I have a tendency to write too much, so I'm going to attempt to keep this to the point.
For whatever reason, the winds of opinion seem to be shifting from environmental factors to the human factor as the major cause of a decline in turkey numbers.
I don't necessarily agree, but if that's true, how many of you think that reducing the bag limit to one bird and halving the season in your state would allow the overall population of birds to rebound?
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
We can only take two birds in NC. I'd have no problem with only one bird if it would help. I help others get there birds anyway. Don't agree with cutting season in half. With work and other obligations need what we have especially if going after only one bird I want the biggest bird I can get.
I live on Long Island NY and you guys can only imagine what kind of habit we have here. The worst habit in your area is probably better than our best yet our turkey population is exploding here. Just like most of Long Island I live in a very residential area what you would think is horrible for wild turkey yet they are becoming very abundant. I was literally just talking with some family friends and they can't stand them all over their yard and even roosting on their roof. Another coworker shows me videos of him chasing huge flocks away. I see them more and more all the time and hear about them way more often than just a few years ago. There are two things we do not have here. One is coyotes and the other is a spring season. We do have a very short youth season that very few take advantage of and a fall season where again most don't hunt. So I think a combo of over hunting and coyotes/predators are the biggest factors. And yes I think a one bird limit will help.
Not in my opinion. There is a smaller than 50 percentage of hunters who tag out. The majority are not affected by bag limits. Now some places like Wisconsin shot do something to curtail killing. I'm under the impression that Oklahoma does do the one bird per county thing right. It spreads out the kill.
We need to look at the overall difference between now and then. Herbicides like Remedy and 24-D weren't wildly used as today...thus broadleaf plants and better poult habitat. People used to burn a lot more.
While I agree that human factors are a major culprit in wild turkey population declines, hunting is not one of the significant human factors in most cases. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of factors associated with our burgeoning human population that most definitely are impacting turkeys.
Reducing bag limits and season lengths is only a temporary fix. Without altering those other, more significant factors, populations will surely continue to decline. That decline will be lessened over the short term by reducing the number of gobblers killed each spring, but without solutions to the real causes, turkey numbers will continue their downward trends in those places where humans have more drastically altered those factors that influence turkey population health and recruitment.
Having said that, there are places where turkeys are doing well, and bag limits and season lengths (if timed properly) are not presently an issue. Turkey hunting pressure will eventually gravitate towards those areas. It is imperative that the resource be adequately protected in all cases with wise management decisions related to hunting.
The era of treating turkeys like they are an unlimited resource with too-liberal bag limits and season structures will inevitably have to change under the conditions that exist now.
Where I hunt it does seem to be hunter related. I know of a few small private properties that are loaded with turkey largely cuz the owner only deer hunts. The public land elsewhere is like most parts of the country and has few turkeys left.
The deer hunters that own and hunt these parcels use huge amounts of corn, they dump it out by the truck load and there's a ton of racoons, their absolutely everywhere. Also they quit feeding the deer after deer season so the coons are without corn during turkey season. You would think they would decimate the eggs but they don't.
I think groups of turkeys are like quail coveys, if they get below a certain number they start to decline. Keep them above that number and they flourish.
It is obvious the best two things we can do for wildlife is habitat management and predator control/trapping. More restrictions is not the answer.
My mountainous area (1300 acres) in WV which is private ground has fewer turkeys now. The habitat has not changed all that much from the exploded population we had in the period 1970-1990s. What has really changed is the predator population. During the above time frame coon hunters kept coons and possums at an all-time low and coyotes were not here. Food and habitat are still here and logically what does that leave??
Quote from: GobbleNut on May 30, 2021, 10:04:14 AM
While I agree that human factors are a major culprit in wild turkey population declines, hunting is not one of the significant human factors in most cases. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of factors associated with our burgeoning human population that most definitely are impacting turkeys.
Reducing bag limits and season lengths is only a temporary fix. Without altering those other, more significant factors, populations will surely continue to decline. That decline will be lessened over the short term by reducing the number of gobblers killed each spring, but without solutions to the real causes, turkey numbers will continue their downward trends in those places where humans have more drastically altered those factors that influence turkey population health and recruitment.
Having said that, there are places where turkeys are doing well, and bag limits and season lengths (if timed properly) are not presently an issue. Turkey hunting pressure will eventually gravitate towards those areas. It is imperative that the resource be adequately protected in all cases with wise management decisions related to hunting.
The era of treating turkeys like they are an unlimited resource with too-liberal bag limits and season structures will inevitably have to change under the conditions that exist now.
Couldn't have put it in better words myself.
This current trend of substantially reducing opportunity through season and bag limit changes is simply a band-aid on something that requires major surgery.
I believe I can speak for my state, SC, as I've lived here my entire short life of 31 years. SC arguably has the most successful turkey management program in the history of the US. Turkeys were borderline extinct sometime last century... In the 50s/60s, SC was the first state to successfully trap wild turkeys and reintroduce them in major locations throughout the state, paving the road to recovery. 20 to 30 years ago, populations were through the roof. The bag limit was 5 birds, 2 per day. Season always started March 15. I can tell you 2 MAJOR things that have changed in our state that are again sending turkeys spiraling downward, which were not here two to three decades ago...
1. Coyotes. They are everywhere, and we have not come up with an efficient way to control them. The second, which is an even greater threat...
