with all kinds of opposing regulations. It seems that the state with afternoon closures typically have better afternoon gobbling, more roost gobbling, and just generally better hunting experiences (i.e. workable toms in late season).
Also, everything is relative. Those attributes mentioned were in states with heavy turkey populations. But in WI (which is how this post started) those late season birds are tough after being chased 4-5 weeks straight. I had my fair share of luck, but I am willing to bet that if those first 2-3 weeks were morning only, they would have a tremendous changing in the downswing they are currently in.
I'd say, instead of splitting the first 2-3 weeks up into quotas, make it a 14-21 day "First Season" with half days. Then do the typical "Season B, C, D, etc".
Then after two-three seasons, as GobbleNut stated, RECORD AND PRESENT STATISTICAL DATA TO THE PUBLIC. That
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 18, 2019, 09:01:47 AM
The point
Now, before I get accused on contradicting my position stated in other posts, let me be clear that hunters need to understand that arbitrarily shooting hens because they were "in the way" of their gobbler,...or because they happen to have grown a beard,...is not a good idea. In the long run, it may not have any significant impact on the resource, but it is best just not to take that chance. The more hens that are in the woods, the more eggs that are laid,...which might hatch into little turkeys,...which might grow to be big turkeys,...of which some might be big gobblers!
Yep and amen
Quote from: Spurs on June 18, 2019, 10:23:52 AM
PRESENT STATISTICAL DATA TO THE PUBLIC.
Absolutely,...where that is possible/feasible. But above all, don't resort to "knee-jerk" management decisions that have no basis in verifiable fact. In addition, if you are going to make management decisions to try to solve a problem, start with the things that matter the most and then go downhill from there if those don't work.
Folks have been citing personal experience within their states. Here's mine from New Mexico:
NM started its spring gobbler hunting season back around 1965. Little was known about the impacts of spring seasons other than having the fundamental biological basis of "turkeys are polygamous so most gobblers are surplus and can be harvested". After roughly 15 years of short one-bird-limit seasons that resulted in the conclusion that "hey, we can do this without impacting the resource,...and it's really a lot of fun",...we started lobbying for more liberal seasons in terms of length and limit.
However, we had also determined one fundamental premise as a key: Don't start the spring hunt until after the turkeys have had ample time to breed to insure as close to complete hen fertility as we can. That premise was a bit hard to sell because folks that wanted to turkey hunt started hearing gobblers gobbling a month or more before the season started and wanted to get out there and hunt them then. Those of us with wildlife backgrounds and with keen interests in turkeys basically just said,..."no, we are not going to start hunting them until we feel certain they have had a chance to breed." On the other hand, it was also concluded that there was no reason not to add a bit of time on the back end of the season to accommodate the desire of hunters to have more time afield.
In addition, we started talking about allowing more than a single gobbler in the spring season,...we wanted to increase the limit to two birds to allow for more hunting opportunity for those hunters who might get lucky and kill a gobbler early in the season. That really met with strong opposition from the state's wildlife folks. Biological justification be damned,..."we only allow hunters to kill one of a big game species a year, and by God, that's what we are supposed to do with turkeys!"
Now, at the same time they had that mentality, they were also allowing rifle hunters to mow down turkeys in the fall as a consolation prize for deer hunters. Any turkey that moved was fair game,...and yet, our turkey populations were more or less holding steady even with that onslaught. The very same wildlife managers that were telling us we could not have a two-bird spring limit for surplus gobblers because it would impact the resource too much were telling us that it was okay to declare war on turkeys in the fall by hunters that were not even really hunting turkeys!
Because of that "kill 'em all in the fall" mentality, we did have a few places in our state where turkeys were struggling. Some of us argued,..."How can you justify the indiscriminate killing of turkeys in the fall in those places and yet turn around and tell us we can't shoot additional gobblers in the spring?" They had no good answer except for "that's just how we do it here".
It took us another fifteen years to slowly change the mind-set of those folks. We finally convinced them to stop steam-rolling turkeys in the fall,...and that allowing an additional bird in the spring was biologically sound. Here, years later, we have reasonable fall and spring hunting, our turkey populations have been stable or improving for a long time, and turkey hunters are happy all the way around.
It is amazing what a little management based on science and open-mindedness (by all parties) can accomplish.... ;D
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 17, 2019, 08:03:02 AM
Quote from: idgobble on June 16, 2019, 05:03:57 PM
Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR. I wonder if it's affecting turkeys.
Of course it is,...but you don't want to mention the "CC word" around here.... Too many climate scientists on here that disagree with that assessment.... ;D :toothy12: :toothy9:
(....and I fully expect we will here from some of them shortly.... ;D )
Here's one "Climate Change " expert that missed his prediction lol.