2. Urban Expansion. Every month, there is a new 1000 acre block of forest that is completely demolished, whether it be for neighborhoods, shopping plazas, and manufacturing plants. "Progress" keeps pushing further and further into what little forest remains, and turkeys aren't the only game suffering.
Hard to see us coming back from where we are now, unfortunately.
Louisiana has lowerd the bag limit years ago .and has been moving the opening dates back for several years . Doesn't look like it's hepled anything
Quote from: hotspur on May 30, 2021, 12:00:15 PM
Louisiana has lowerd the bag limit years ago .and has been moving the opening dates back for several years . Doesn't look like it's hepled anything
Add Arkansas to that list as well.
We are shifting towards more restrictions because they can be enacted with the stroke of a pen. Addressing predation, environmental changes, habitat, etc isnt easily done and costs a fortune. Unfortunately, I don't think these restrictions will be the golden bullet but I hope I'm wrong.
I'm already at a one bird limit locally. That makes sense here but not in Rio territory for much of Texas.
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on May 30, 2021, 11:51:35 AM
Quote from: GobbleNut on May 30, 2021, 10:04:14 AM
While I agree that human factors are a major culprit in wild turkey population declines, hunting is not one of the significant human factors in most cases. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of factors associated with our burgeoning human population that most definitely are impacting turkeys.
Reducing bag limits and season lengths is only a temporary fix. Without altering those other, more significant factors, populations will surely continue to decline. That decline will be lessened over the short term by reducing the number of gobblers killed each spring, but without solutions to the real causes, turkey numbers will continue their downward trends in those places where humans have more drastically altered those factors that influence turkey population health and recruitment.
Having said that, there are places where turkeys are doing well, and bag limits and season lengths (if timed properly) are not presently an issue. Turkey hunting pressure will eventually gravitate towards those areas. It is imperative that the resource be adequately protected in all cases with wise management decisions related to hunting.
The era of treating turkeys like they are an unlimited resource with too-liberal bag limits and season structures will inevitably have to change under the conditions that exist now.
Couldn't have put it in better words myself.
This current trend of substantially reducing opportunity through season and bag limit changes is simply a band-aid on something that requires major surgery.
it's easy to give into the shorten the bag limit idea when someone like myself quite often limits out in my home state . But the reality is most don't, the vast majority don't. It just wouldn't save that many birds in the end . And the birds I would have killed , will just be killed by someone else opportunity that's I simply took away from them by killing it first. So it wouldn't make that much of diff. However .... given the current state of affairs with the popularity of the sport, I would not oppose reducing the bag limit as the limit is the same as it was when the population was in a lot better shape than it is today. The only people it would hurt the feelings of is people like me .... and that's fine , because it wouldn't hurt my feelings . But would it solve the problem .... no it would not. I hunted on some federal land in another state this year , that only allowed 1 turkey to be harvested there on your license . So regardless of what the state limit was , you could only kill one on that property , which was very large .... like real big. I liked that . I met the biologist there and he was pleasure to talk to , they seemed to really have it going on there .
Missouri already has a short (3 week) season that tends to start later, and most hunters might take one bird if they are lucky, and alot of them don't even take 1. I don't think it would do much for us. Other factors at play in our declines.
New Jersey needs Major Changes! Turkeys are very Few in Northren New Jersey.
Bag Limit needs to be Reduced as well. There should be a 2 Gobbler Limit in New Jersey. 3 Max...
As it stands now it you take a Tom in your Zone- you can go right back and Buy another Turkey Permit if any remain for that Zone over the Counter.
Take a 2and Tom and look to repeat the Process for a 3ed day and perhaps a 3rd Gobbler.
If Permits are available over the counter in that particular Zone- you can just keep buying more Turkey Permits.
Up to 29 Turkey Permits can be bought in certain Zones!
That has to change Pronto!! 2 Gobblers Statewide and perhaps 3 Gobblers Max .
We must protect the Resourse-- The Wild Turkey.
Quote from: quavers59 on May 30, 2021, 11:53:57 PM
New Jersey needs Major Changes! Turkeys are very Few in Northren New Jersey.
Bag Limit needs to be Reduced as well. There should be a 2 Gobbler Limit in New Jersey. 3 Max...
As it stands now it you take a Tom in your Zone- you can go right back and Buy another Turkey Permit if any remain for that Zone over the Counter.
Take a 2and Tom and look to repeat the Process for a 3ed day and perhaps a 3rd Gobbler.
If Permits are available over the counter in that particular Zone- you can just keep buying more Turkey Permits.
Up to 29 Turkey Permits can be bought in certain Zones!
That has to change Pronto!! 2 Gobblers Statewide and perhaps 3 Gobblers Max .
We must protect the Resourse-- The Wild Turkey.
Wisconsin is run the same way. Ran into a fellar up there that was working on his 20th turkey tag and I was traveling out of state just looking for one. Late May, Wisconsin the last two seasons the public has appeared to have been beat to hell. That don't mean it can't be done, just doesn't make sense a local can kill 20 in a year to me, if they like killing turkeys that bad they should travel. Only thing is tags aren't cheaper anywhere for residents or nonresidents than in Wisconsin.
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
Hmmm, maybe time for Thanos
I hadn't heard of the buying multiple permits before. That's very different. Hard to imagine a turkey population doing well with individual hunters killing upwards of 20 gobblers each.
For me to say we have a lot of predators in my area really doesn't mean much since I don't know how many predators is "a lot" and I have no idea what the numbers are. I grew up where I turkey hunt so I can say with some confidence what we had and currently have so far as what we see and can hunt. Bears began making a comeback in the 80s when I was a teenager. I never saw a coyote in our area until I was about 20 and didn't see a wild turkey until I was almost 30. Our turkey population exploded at the same time our coyote and bear populations exploded. Not sure how much bears account for predation but I imagine a hungry bear that happens across a nest full of eggs will eat the eggs. We've always had bobcats and I already told the story about a fellow hunter that hunts the same property that I do having a bobcat attack his decoy this year.
One thing I think helps us is that for every piece of property hunted there are 2 or 3 adjacent properties not hunted that hold turkeys. These properties are owned by animal lovers, some land owners think the game belongs to them and if you're hunting you're taking they're property (odd), some properties are owned by large investment groups that don't allow hunting to individuals due to risk of litigation if an accident occurs on the property. Hunting clubs have insurance that protects the property owner but individuals don't carry that. Some property is owned by absentee landowners that are hard to contact to get permission to hunt. I ride by a group of turkeys everyday, every year on the way to and from work that are on property that no one hunts. I imagine some of that population bleeds off onto adjacent properties.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd like to add that trying to pin turkey population decline on any "one thing" that encompasses all of turkey hunting in the U.S. is faulty. I read several posts that have valid reasons or answers to declining turkey populations that may or may not be true for every situation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on May 31, 2021, 12:36:14 PM
I'd like to add that trying to pin turkey population decline on any "one thing" that encompasses all of turkey hunting in the U.S. is faulty. I read several posts that have valid reasons or answers to declining turkey populations that may or may not be true for every situation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you are correct on that there sir. I believe there are multiple factors but I do believe I have noticed the decline coinciding with the popularity of turkey hunting and the new methods of killing them. Predators have always existed and nature typically has regulated itself with high cycles and low cycles depending on the carrying capacity for that species. Habitat is another factor and I think we can all agree we haven't done a whole lot to help wildlife in that respect. Hopefully steps are made to correct that but in the meantime the most easily manipulated factor for some relief is on the hunting side of things. I know I try and do things a little differently nowadays and I also try to give something back. I would encourage everyone to do the same.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Quote from: budtripp on May 30, 2021, 07:11:49 PM
Missouri already has a short (3 week) season that tends to start later, and most hunters might take one bird if they are lucky, and alot of them don't even take 1. I don't think it would do much for us. Other factors at play in our declines.
Exactly.
Quote from: Yelper on May 30, 2021, 10:23:00 AM
It is obvious the best two things we can do for wildlife is habitat management and predator control/trapping. More restrictions is not the answer.
This is the answer.
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
I have to disagree bird population is low in my neck of the woods and a lot of hunter do not hunt them here anymore because you have to work and put your time in to tag. Then again I got to thinking are they really hunters if they cashed in their chips and quit because times are tough? Just a thought.
Quote from: quavers59 on May 30, 2021, 11:53:57 PM
New Jersey needs Major Changes! Turkeys are very Few in Northren New Jersey.
Bag Limit needs to be Reduced as well. There should be a 2 Gobbler Limit in New Jersey. 3 Max...
As it stands now it you take a Tom in your Zone- you can go right back and Buy another Turkey Permit if any remain for that Zone over the Counter.
Take a 2and Tom and look to repeat the Process for a 3ed day and perhaps a 3rd Gobbler.
If Permits are available over the counter in that particular Zone- you can just keep buying more Turkey Permits.
Up to 29 Turkey Permits can be bought in certain Zones!
That has to change Pronto!! 2 Gobblers Statewide and perhaps 3 Gobblers Max .
We must protect the Resourse-- The Wild Turkey.
maybe in some sections of the state ....other places , mainly suburban areas , are over run with turkeys..However even in some of these areas ,where there is no hunting , populations dwindle...I've watched turkey populations rise and fall thru the years in many eastern states...the only answer that could hold water in ALL areas and conditions is disease or a sickness.
Quote from: saltysenior on May 31, 2021, 07:59:03 PM
Quote from: quavers59 on May 30, 2021, 11:53:57 PM
New Jersey needs Major Changes! Turkeys are very Few in Northren New Jersey.
Bag Limit needs to be Reduced as well. There should be a 2 Gobbler Limit in New Jersey. 3 Max...
As it stands now it you take a Tom in your Zone- you can go right back and Buy another Turkey Permit if any remain for that Zone over the Counter.
Take a 2and Tom and look to repeat the Process for a 3ed day and perhaps a 3rd Gobbler.
If Permits are available over the counter in that particular Zone- you can just keep buying more Turkey Permits.
Up to 29 Turkey Permits can be bought in certain Zones!
That has to change Pronto!! 2 Gobblers Statewide and perhaps 3 Gobblers Max .
We must protect the Resourse-- The Wild Turkey.
maybe in some sections of the state ....other places , mainly suburban areas , are over run with turkeys..However even in some of these areas ,where there is no hunting , populations dwindle...I've watched turkey populations rise and fall thru the years in many eastern states...the only answer that could hold water in ALL areas and conditions is disease or a sickness.
Good point.
question, any nest raider -predators involved here ?
Quote from: eggshell on May 31, 2021, 06:50:31 AM
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
Hmmm, maybe time for Thanos
that's pretty much always been my argument, and it's a very unpopular one .
Quote from: dzsmith on May 31, 2021, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: eggshell on May 31, 2021, 06:50:31 AM
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
Hmmm, maybe time for Thanos
that's pretty much always been my argument, and it's a very unpopular one .