If winter kill is a problem (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190618/f211bdc9289b273fdc0d360c6e222a43.jpg)in states like Michigan and Wisconsin then wouldn't global warming be beneficial, that is "IF" it was real lol. Anybody else notice the same NASA that has done all these CC predictions are the same NASA that predicted Global cooling in the 1970's. They also said the Mississippi River was drying up?? Hard to tell with all the flooding going on. Weather cycles and is not under our control so we have to work on the problems we can control. Habitat,predators and hunting mortality
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am a hard sell on the limiting hunting time. I don't have a problem only hunting a half day, but I also enjoy hunting a full day. Here in Ohio we traditionally had only half day hunting until the last few years the last two weeks allowed full day hunting. Afternoon hunting has never really took off locally. What makes me wonder just how much value this strategy has is one simple observance. I started hunting turkeys in 1971 and they were pretty restricted to certain state forest areas and by today's standards were not high density nor widespread. The few birds we had got a lot of hunting pressure by today's standards. The small areas that had birds drew attention from hunters as far away as a 3 hr drive. Those birds flourished and multiplied like crazy and expanded their territory exponentially. Now it was only half day hunting, but I saw the same thing happen in other states that had all day hunting. I personally think it is a minor issue in considering what is causing the decline. I think it's far more complicated than that. If those early populations could withstand the onslaught they had every spring, why can't today's birds? Several post back Gobblenut brought up recruitment. If we are getting recruitment in the zero gain or plus range then our flocks should not be declining. So we need to determine why we had plus (X1-9) for many years and now are negative values. I seriously doubt changing hunting times will stop a decline. Ohio's turkey population is estimated at 200,000. With the fall harvest (because that is the only time hens are legally killed) being around 1200-1500 annually and approximately 50% of that being female. That is 3.75% of the total population taken by hunters. Populations I'm guessing run more female than male due to gobbler harvest (~19,000 gobblers per year the last 5 years). Studies have shown gobblers suffer approx. a 10-15% mortality to hunting annually. If you factor that it brings you to ~5.3% of the breeding hen population. I doubt that incidental spring kills would add another .25% to that. To be in decline you have to have recruitment levels at zero gain or less or less than 1.5 surviving poults per hen in the spring, allowing for hunting. If you take the approx. 750 hens killed in the fall in Ohio then apply a 1.5/hen poult count you are adding 1,125 new recruits @ 50/50 hen to Males. That is assuming every one of those hens successfully produced 1.5 poults, which we know they would not. A good guess is 2/3rds will raise broods. Those would all be net gain birds. The numbers I heard thrown around most was 2.0 plus poults per hen survival as a target for sustaining 0 gain population. IN Ohio we have seen a sustained levels above that, Mark Wiley (ODNR Turkey Biologist) stated in an article:
The 20 year poult-per-hen (pph) average is 2.9 — or an average of nearly three poults seen with each hen. In previous years, the state has seen an average of as many as 3 pph, and the highest was 5.9 following the brood V cicada emergence in 1999. "https://www.gameandfishmag.com/editorial/2018-ohio-turkey-hunting-outlook/191377
So in Ohio with a harvest that is around 20% of the total population annually we are left with ~160,000 turkeys as a breeding population. If only 50% of that is hens then we have ~ 80,000 hens. Those surviving hens only need to produce 40,000 poults to replace the harvest or .5 per hen. We all know that natural mortality takes many of those adults birds, so I'm guessing that balances out to the 2/hen. At 2.9/ hen average we have a growing and harvestable surplus. I have read that Arkansas has been 1.2 for several years as a comparison. They are loosing their birds somewhere other than hunters. It could be predators or anything.
If declines are serious then hunting restrictions would be a valid response, but I can tell you that I am pretty confident in saying that even if all hunting stopped on a declining population that the decline would continue. in today's world of regulated hunting species are not being hunted into extinction or even decline. The issue lies elsewhere. Modern hunting is managed to harvest surplus only. I do not have the answer beyond that. I know in my area the population has declined from what it once was but has been very stable for the last 10+ years. I think some of the concern is only in the minds of hunters who wrongly assumed the population explosion max production would last forever.
Here are the numbers I used:
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/hunting/2018%20Fall%20Turkey%20Report.pdf
Quote from: Bay1985 on June 18, 2019, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 17, 2019, 08:03:02 AM
Quote from: idgobble on June 16, 2019, 05:03:57 PM
Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR. I wonder if it's affecting turkeys.
Of course it is,...but you don't want to mention the "CC word" around here.... Too many climate scientists on here that disagree with that assessment.... ;D :toothy12: :toothy9:
(....and I fully expect we will here from some of them shortly.... ;D )
If winter kill is a problem in states like Michigan and Wisconsin then wouldn't global warming be beneficial, that is "IF" it was real lol. Anybody else notice the same NASA that has done all these CC predictions are the same NASA that predicted Global cooling in the 1970's. They also said the Mississippi River was drying up?? Hard to tell with all the flooding going on. Weather cycles and is not under our control so we have to work on the problems we can control. Habitat,predators and hunting mortality
Frankly, I am a bit surprised it took so long.... ::) :z-dizzy: ;D
Hint: If 99% of the world experts on a subject agree on something,...you might want to listen to them,...especially when the future of your kids and their kids,...and their kids (ad infinitum) is at stake... ...your choice... ;D :icon_thumright:
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 18, 2019, 12:49:48 PM
Quote from: Bay1985 on June 18, 2019, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 17, 2019, 08:03:02 AM
Quote from: idgobble on June 16, 2019, 05:03:57 PM
Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR. I wonder if it's affecting turkeys.
Of course it is,...but you don't want to mention the "CC word" around here.... Too many climate scientists on here that disagree with that assessment.... ;D :toothy12: :toothy9:
(....and I fully expect we will here from some of them shortly.... ;D )
If winter kill is a problem in states like Michigan and Wisconsin then wouldn't global warming be beneficial, that is "IF" it was real lol. Anybody else notice the same NASA that has done all these CC predictions are the same NASA that predicted Global cooling in the 1970's. They also said the Mississippi River was drying up?? Hard to tell with all the flooding going on. Weather cycles and is not under our control so we have to work on the problems we can control. Habitat,predators and hunting mortality
Frankly, I am a bit surprised it took so long.... ::) :z-dizzy: ;D
Hint: If 99% of the world experts on a subject agree on something,...you might want to listen to them,...especially when the future of your kids and their kids,...and their kids (ad infinitum) is at stake... ...your choice... ;D :icon_thumright:
I debated rather to post anything about your first CC remark. I knew full well you would not answer any question posted but continue to repost the same thing over and over. You might want to look at your numbers again it's not 99% of scientists and if it was a fact it be 100% it is a theory not a fact. I've never seen a response to the NASA contradiction or the Al Gore idiot predictions. They keep missing there supposed deadlines for the apocalypse and keep pushing it down the line and the followers either don't see it or don't want to believe it.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190618/46e277fc7df8bd4a15aa160c95fdfb7a.jpg)
Well, we have twelve years to figure it out, actually a little less now.