I concur. As far as I'm concerned we already have too many turkey hunters out there...particularly with the addition of the Covid hunters last and this year. Am I being selfish...perhaps. All I know is if I'm in a large area alone listening for that first gobble I'm happy...rather than position on him and hear four or five other guys already on him. Another thing which annoys me is all those guys on an ego trip to call in birds for family, friends, pseudo-friends and co-workers. I've taken family members myself...but not year after year. If you have to do that all they are is a turkey shooter and don't really want to be a turkey hunter. I read whereas guys are bragging on calling up quite a few turkeys for those pseudo-friends and co-workers. Deflate your ego. It's liable to benefit the resource. Perhaps JMO.
Hookedonspurs- I can't imagine 1 Turkey Hunter taking 20 Gobblers in a Spring Season. I am sure quite a few Turkey Hunters in New Jersey take a Bunch each Spring as well.
That will cut way down the number of Mature Gobblers you may hear out there.
I was reading through TN's turkey data the other day and it showed an AVG of 6.5 Poults per brood in the 1990s. Now it's below 3.5.
If you add in an extra 3 poults for every sitting hen, you're way above and beyond anything hunters are taking out of the population.
Some really quick numbers:
Roughly 150,000 hens, and say 40% of them have poults.
That's 180,000 extra poults.
TN hunters take about 30,000 each year.
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
simple, stop all out of state turkey hunting. residents only. reduce hunter numbers real quick. How'd that be.
Or better yet, allow non-resident hunters but mandate the hiring of a local guide or outfitter.
Quote from: owlhoot on June 01, 2021, 03:41:31 PM
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
simple, stop all out of state turkey hunting. residents only. reduce hunter numbers real quick. How'd that be.
I think that would suck like hell. I live in Virginia but do most of my hunting 20 minutes away in NC on my land, on family land, and on hunting club land that I pay dues to every year.
Hey, I heard Great Britain is looking for people who want to be regulated strictly in every aspect of their lives. You can always just move there instead of bringing stricter regs here?
Quote from: Loyalist84 on June 01, 2021, 04:08:01 PM
Or better yet, allow non-resident hunters but mandate the hiring of a local guide or outfitter.
I don't think much of this either for reason stated in my last post. NO WAY IN HELL am I gonna pay a guide to hunt land I know better than they do. Absolute nonsense.
Quote from: Loyalist84 on June 01, 2021, 04:08:01 PM
Or better yet, allow non-resident hunters but mandate the hiring of a local guide or outfitter.
Put the pipe down and keep dreaming. Sounds like you got run over by nonresidents on your local public this year, maybe you need a safe space to cry in since they killed all "your birds".
Quote from: Yelper on May 30, 2021, 10:23:00 AM
It is obvious the best two things we can do for wildlife is habitat management and predator control/trapping. More restrictions is not the answer.
I like this answer the best.
I'm from one of the hardest hit states in the south when it comes to early season hunting. I would like to see no blinds or decoys the first week or two of the season which Alabama is doing the no decoys. I think this will cut down on some birds being killed in the first week which will lead to more breeding.
Also, I would call myself a weekend warrior who only gets to hunt weekends and an occasional week day so I would like to see a limit to out of state tags/licenses for at least the first two weeks of the season. When I drive down a road on an early season morning, I may be the only Alabama tag for miles while everyone else is out of state. This would probably lead to less birds killed in the state and more birds for the future. I know that will tick a lot of out of state people off, but Alabama has to fix the turkey problem for their people before worrying about the out of state people wanting to hunt.
Before someone says, "well the state will lose too much money." I would happily pay 25-30 dollars for a tag if Alabama wanted to start something like that.
I have been following the harvest and Average Brood size in New Jersey for several years. The Average Brood Size has been less than 3 the past 4 years since 2016. There are several factors for this. Weather, predators, etc. The yearly harvest has been relatively consistent, between 2800 and 3000 birds. Our population has been running around 23,000 birds. Even during the COVID year, there were only around 100 bird more harvest than the year before. I found birds this year pre-season scouting and ended up with a fairly successful season. Gobbling activity was scarce, the birds were tough. The weather was colder than usual. It will be interesting to see how many birds are harvested this year. Most of my turkey hunting buddies had a tough time. I feel that the average brood size is a key factor on yearly harvests. The fact that they numbers have been under 3 the past 4 years is concerning. The factors causing this must be studied, and whatever corrective actions needed should be implemented. I am in favor of any and all actions needed to protect this great resource for us all to enjoy for generations to come....
Quote from: HookedonHooks on June 01, 2021, 04:52:15 PM
Quote from: Loyalist84 on June 01, 2021, 04:08:01 PM
Or better yet, allow non-resident hunters but mandate the hiring of a local guide or outfitter.
Put the pipe down and keep dreaming. Sounds like you got run over by nonresidents on your local public this year, maybe you need a safe space to cry in since they killed all "your birds".
Just for the record, I've actually never met a non-resident hunter yet in my province, but I also only hunt private land since that's all there is in my area. The only neighbouring province I could turkey hunt in, though, carries a guide restriction for all non-resident hunting, not just turkeys. Just chipping in on how it works north of the border - if I came off as bitter it wasn't intended. You'd probably tell me to put the pipe down if I told you it cost $180 for a non-resident turkey license there too, but that's the going rate. Nevermind that they're the only province within a 40 hour drive of me that offers non-resident turkey hunting.
IF the season dates are set correctly (opening the season AFTER the majority of hens have been bred and nests initiated), and jakes are protected to breed all the hens the following spring, there is ZERO reason to even have a limit on mature gobblers other than to spread the resource around for several hunters. You can literally kill every single adult male every year and not negatively affect the population.
One of the problems is, the season opens in many locales well before breeding has even started. In those cases, removing any gobblers can have a negative effect on the overall population.
The greatest problem is hens are simply not rearing enough poults to sustain the population. The reason why is the million dollar question....
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
if the number of hunters and season dates were the problem , many state parks that do not allow hunting would be over run w/ turkeys......low brood sizes , live poult counts and barren hens are a concern that could have many reasons....however not much discussion on here about large populations in an area that suddenly disappear....if an outbreak of a disease can wipe out the majority of a large flock, which many here have observed , it can also do harm on a smaller scale
Quote from: saltysenior on June 01, 2021, 08:03:45 PM
if the number of hunters and season dates were the problem , many state parks that do not allow hunting would be over run w/ turkeys......low brood sizes , live poult counts and barren hens are a concern that could have many reasons....however not much discussion on here about large populations in an area that suddenly disappear....if an outbreak of a disease can wipe out the majority of a large flock, which many here have observed , it can also do harm on a smaller scale
Good point.
State parks cant be hunted in MO.KS. and Iowa for the most part , populations way down too.
Have a disease in mind that may cause this?
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 01, 2021, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Loyalist84 on June 01, 2021, 04:08:01 PM
Or better yet, allow non-resident hunters but mandate the hiring of a local guide or outfitter.
I don't think much of this either for reason stated in my last post. NO WAY IN HELL am I gonna pay a guide to hunt land I know better than they do. Absolute nonsense.
Sounds like YOU can be the guide ;D :TooFunny:
Quote from: saltysenior on June 01, 2021, 08:03:45 PM
if the number of hunters and season dates were the problem , many state parks that do not allow hunting would be over run w/ turkeys......low brood sizes , live poult counts and barren hens are a concern that could have many reasons....however not much discussion on here about large populations in an area that suddenly disappear....if an outbreak of a disease can wipe out the majority of a large flock, which many here have observed , it can also do harm on a smaller scale
Good point. The small scale wipeouts are hard to study and document. This is anecdotal, but there was a huge flock I used to hunt and we'd kill like one mature gobbler from that property a year and not go back. We always went there early in the season and killed lone gobblers that were not with the main flock, which makes me believe they were subordinate gobblers. My son and I would hunt deer there and count 30-40 birds at the time. I scouted there in 2020 and never saw a bird! Another hunter who is a friend of mine hunted adjacent property and he didn't see any either. Very odd and disappointing. I went this year some before the season started and saw one hen the four times I went over there. It's like they vanished from a large block of woods. Maybe it was disease, but honestly I don't know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm 83 and have seen 4 large population disappear in my lifetime....the first occurred at Fisheating creek in Fl. ... nothing was ever said , but the word was David Austin was studying for Blackhead....that fall I stopped in the brand new NWTF building in Edgefield to find out more....seems like it was a no no to discuss this occurrence.....I threw my torn up membership card on ?????his name's deck and walked out........to this day large,fast disappearances of flocks seems to be avoided in discussions
If "all " turkey hunters would just do a little to help , instead of just " taking " and not giving anything back to the resource. Do some trapping in your area , if you have private ground ? Do some habitat improvement, plant things turkey need , making nesting areas , don't bush hog during brooding season etc .
Turn in or atleast tell your buddy who kills over his limit how weak he is and what he is taking away from the future . Bottom line ... do your part , or just complain until there's no population to complain about !
Quote from: rifleman on May 30, 2021, 10:46:06 AM
My mountainous area (1300 acres) in WV which is private ground has fewer turkeys now. The habitat has not changed all that much from the exploded population we had in the period 1970-1990s. What has really changed is the predator population. During the above time frame coon hunters kept coons and possums at an all-time low and coyotes were not here. Food and habitat are still here and logically what does that leave??
Exactly! Predators
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Cowboy on June 02, 2021, 08:56:25 PM
Quote from: rifleman on May 30, 2021, 10:46:06 AM
My mountainous area (1300 acres) in WV which is private ground has fewer turkeys now. The habitat has not changed all that much from the exploded population we had in the period 1970-1990s. What has really changed is the predator population. During the above time frame coon hunters kept coons and possums at an all-time low and coyotes were not here. Food and habitat are still here and logically what does that leave??
Exactly! Predators
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Too bad nothing will be done about it. Game departments will not support it. No bounties , extending predator's seasons . They even talk it down as a solution.
So unless fur becomes the next big camouflages or fashion statement good luck.
So with all this predator talk am I to believe that states or areas that have good turkey populations haven't had an increase in predators since the drop in trapping participation?
Quote from: Paulmyr on June 02, 2021, 10:34:53 PM
So with all this predator talk am I to believe that states or areas that have good turkey populations haven't had an increase in predators since the drop in trapping participation?
Doubtfull. Which states have increasing turkey populations ?
Quote from: owlhoot on June 02, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Paulmyr on June 02, 2021, 10:34:53 PM
So with all this predator talk am I to believe that states or areas that have good turkey populations haven't had an increase in predators since the drop in trapping participation?
Doubtfull. Which states have increasing turkey populations ?
Not states as a whole but some areas have increasing populations. My area the turkey numbers are growing rapidly and we do not have a single coyote here.