In the midwest, Iowa has had all day hunting as long as I can remember. Noon stopping time was so the nest wont be disturbed. That isn't very scientific. I hunt in NE and KS too. All the states I hunt have all day hunting,except two,Fall hunting and good habitat. Fall isn't a real threat to turkeys in the midwest, as the Whitetail rules. Sounds like states with major issues have horrible forest management.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Dang I am posting on the wrong forum.....I thought this was about wild Turkeys, not just turkeys! Now where is that discussion on wild turkey hunting :help:
Some really good stuff in this thread. I used to read as much as I could about turkey biology. I have mentioned factors previously that I believe have helped in our decline. I stand by them because it's what I have observed. Hogs, poaching, lack of law enforcement and improper timber management along with terrible weather have to be contributing factors.
Are there other factors we are not considering? I'm not a biologist and just don't read as much as I did when I was younger. I do wonder what other factors have yet to be discovered. I get the whole recruitment process to stabilize or increase numbers. I'm sure if just one of the factors I mentioned were corrected, it would not produce an immediate increase in our birds. Weather would probably make the biggest impact but it's out of our control.
I sometimes think there's some unknown factor we have yet to figure out. I'll just throw this observation out here. In my hunting area Canada's have been on the increase and thick. While they may not share the majority of habitat it will overlap. Used to be rare to see many resident Canada's around in a pasture around here. Now instead of turkeys it's only Canada's. Don't misunderstand me and think I'm blaming geese. It's just an easy observation and something different than I used to see. For someone like me to notice something like that makes me wonder what changes in our environment and management practices have changed that may not be so easy to see.
First off: Forget my comments on climate change. I'm sorry I replied to the initial comment on it. The fact is that whether someone believes in it or not, there is little that can be done by a small group of turkey hunters that will ever make a difference. Again, my apologies for ruffling feathers.
There are, however, things that we can do that might help offset some of the factors that are limiting our turkey populations, both individually and collectively. Banding together to put pressure on wildlife agencies and that organization that is supposed to be representing us,...the one with four letters starting with N and ending in WTF,... and getting them to do something would be a really good start.
Sorry gobblenut the "N" train went off the rails into the abyss a long time ago.... :TrainWreck1:
Quote from: Bay1985 on June 18, 2019, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 17, 2019, 08:03:02 AM
Quote from: idgobble on June 16, 2019, 05:03:57 PM
Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR. I wonder if it's affecting turkeys.
Of course it is,...but you don't want to mention the "CC word" around here.... Too many climate scientists on here that disagree with that assessment.... ;D :toothy12: :toothy9:
(....and I fully expect we will here from some of them shortly.... ;D )
Here's one "Climate Change " expert that missed his prediction lol.
If winter kill is a problem (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190618/f211bdc9289b273fdc0d360c6e222a43.jpg)in states like Michigan and Wisconsin then wouldn't global warming be beneficial, that is "IF" it was real lol. Anybody else notice the same NASA that has done all these CC predictions are the same NASA that predicted Global cooling in the 1970's. They also said the Mississippi River was drying up?? Hard to tell with all the flooding going on. Weather cycles and is not under our control so we have to work on the problems we can control. Habitat,predators and hunting mortality
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Amen !
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 18, 2019, 03:45:48 PM
First off: Forget my comments on climate change. I'm sorry I replied to the initial comment on it. The fact is that whether someone believes in it or not, there is little that can be done by a small group of turkey hunters that will ever make a difference. Again, my apologies for ruffling feathers.
There are, however, things that we can do that might help offset some of the factors that are limiting our turkey populations, both individually and collectively. Banding together to put pressure on wildlife agencies and that organization that is supposed to be representing us,...the one with four letters starting with N and ending in WTF,... and getting them to do something would be a really good start.
NWTF....Save the Habitat Save the Hunt.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: eggshell on June 18, 2019, 12:45:15 PM
I am a hard sell on the limiting hunting time. I don't have a problem only hunting a half day, but I also enjoy hunting a full day. Here in Ohio we traditionally had only half day hunting until the last few years the last two weeks allowed full day hunting. Afternoon hunting has never really took off locally. What makes me wonder just how much value this strategy has is one simple observance. I started hunting turkeys in 1971 and they were pretty restricted to certain state forest areas and by today's standards were not high density nor widespread. The few birds we had got a lot of hunting pressure by today's standards. The small areas that had birds drew attention from hunters as far away as a 3 hr drive. Those birds flourished and multiplied like crazy and expanded their territory exponentially. Now it was only half day hunting, but I saw the same thing happen in other states that had all day hunting. I personally think it is a minor issue in considering what is causing the decline. I think it's far more complicated than that. If those early populations could withstand the onslaught they had every spring, why can't today's birds? Several post back Gobblenut brought up recruitment. If we are getting recruitment in the zero gain or plus range then our flocks should not be declining. So we need to determine why we had plus (X1-9) for many years and now are negative values. I seriously doubt changing hunting times will stop a decline. Ohio's turkey population is estimated at 200,000. With the fall harvest (because that is the only time hens are legally killed) being around 1200-1500 annually and approximately 50% of that being female. That is 3.75% of the total population taken by hunters. Populations I'm guessing run more female than male due to gobbler harvest (~19,000 gobblers per year the last 5 years). Studies have shown gobblers suffer approx. a 10-15% mortality to hunting annually. If you factor that it brings you to ~5.3% of the breeding hen population. I doubt that incidental spring kills would add another .25% to that. To be in decline you have to have recruitment levels at zero gain or less or less than 1.5 surviving poults per hen in the spring, allowing for hunting. If you take the approx. 750 hens killed in the fall in Ohio then apply a 1.5/hen poult count you are adding 1,125 new recruits @ 50/50 hen to Males. That is assuming every one of those hens successfully produced 1.5 poults, which we know they would not. A good guess is 2/3rds will raise broods. Those would all be net gain birds. The numbers I heard thrown around most was 2.0 plus poults per hen survival as a target for sustaining 0 gain population. IN Ohio we have seen a sustained levels above that, Mark Wiley (ODNR Turkey Biologist) stated in an article:
The 20 year poult-per-hen (pph) average is 2.9 — or an average of nearly three poults seen with each hen. In previous years, the state has seen an average of as many as 3 pph, and the highest was 5.9 following the brood V cicada emergence in 1999. "https://www.gameandfishmag.com/editorial/2018-ohio-turkey-hunting-outlook/191377
So in Ohio with a harvest that is around 20% of the total population annually we are left with ~160,000 turkeys as a breeding population. If only 50% of that is hens then we have ~ 80,000 hens. Those surviving hens only need to produce 40,000 poults to replace the harvest or .5 per hen. We all know that natural mortality takes many of those adults birds, so I'm guessing that balances out to the 2/hen. At 2.9/ hen average we have a growing and harvestable surplus. I have read that Arkansas has been 1.2 for several years as a comparison. They are loosing their birds somewhere other than hunters. It could be predators or anything.