South Carolina has had a coyote bounty since 2016. The link provided indicates it has had an impact on the coyote population. Would be good to see turkey population data correlated to coyote population data.
https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/coyote/coyoteincentive.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 03, 2021, 06:56:20 AM
South Carolina has had a coyote bounty since 2016. The link provided indicates it has had an impact on the coyote population. Would be good to see turkey population data correlated to coyote population data.
https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/coyote/coyoteincentive.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to everything I've ever seen come out of South Carolina's DNR, they're experiencing similar turkey declines as most other states in the southeast. Surprisingly they do more habitat work than most other states that I've seen, and are still seeing those declines. So, no, I don't think their coyote initiatives are accomplishing anything with regard to game populations. As far as the takeaway that the coyote population is down 25% and that that's largely attributed to hunter/trapper, I'd like to see the rest of the research rather than just a blanket statement made with nothing backing it up. The areas I hunt in South Carolina I see more coyotes now than I ever have. Assuming that number is even right, it could even be possible that a 25% decline over a couple decades could be a population stabilizing into a landscape's holding capacity. I personally don't think their bounty program, or similar programs in other states, have done anything. We've tried to kill out, trap out, drive out coyotes in this country for more than a century and accomplished nothing but spreading them farther into new ground. Read Dan Flores' Coyote America which talks about this, and what could be done (largely nothing). One thing he does suggest is timed hunts wherein you'd go in and try to kill off large numbers of coyotes just before nesting and fawn drop. I think you'd see a greater potential impact there than what's currently taking place with the majority killed during deer seasons. In SC specifically they would also benefit from opening coyote regs on WMAs during that time to allow hunters to do this. As it currently stands you can hunt them yearround on private, but on WMAs they can only be hunted with a caliber for whatever is in season (i.e. can't hunt them when no game animals are in season, and can't hunt them with anything but squirrel equipment from Jan. 2 through the end of February).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
science has historically shown that predator control is not a solution to game numbers. However, most of those studies were done many years ago while the fur market was very good. I think for the most part the findings still apply, but with exceptions. Huge explosions of predators that grossly increase population densities can impact game species for a period of time. The prime example is raccoons and nesting birds. With that said, even raccoon populations will correct themselves with disease, like distemper. The problem lies in the mean population level still remains higher than historic values. Couple this with multiple other detrimental factors and you have an impact that wouldn't be necessarily true in a "normal" population dynamic. So, I doubt predator control on it's own will fix much.
That is what makes this such a complicated problem for wildlife managers. It's likened to triage in a trauma center, you address the most life threatening scenarios first and foremost and then sew up the cuts and scrapes later. Diagnosing the problem is time consuming and complicated, we can easily see symptoms but causative agents are deeply hidden and not openly apparent. To further complicate the issue, wildlife managers often are not given the authority or tools to fix what they find. The consuming business world has a target on Natural resources primarily focused on financial gain and less on environmental impact. Yes, we can slow the bleeding and save the patient, but he may never be the same. Some wounds are lifelong and disabling.
I for one, think we can only save the patient and the dream of making him whole again is far reached if not impossible. It's almost like youthfulness, we can only experience it for a period of life. The boom we all saw after reintroduction was not a true sustainable scenario. The vibrant youth of those days of high turkey densities have faded away with time. Now our mission is to maintain the health of what we have with sound habitat management, managed harvest and disease control (as much as possible). Time to see a new reality and do the hard work to maintain a population at a level as high as possible.
Wildlife managers do not get the needed support from political over-lords, as hunters and fishers just don't carry the voting clout. So we will continue to suck hind teat until we are recognized as a valued social dynamic. So we can discuss and debate the science, but we best not forget the social/political arenas. Making this a turkey or deer only issue will not buy us much. Making it a resource and environmental issue might.
The problem is not a binary one...hunter vs environment. A lot of money has went into habitat where there are few/no turkeys, and a lot of game regulations aren't alone making the difference. However the question asked sparks good debate and needed discussions. I would advocate that we challenge the NWTF and support TFT as organizations to partner with state game agencies to learn how multiple variables are together causing turkey declines in much of the US. LPDV, predators (including wild hogs in the SE), buffalo gnats, hunting technology, weather, season timing, habitat, etc, etc...all are presenting a challenge to turkeys that we must understand and overcome as much as possible.
Quote from: GobbleGitr on June 03, 2021, 09:37:14 AM
I would advocate that we challenge the NWTF and support TFT as organizations to partner with state game agencies to learn how multiple variables are together causing turkey declines in much of the US.
I believe this is happening and has for decades. Wildlife agencies are and have been engaged with sportsmen's associations for decades. I know this first hand, as a retired Wildlife Agency employee. State agencies are not as asleep at the wheel as we often believe, but at times they do not address a problem as well as we wish they would. Sometimes this is a leadership problem and sometimes it's out of their control. Many agencies are struggling with funding. I know in Ohio the staffing level is considerably lower than it has been. So some things get put aside. Sadly in many states turkeys are not big revenue or activity producers....deer and fishing are going to get attention and funding first. Squeaky wheels get greased.
Quote from: eggshell on June 03, 2021, 09:50:20 AM
Quote from: GobbleGitr on June 03, 2021, 09:37:14 AM
I would advocate that we challenge the NWTF and support TFT as organizations to partner with state game agencies to learn how multiple variables are together causing turkey declines in much of the US.
I believe this is happening and has for decades. Wildlife agencies are and have been engaged with sportsmen's associations for decades. I know this first hand, as a retired Wildlife Agency employee. State agencies are not as asleep at the wheel as we often believe, but at times they do not address a problem as well as we wish they would. Sometimes this is a leadership problem and sometimes it's out of their control. Many agencies are struggling with funding. I know in Ohio the staffing level is considerably lower than it has been. So some things get put aside. Sadly in many states turkeys are not big revenue or activity producers....deer and fishing are going to get attention and funding first. Squeaky wheels get greased.
I agree turkeys are not as important in my state of Ms. we have lost habitat , need predator control ,we have had disease such as avian pox. Some areas are in better shape than others. It takes money to address these problems and a desire to improve a situation .
I would also like to add his important deer hunting has become. I used to be able to knock on anyone's door and be allowed to turn my coon dogs loose. Now, it's "you can't run those dogs because they'll scare the deer." I have all but stopped it's so hard to get access. In about 2008-2009 , when I first noticed declines in my local flock, we struggled to find raccoons. It might take 2 creek bottoms before we got a strike. But on the other end of the spectrum, when we were hearing 5-6 birds a morning we had a much healthier raccoon population and could get a strike on any water source. It's almost as if the whole woods caught a sickness when we started seeing a decline in every animal.
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 03, 2021, 06:56:20 AM
South Carolina has had a coyote bounty since 2016. The link provided indicates it has had an impact on the coyote population. Would be good to see turkey population data correlated to coyote population data.
https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/coyote/coyoteincentive.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow that's neat. 40 people got lifetime hunting licenses.
Killing around 25k coyotes , great. Turkey being killed 14k. No problem here?
Coyote , no idea how many hunters. Turkey hunters 43k. That estimate is that 67% of people with permits actually hunted. So 33% bought tags and didn't hunt?
Now to the nest robbers. Racoons population?
40-50 raccoons per square mile in rural Missouri, report 2017.
Last major distemper outbreaks , when and where? Thanks in advance.
These things always come down to habitat and predation. Government can address neither of those. So, they make a pretense of doing something by changing regulations. Admitting they can do little would erode faith in their monopoly on enforcement and the attendant revenue stream of tax.
Killing coyotes and coons is good. Killing bobcats is better. I was hoping the popularity of xylitol sweeteners would put a dent in coyote populations by coyotes feeding on garbage. That is not happening. I only hear of unfortunate cases where a family pet died after it got a pack of gum, etc. Perhaps we should all buy our wives coon coats and coyote stoles. Bobcat hats?
The predators we cannot touch, raptors, are on the rise and have been. Consider how many time you've had a hawk fly up when calling to turkeys. Owls, too.
I think crows are the worst. They hunt nesting hens for eggs. So, I kill as many as I can every winter. The crows that die here are probably from somewhere else, but maybe I'm helping someone else out.
Wisconsin season kill will drop from just shy of 45K birds in 2020 to around 35K - 38K birds (last "F" season stats not in yet).
2021 harvest will be in the bottom quartile of the past 21 years. 37,800 (2013) was the only time below 38K kill over that time.
Certainly not bad, but it is closer to the new normal.
Why the large one year drop in WI ???
Quote from: owlhoot on June 01, 2021, 08:27:41 PM
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 01, 2021, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Loyalist84 on June 01, 2021, 04:08:01 PM
Or better yet, allow non-resident hunters but mandate the hiring of a local guide or outfitter.
I don't think much of this either for reason stated in my last post. NO WAY IN HELL am I gonna pay a guide to hunt land I know better than they do. Absolute nonsense.
Sounds like YOU can be the guide ;D :TooFunny:
Nope. I grew up hunting these woods all my life. I've seen these woods logged, grow trees and become a woods again. Not a woods like before but a woods with mature trees nonetheless. Spent a many and hour in these woods for as long as I can remember. There are pictures of me in the woods with my dad when he was hunting that I don't remember being taken because I was too young to remember it. When I got home from school most days I grabbed a gun and went in the woods by myself. So yes, I could be the guide. I don't think I call well enough to be a guide nor would I want to be paid to take someone hunting. I take people hunting because I have a lot of access to property that has a lot of turkeys. I take folks that are better turkey hunters than I am and can call better than me. It's more like they're taking me turkey hunting on my own property, except I don't have a gun. I do it because I enjoy their company and that's how I learn and how I know I need to improve. I like watching others hunt and it's a bonus if they get to shoot something. I'm happy for them but also happy myself for being there to experience it. The main reason I do it is because I simply love hunting more than anything else I could do to enjoy myself. It's actually kinda selfish. So I'm being serious about what I said earlier about the "no way in hell" stuff.
Quote from: howl on June 03, 2021, 02:55:38 PM
These things always come down to habitat and predation. Government can address neither of those. So, they make a pretense of doing something by changing regulations. Admitting they can do little would erode faith in their monopoly on enforcement and the attendant revenue stream of tax.
Killing coyotes and coons is good. Killing bobcats is better. I was hoping the popularity of xylitol sweeteners would put a dent in coyote populations by coyotes feeding on garbage. That is not happening. I only hear of unfortunate cases where a family pet died after it got a pack of gum, etc. Perhaps we should all buy our wives coon coats and coyote stoles. Bobcat hats?
The predators we cannot touch, raptors, are on the rise and have been. Consider how many time you've had a hawk fly up when calling to turkeys. Owls, too.