If declines are serious then hunting restrictions would be a valid response, but I can tell you that I am pretty confident in saying that even if all hunting stopped on a declining population that the decline would continue. in today's world of regulated hunting species are not being hunted into extinction or even decline. The issue lies elsewhere. Modern hunting is managed to harvest surplus only. I do not have the answer beyond that. I know in my area the population has declined from what it once was but has been very stable for the last 10+ years. I think some of the concern is only in the minds of hunters who wrongly assumed the population explosion max production would last forever.
Here are the numbers I used:
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/hunting/2018%20Fall%20Turkey%20Report.pdf
One thing that keeps me on the half day hunting is actually not the flock production as much as it is the "enjoyment" factor. In my experience, it seems that state with a half day rule have more vocal birds...not that they are easier to kill, but at least you feel like you are in the game.
Quote from: Spurs on June 20, 2019, 08:16:52 AM
One thing that keeps me on the half day hunting is actually not the flock production as much as it is the "enjoyment" factor. In my experience, it seems that state with a half day rule have more vocal birds...not that they are easier to kill, but at least you feel like you are in the game.
Spurs, your preference is one thing,...and that is a personal reason for liking a regulation,...and it is fine. However, that is an "aesthetic" reason for preferring something,...not a reason based in biological foundation. I have no problem with a majority of hunters somewhere deciding they want to have a certain regulation
that is biologically sound,...whatever it might be. What I have a problem with is wildlife managers grasping at straws in making regulations without some data-based, biological justification for making those regulations. And I especially have problems with those regulations when it appears that wildlife managers are not making an effort to address the more obvious limiting factors.
You see above that I highlighted "biologically sound". An example of hunters wanting something that they should not have is the desire to start hunting too early in the spring. Too many hunters have the tendency to think that, just because gobblers have started gobbling, it is time to start hunting them. Wildlife managers should not succumb to that kind of public pressure. Again, regulations should be biologically-based first and foremost.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having "aesthetically-based" regulations either. They just should not be confused with,...or prioritized over,... sound, biologically-based regulations.
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 20, 2019, 08:44:57 AM
Quote from: Spurs on June 20, 2019, 08:16:52 AM
One thing that keeps me on the half day hunting is actually not the flock production as much as it is the "enjoyment" factor. In my experience, it seems that state with a half day rule have more vocal birds...not that they are easier to kill, but at least you feel like you are in the game.
Spurs, your preference is one thing,...and that is a personal reason for liking a regulation,...and it is fine. However, that is an "aesthetic" reason for preferring something,...not a reason based in biological foundation. I have no problem with a majority of hunters somewhere deciding they want to have a certain regulation that is biologically sound,...whatever it might be. What I have a problem with is wildlife managers grasping at straws in making regulations without some data-based, biological justification for making those regulations. And I especially have problems with those regulations when it appears that wildlife managers are not making an effort to address the more obvious limiting factors.
You see above that I highlighted "biologically sound". An example of hunters wanting something that they should not have is the desire to start hunting too early in the spring. Too many hunters have the tendency to think that, just because gobblers have started gobbling, it is time to start hunting them. Wildlife managers should not succumb to that kind of public pressure. Again, regulations should be biologically-based first and foremost.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having "aesthetically-based" regulations either. They just should not be confused with,...or prioritized over,... sound, biologically-based regulations.
I'll have to disagree to that point. The mission of government intervention was to not only to promote and enhance natural resources, but to also to give people access to it for enjoyment.
If "biologically sound" was 100% of all regulations, then there wouldn't be allowances that we currently have. Biologically sound regulations would be to hunt turkey in the fall when no breeding takes place and poults have matured, deer hunting would be restricted to only a short period before the rut, and no fishing would be allowed during spawning season if that were true.
The reason that hunting is allowed during those crucial periods of an animal/fish's life is for the enjoyment factor. Buck chasing does, turkey gobbling, etc.
Quote from: Spurs on June 21, 2019, 08:42:59 AM
I'll have to disagree to that point. The mission of government intervention was to not only to promote and enhance natural resources, but to also to give people access to it for enjoyment.
If "biologically sound" was 100% of all regulations, then there wouldn't be allowances that we currently have. Biologically sound regulations would be to hunt turkey in the fall when no breeding takes place and poults have matured, deer hunting would be restricted to only a short period before the rut, and no fishing would be allowed during spawning season if that were true.
The reason that hunting is allowed during those crucial periods of an animal/fish's life is for the enjoyment factor. Buck chasing does, turkey gobbling, etc.
Good rebuttal,...but only partially true.
Part of the "mission of government" (which comes in the form of wildlife managers hired to oversee biologically-sound wildlife management) is to provide recreational opportunity for human beings to enjoy and utilize our wildlife resources. While I agree that there are times when wildlife managers succumb to public pressure and institute regulations that are not based on the "best available science" (i.e. too early starts to spring hunting in some states), generally speaking there are few regulations put in place that are not based on that science to begin with. In other words, we establish "baselines" that are based on sound biology first, and then tailor hunting regulations around that.
Using your example of spring gobbler hunting, again the reasoning surrounding it is based on the "science" that because
turkeys do not "pair up" (like quail, for instance) and a few gobblers are all that are needed to insure breeding of hens, we can remove many of the gobblers from a turkey population without impacting the overall reproductive potential of the resource.
Your statement that we hunt them in the spring because of the "enjoyment factor" is completely true. I can assure you, however, that if wildlife managers determined that spring hunting was not "biologically sound" in terms of its impact on turkey populations, we would not have a spring gobbler season. Again, biological soundness is the first consideration.
You also bring up other species and hunting regulations related to them. You cite hunting deer (whitetails) during the rut. The reason that occurs is because wildlife managers have determined that hunting whitetails in the rut has little or no impact on the resource. On the other hand, many of the mule deer states have stopped hunting deer during the rut. That is because it has been determined that hunting mule deer during the rut is not a good idea based on the "best available science" which shows that mule deer populations are impacted by doing that. I could give you many other examples demonstrating the same philosophy regarding other species.
The bottom line is that, to "Average Joe Hunter" it may appear that hunting regulations are set up strictly or primarily based on the "human enjoyment factor", I can assure you that is not the case in all but the rarest of circumstances. In addition, any wildlife manager that is worth the uniform he wears will not allow that enjoyment factor to come before sound biology. :icon_thumright:
Thank you Gobblenut, from all former and current wildlife/fisheries workers and managers. Having spent over 30 years working for a wildlife agency in a supervisory and yes policy making position I can shed some light. I am retired, but I still keep connections to my former agency and fellow conservationist. Gobblenut has explained it very well. I assure you that Natural Resource personnel as a whole are dedicated to the resource first and foremost. Yes aesthetics and consumer participation are considered in laws, but I have never seen a policy or law that would endanger a species existence just for the sake of hunting or fishing. Outdoorsmen and women are a unique cog in resource management in that they are the primary funders of all wildlife and fisheries management. So engaging them and yes providing maximum enjoyment in their sport carries a big stick, but never at the cost of a species. If it makes sound biological sense and it is wanted by the sportsmen/women then it will be considered as part of the science. One of my greatest frustrations in my career is that some people thought that we as mangers never cared about the outdoorspersons. We were not and are not villains looking to steal away any opportunity. Almost everyone I ever new in the field had a heart for both the wildlife, environment and those who enjoy it. We done our jobs because we believed in what we done and that is was of upmost value to all. Workers in the field often made 30-50% less than their position counter-parts in the private sector. I have been called derogatory names like , lazy, stupid, political parasite and things that would make your mother weep, but I loved my job and know that I done what was right first for the resource and then those who enjoy it. We often had to make laws that were not popular and some that were, but they were almost always based on science. The one thing I know we all hated was when politics got involved. Yes there were times stupid laws were set not based on science, but when the man who's name is on your paycheck says so you do it or move on. This didn't happen often, but it did happen. None of us liked it, but if we lost our job we couldn't do everything else. Sometimes this was a result of well meaning people going to politicians to put pressure on wildlife managers, when they did not have the scientific knowledge. I nor any of my superiors never turned down an inquiry from a group of outdoors enthusiast. We'd set down and share our knowledge and reasoning. Some would listen and some wouldn't, often we ran into people who just wanted their way....be damned of the science, but this was rare.
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 21, 2019, 09:59:38 AM
Quote from: Spurs on June 21, 2019, 08:42:59 AM
I'll have to disagree to that point. The mission of government intervention was to not only to promote and enhance natural resources, but to also to give people access to it for enjoyment.
If "biologically sound" was 100% of all regulations, then there wouldn't be allowances that we currently have. Biologically sound regulations would be to hunt turkey in the fall when no breeding takes place and poults have matured, deer hunting would be restricted to only a short period before the rut, and no fishing would be allowed during spawning season if that were true.
The reason that hunting is allowed during those crucial periods of an animal/fish's life is for the enjoyment factor. Buck chasing does, turkey gobbling, etc.
Good rebuttal,...but only partially true. Part of the "mission of government" (which comes in the form of wildlife managers hired to oversee biologically-sound wildlife management) is to provide recreational opportunity for human beings to enjoy and utilize our wildlife resources. While I agree that there are times when wildlife managers succumb to public pressure and institute regulations that are not based on the "best available science" (i.e. too early starts to spring hunting in some states), generally speaking there are few regulations put in place that are not based on that science to begin with. In other words, we establish "baselines" that are based on sound biology first, and then tailor hunting regulations around that.
Using your example of spring gobbler hunting, again the reasoning surrounding it is based on the "science" that because
turkeys do not "pair up" (like quail, for instance) and a few gobblers are all that are needed to insure breeding of hens, we can remove many of the gobblers from a turkey population without impacting the overall reproductive potential of the resource.
Your statement that we hunt them in the spring because of the "enjoyment factor" is completely true. I can assure you, however, that if wildlife managers determined that spring hunting was not "biologically sound" in terms of its impact on turkey populations, we would not have a spring gobbler season. Again, biological soundness is the first consideration.
You also bring up other species and hunting regulations related to them. You cite hunting deer (whitetails) during the rut. The reason that occurs is because wildlife managers have determined that hunting whitetails in the rut has little or no impact on the resource. On the other hand, many of the mule deer states have stopped hunting deer during the rut. That is because it has been determined that hunting mule deer during the rut is not a good idea based on the "best available science" which shows that mule deer populations are impacted by doing that. I could give you many other examples demonstrating the same philosophy regarding other species.
The bottom line is that, to "Average Joe Hunter" it may appear that hunting regulations are set up strictly or primarily based on the "human enjoyment factor", I can assure you that is not the case in all but the rarest of circumstances. In addition, any wildlife manager that is worth the uniform he wears will not allow that enjoyment factor to come before sound biology. :icon_thumright:
Totally agree with most of that, but I want to clarify that the "enjoyment" factor is only taken as a small portion along with biological data and available habitat. You are totally correct with the enjoyment being the later, but it weighs heavily due to the political arrangements (as eggshell stated). Also, going a little bit deeper into this worm hole ;D the enjoyment factor is surrounded by hunter success (i.e. available resources developed by best wildlife management practices).
In other words, if there ain't no game, ain't nobody having fun. :TooFunny:
Back to my original point though, having half days...
in general...not only allows for early breeding to take place with less stress on the turkey, but also seems to make for a more enjoyable hunting experience. Now all of that is from personal experience hunting 12 different states with changing time periods. It just seems that gobbling activity has a huge upswing in those areas left alone during the afternoon periods.
I would like to see some in depth research done on it though. I know there are some areas in AL, MS, and AR that have areas that are restricted to morning hunting only. It would be very interesting to see that data.
Quote from: Spurs on June 21, 2019, 11:15:07 AM
Back to my original point though, having half days...in general...not only allows for early breeding to take place with less stress on the turkey, but also seems to make for a more enjoyable hunting experience. Now all of that is from personal experience hunting 12 different states with changing time periods. It just seems that gobbling activity has a huge upswing in those areas left alone during the afternoon periods.
I would like to see some in depth research done on it though. I know there are some areas in AL, MS, and AR that have areas that are restricted to morning hunting only. It would be very interesting to see that data.
Again, great discussion going on here about all of this stuff!
I have no problem with half-day hunting. At the same time, as one who also hunts in other states, one of the factors I look at when exploring where to go is whether a state has all-day or half-day hunting. All other things being equal, I will choose the state with all-day hunting first.
On the other hand, if the hunting (for whatever reason) is significantly better in the half-day state, I can be persuaded to give up the afternoon hunting. As such, if studies/research were to show that half-day hunting did indeed benefit turkey populations,...and also had the added benefit of improving the aesthetics (gobbling, more available opportunity, etc.),...I would jump all over it as a general regulation across the country.
I am a "show me the money" type guy. If a state implements a regulation such as half-day hunting, I want them to demonstrate to me that it actually makes a difference rather than just being an impediment to hunter opportunity and "enjoyment". Furthermore, as I have stated before, if it appears that wildlife managers somewhere are just "grasping at straws" in implementing regulations that have no real basis in biology, I tend to be skeptical of their expertise.
That is rare, but I have been involved in debates over management decisions that were clearly questionable and not supported by science (i.e. as you say, "political decisions"),...and yet, the willdlife managers stood steadfastly behind those decisions as if they were based on science. That kind of stuff I just cannot abide.
I saw it way too many times Gobblenut....someone that did not think it through and then would not back up and admit it was wrong. I even seen administrators push stuff through in spite of what research said, they just wanted to exercise their self absorbed egos. For the most part this did not happen, but in every government organization it happens. Generally these people fit into one of two categories: they were very early and young in their careers or they were unqualified people installed by politicians. The younger generation can be catalyst to great new work or super frustration. I'll give an example: through my career I made a name and reputation for myself on the national stage for a certain species (yes I can back it up) and the techniques I developed tripled the available stock in our state. After I and a couple other biologist that worked with me retired they hired new young people shortly out of college into a couple key positions. I soon learned they had changed the entire working mngt. plan and was initiating research as to how to enhance stocks. I looked at the proposals and instantly told people that we had answered those questions 20 years ago. They didn't listen to the old goat and proceeded with their great new idea. I couldn't believe it, I told them what would happen and in their tagging project they killed 2500 fish the first year because they tried their "bright idea". Maybe that is why I get all riled up when the young studs start spouting off about how much smarter and better they are. I will say again this is not the norm.
As far as setting regulations go... One major key player is not being mentioned in this thread. Politics. Many state's wildlife laws are controlled by commissions, often appointed (not elected) officials who may or may not have a background in wildlife. In many states, these commissions are ultimately the ones who set the regulations. Sometimes these commissions go by the recommendation of their state biologists...Sometimes they don't! For a recent example, refer to South Carolina's new turkey regulations. Info at the following link:
https://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/op-ed/article231262603.html
The agency wanted a statewide April season opener, didn't get it. In SC, it appears the legislature sets the wildlife laws rather than a commission.
Believe it or not, most wildlife managers and biologists want/believe many of the same things as the people in this thread. But getting those regulations passed is far from easy.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on June 22, 2019, 01:16:14 PM
As far as setting regulations go... One major key player is not being mentioned in this thread. Politics. Many state's wildlife laws are controlled by commissions, often appointed (not elected) officials who may or may not have a background in wildlife. In many states, these commissions are ultimately the ones who set the regulations. Sometimes these commissions go by the recommendation of their state biologists...Sometimes they don't! For a recent example, refer to South Carolina's new turkey regulations. Info at the following link:
https://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/op-ed/article231262603.html
The agency wanted a statewide April season opener, didn't get it. In SC, it appears the legislature sets the wildlife laws rather than a commission.
Believe it or not, most wildlife managers and biologists want/believe many of the same things as the people in this thread. But getting those regulations passed is far from easy.
You don't want to get me (and I'm sure a lot of others here) started on the role of politics in undermining good wildlife management decisions. Here in NM, we have battled poor decision-making by our Game Commissions on a yearly basis for decades. I could write a book on that subject.
I agree that most of the "rank and file" wildlife folks would change the Game Commission system in a heartbeat if given the chance,...but they know where their "bread is buttered" and, as such, either tow the line with teeth gritted or go find another job. As supposedly "advanced" as the North American system of wildlife management is, it is truly unfortunate that we cannot set up the governing bodies to be free of political pressure.
All I can tell you is that most of the state agencies do good work and for the most part are left to their science based management. Yes the legislatures get final say, but my experience is in most states they do what wildlife experts propose. I worked with a lot of states and had talked with most people in the mid west and east. We all knew who the states were that were driven by politics and no one wanted to work there....no I'm not naming them. I venture to say it's not as bad as many think. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that Gobblenut. N.M. is one state that I never saw at the conferences I attended nor did I ever deal with them. Mostly because they were in a different Geographic region. The one place politicians stuck their nose most was in the money, if state wildlife had any they tried to take it or they would veto any kind of License fees. It's not unusual for state Wildlife Agency to go 10,15 or 20 years with no funding increase from License increases. Now you may think that's good, but those fees pay for research like dwindling Turkey flocks and their cost of doing business goes up to.
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 22, 2019, 02:20:22 PMYou don't want to get me (and I'm sure a lot of others here) started on the role of politics in undermining good wildlife management decisions. Here in NM, we have battled poor decision-making by our Game Commissions on a yearly basis for decades. I could write a book on that subject.
I agree that most of the "rank and file" wildlife folks would change the Game Commission system in a heartbeat if given the chance,...but they know where their "bread is buttered" and, as such, either tow the line with teeth gritted or go find another job.
You should try living in FLA. FWC is always overpolitical, underfunded, and they make their decisions based on what is best for tourism - aka fishing guides and hotels. They put precious little resources into hunting. That's why most of the biologists leave for better jobs. They wonder why most Floridians hunt out of state, and FLA WMA hunting is a zoo. ::)
Quote from: GobbleNut on June 22, 2019, 09:06:26 AM
Quote from: Spurs on June 21, 2019, 11:15:07 AM
Back to my original point though, having half days...in general...not only allows for early breeding to take place with less stress on the turkey, but also seems to make for a more enjoyable hunting experience. Now all of that is from personal experience hunting 12 different states with changing time periods. It just seems that gobbling activity has a huge upswing in those areas left alone during the afternoon periods.
I would like to see some in depth research done on it though. I know there are some areas in AL, MS, and AR that have areas that are restricted to morning hunting only. It would be very interesting to see that data.
Again, great discussion going on here about all of this stuff!
I have no problem with half-day hunting. At the same time, as one who also hunts in other states, one of the factors I look at when exploring where to go is whether a state has all-day or half-day hunting. All other things being equal, I will choose the state with all-day hunting first.
On the other hand, if the hunting (for whatever reason) is significantly better in the half-day state, I can be persuaded to give up the afternoon hunting. As such, if studies/research were to show that half-day hunting did indeed benefit turkey populations,...and also had the added benefit of improving the aesthetics (gobbling, more available opportunity, etc.),...I would jump all over it as a general regulation across the country.
I am a "show me the money" type guy. If a state implements a regulation such as half-day hunting, I want them to demonstrate to me that it actually makes a difference rather than just being an impediment to hunter opportunity and "enjoyment". Furthermore, as I have stated before, if it appears that wildlife managers somewhere are just "grasping at straws" in implementing regulations that have no real basis in biology, I tend to be skeptical of their expertise.
That is rare, but I have been involved in debates over management decisions that were clearly questionable and not supported by science (i.e. as you say, "political decisions"),...and yet, the willdlife managers stood steadfastly behind those decisions as if they were based on science. That kind of stuff I just cannot abide.
You actually just described why I love going to half day states. Most people will shy away from states/public areas due to that restriction. I am totally on your side regarding research too. Just about every state with Easterns has at least a couple of public areas where afternoons are restricted. If the data doesn't back it up, then I would be "against" also...I just don't think it would be.
In my area of Louisiana, Turkey season my whole life started the third Saturday in March. The reason I remember is because my parents anniversary was March 23 and my Daddy was Gone!!! Within the last few years they moved the season forward to the first weekend of April. I was HOT!!! Call NWTF Chapter President and A state biologist. Both stated the season was moved due to allow hen's to be bred, as most gobblers were being killed the first two weeks of the March season. If gobblers were getting killed early then hens not getting bred. I was satisfied with their answers.
Have a good one
Ray
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Quote from: runngun on June 24, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
In my area of Louisiana, Turkey season my whole life started the third Saturday in March. The reason I remember is because my parents anniversary was March 23 and my Daddy was Gone!!! Within the last few years they moved the season forward to the first weekend of April. I was HOT!!! Call NWTF Chapter President and A state biologist. Both stated the season was moved due to allow hen's to be bred, as most gobblers were being killed the first two weeks of the March season. If gobblers were getting killed early then hens not getting bred. I was satisfied with their answers.
Have a good one
Ray
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I think the issue most of us have with this is that there is no statistical data to prove those claims. I am on the fence to be honest. If there were case studies that proved that hens would be more likely to hatch a brood when left alone in late March vs. a hen that is bread in say lat May, then I'm 100% on board...but there is no data to back that up.
Quote from: Spurs on June 25, 2019, 06:48:20 AM
Quote from: runngun on June 24, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
In my area of Louisiana, Turkey season my whole life started the third Saturday in March. The reason I remember is because my parents anniversary was March 23 and my Daddy was Gone!!! Within the last few years they moved the season forward to the first weekend of April. I was HOT!!! Call NWTF Chapter President and A state biologist. Both stated the season was moved due to allow hen's to be bred, as most gobblers were being killed the first two weeks of the March season. If gobblers were getting killed early then hens not getting bred. I was satisfied with their answers.
Have a good one
Ray
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I think the issue most of us have with this is that there is no statistical data to prove those claims. I am on the fence to be honest. If there were case studies that proved that hens would be more likely to hatch a brood when left alone in late March vs. a hen that is bread in say lat May, then I'm 100% on board...but there is no data to back that up.
Another good point, Spurs. I'm not sure if many, if any, state has done research on affects of starting dates of spring hunting on turkey populations. As one who has been espousing supporting management decisions based on research and data, it is hard for me to argue that point with you.
However,....there are some management decisions that are based on intuitive reasoning more-so than research. The concept of allowing turkeys to breed before hunting them is one of those. The fact is that gobblers exhibit breeding behavior for quite a long period in the spring. Gobblers that can be killed in March at the peak of breeding can be killed in April and May just as easily,...after there is a reasonable assurance that they have had adequate time to breed.
So, from a manager's standpoint, why take the chance that hunting too early might actually impact turkey populations? Again, intuitively it is just common sense to make the decision,....in struggling populations,...to just start the season a little later. If the length of the season is an issue, just add some time on the back end. :icon_thumright:
I was told that studies were done for the 3 previous years. Based on hunters reporting harvest information.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Quote from: Spurs on June 25, 2019, 06:48:20 AM
Quote from: runngun on June 24, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
In my area of Louisiana, Turkey season my whole life started the third Saturday in March. The reason I remember is because my parents anniversary was March 23 and my Daddy was Gone!!! Within the last few years they moved the season forward to the first weekend of April. I was HOT!!! Call NWTF Chapter President and A state biologist. Both stated the season was moved due to allow hen's to be bred, as most gobblers were being killed the first two weeks of the March season. If gobblers were getting killed early then hens not getting bred. I was satisfied with their answers.
Have a good one
Ray
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I think the issue most of us have with this is that there is no statistical data to prove those claims. I am on the fence to be honest. If there were case studies that proved that hens would be more likely to hatch a brood when left alone in late March vs. a hen that is bread in say lat May, then I'm 100% on board...but there is no data to back that up.
Louisiana has done several studies on the timing of the breeding season, they have the data on average start of nest dates etc. 90% of the harvest was taking place in the two or three weeks before average nest start dates. Doesn't take a lot of statistical evidence to know that's not a good plan. They moved the season into April which is 2-3 weeks from the mid March opening. It opened as early as March 15 in some years.
I will say moving the opening date was the absolute minimum thing that could be done minimum effort minimum cost ,but it is something. I know for a fact it has dropped the harvest numbers a lot. No more sitting in front of a Strutter decoy on a power line lol. By the time the season opens the pecking order has long since been sorted out and the dominant Gobblers have all the hens they need. Gobbling on the roost is noticeably less in April as well. For however many generations most La hunters were done by the first week of April and they don't know how to hunt them later in the season. If the opening date does nothing but remove most of the part timers it has been a success.
With most of the kills happening before the main breeding took place and what few Gobblers left spent all day dodging mouth breathers with crow calls, there's no doubt more hens will be bred now and more Gobblers will survive the season there no way that could be bad for turkey hunting. The fact that a lot of hunters are mad and giving up on La turkey hunting is just a plus, very few will read or ask about the reasons behind the move. Time will tell if it will make a noticeable difference in populations but it's already thinning the herd of "hunters". I have stopped killing 2 Gobblers a year I kill one then move on to other states.
What we really need is to bring in turkeys from other states to kickstart a population rebound but that takes money and effort two things that are hard to organize in La
Missouri as long as I can remember has started spring turkey season the closest Monday to the 16th of April. When I started we had a two week season with a two bird limit. The first week you were allowed 1 bird. If you didn't harvest a bird the first week you could harvest both birds the second week but not the same day. Before they moved daylight savings time it fell in the middle of season so the first week you could hunt until noon the second week you could hunt until 13:00.
Since then they have added a youth weekend. It's the first Saturday and Sunday of April and all day hunting is allowed. They also added a week onto the season. Still a two bird limit and only allow you to harvest one bird the first week. Season closes at 13:00 each day. Legal birds are adult Gobbler's, Jake's and bearded hen's.
I have been told that they figured most of the breading is generally done by mid April. The half day hunting is to limit disturbing the nesting hen's.
Our fall firearms season for the counties that it is open in is October 1-31. All day hunting is allowed with a limit of two bird's either sex and can be killed on the same day.
Archery is All day starting Sep. 15th- Nov.15th then Nov. 27th - Jan. 15th. Limit of two bird's either sex and allowed to be taken the same day.
2019 Spring reported harvest
Total 38,786
Gobbler's 30,407
Jake's 7,909
Bearded hen's 470
2018 Fall reported harvest
Total 4269
Adult Gobbler's 1044
Jake's 571
Adult hen's 1445
Juvenile hen's 1209
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Kansas is again proposing a closure of the fall season and
wanting to drop to 1 spring tag for several units.
Staff recommend removing the option of a Game Tag in Units 3, 5, and 6 for spring 2020 (April 1-May 31) and recommend suspending the fall turkey season in Units 3, 5, and 6 for 2020 (October 1, 2020-January 31, 2021).
Quote from: nativeks on August 07, 2019, 02:50:25 AM
Kansas is again proposing a closure of the fall season and
wanting to drop to 1 spring tag for several units.
Staff recommend removing the option of a Game Tag in Units 3, 5, and 6 for spring 2020 (April 1-May 31) and recommend suspending the fall turkey season in Units 3, 5, and 6 for 2020 (October 1, 2020-January 31, 2021).
Whoa! That's huge they are recommending one tag for Units 3,5, and 6. Link?
https://ksoutdoors.com/content/download/51556/521923/version/1/file/Briefing+Book+15August19.pdf
Quote from: nativeks on August 07, 2019, 11:27:15 AM
https://ksoutdoors.com/content/download/51556/521923/version/1/file/Briefing+Book+15August19.pdf
Results of meeting?
They had a meeting on the 15th. The biologist wants to reduce harvest. The head of commission wants to change how they manage.
https://ksoutdoors.com/KDWPT-Info/Commission/Current-LIVE-Commission-Meeting
Go to the 3rd video about 1 hr and 50 minutes in.
They had a workshop on the 19th. They have rural mail carriers observe both turkeys and reproduction. This year was the lowest reproduction ever recorded.
The problem is human beings. What they do and what they won't. It was a great ride, until it wasn't.
We can make this easy..It's those darn reapers. ;D