I think crows are the worst. They hunt nesting hens for eggs. So, I kill as many as I can every winter. The crows that die here are probably from somewhere else, but maybe I'm helping someone else out.
louisiana also has allowed deer hunters to take one bobcat a year .
Quote from: owlhoot on June 03, 2021, 01:30:05 PM
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 03, 2021, 06:56:20 AM
South Carolina has had a coyote bounty since 2016. The link provided indicates it has had an impact on the coyote population. Would be good to see turkey population data correlated to coyote population data.
https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/coyote/coyoteincentive.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow that's neat. 40 people got lifetime hunting licenses.
Killing around 25k coyotes , great. Turkey being killed 14k. No problem here?
Coyote , no idea how many hunters. Turkey hunters 43k. That estimate is that 67% of people with permits actually hunted. So 33% bought tags and didn't hunt?
Now to the nest robbers. Racoons population?
40-50 raccoons per square mile in rural Missouri, report 2017.
Last major distemper outbreaks , when and where? Thanks in advance.
It is neat. Thanks for the numbers. I wish I could get a lifetime hunting license. No one bought me one growing up and I'm not the best with money so I tend to spend money a little at the time and end up spending more in the long run. It's a personal problem if I let it bother me, which I don't.
So 40 lifetime licenses and 40 less coyotes, I'm good with that because I hate the damned things and when I use the word hate I know exactly what it means. I get mad every time I see one. Me and the folks I hunt with shoot them and trap them at will all year. We run them down and hit them with trucks if we can. We kill bobcats as seasons permit. Do I think it helps to kill them like this? No. I've told people that it's not making a difference based on what I observe. Will I still shoot every coyote I see? Yes, every one of them within shooting range when I have a gun.
We have A LOT of bear. Do you want to come kill one, be my guest. The only ones doing bear hunting are the guys with the dogs, boats, GPS collars and radios. They let us shoot them because we don't have bear dogs and all that. They just want to hunt them and we just want to kill them. Bear mess up a lot of hunting too and I imagine they eat fawns and will eat a turkey egg if they happen upon one. Our deer hunting club in NC (where I'm not a resident btw), killed more bear than deer last year.
We don't have hardly any deer where we hunt anymore but I remember when we had plenty. Behind the house I grew up in in NC (where I'm not a resident btw), you could see 100 deer or more in the evenings in the 70s or 80s. Now you may be lucky to see one. Do I KNOW what happened? No. Can I SPECULATE? Yes! It seems that on this forum the difference between speculation and knowing something gets muddied somehow. My speculation is that the reason for the decrease in the whitetail deer population where I hunt as a non-resident is a combination of a change in agricultural practices, cutting timber as soon as it can be cut when the prices are good, the "if it's brown it's down" attitude that some hunters take to harvesting deer, predators, disease, and unknown causes. My club takes the approach of doing what is in our control, which is shooting only mature bucks that have a certain antler size, which is considerable. Kids get to shoot "some" does and small bucks without retribution. For those that hopefully misjudge the size of the antlers and shoot a buck that has antlers below our set harvest parameters, there is enforced financial retribution. We have a club that hunts adjacent to ours that takes the "if it's brown it's down" approach, but since that is out of our control we focus on ourselves. I haven't killed a deer since 2008 because I haven't seen one big enough to shoot when I'm hunting. I really don't mind. As long as I get to deer hunt I'm satisfied.
So I really don't know why turkey populations are declining in some areas. I just post findings I find on the internet because I don't live in a library. Then I wait for someone to call BS on what I post on OG, either because they don't agree with it or because they have information that conflicts with the information I posted. I appreciate it when people courteously point out the flaws in what I posted and I "try" to ignore replies that are less than courteous. Sometimes I can't tell the difference. Sometimes I simply don't understand what someone wrote or why they wrote it. But I guess in the end it doesn't matter because I keep on posting these long digital monologues anyway. It's my nature.
One more thing, sorry. Where I hunt turkeys we seem to have a thriving population. I don't know why because I just stated above that we have a bunch of coyotes, bear, and bobcats. We also have a lot of poachers, non-traditional turkey hunters, traditional turkey hunters, turkey guides (not me), turkey hunters that kill more than the legal limit or take turkeys illegally (I have a nephew that shoots them out of the truck window, but I can't control him, he's in his 30s, but I do tell him I wish he'd stop), and those damned non-resident turkey hunters like myself. I don't care that you know where I hunt. I hunt in Suffolk, VA as a resident of Virginia and as a non-resident in Gates, NC. Good luck finding private land to hunt unless you have deep pockets or know someone like me. I like taking folks turkey hunting or giving people the opportunity to turkey hunt if they live in a turkey impoverished area or if they've tagged out early and still want to hunt. There's public land I don't hunt that I don't think anyone sets a foot on to hunt because it's hard to get to. For me to take you turkey hunting I need to know you and like you. That's about it. But I have found that I like very few people that I know. That's another personal problem that if I cared about it would bother me.
Quote from: brittman on June 03, 2021, 05:20:19 PM
Wisconsin season kill will drop from just shy of 45K birds in 2020 to around 35K - 38K birds (last "F" season stats not in yet).
2021 harvest will be in the bottom quartile of the past 21 years. 37,800 (2013) was the only time below 38K kill over that time.
Certainly not bad, but it is closer to the new normal.
Why the large one year drop in WI ???
You can get all kinds of information off Wisconsin dnr site. It has tons of information.
Nothing stood out to me except that the amount of authorizations they have given out has increased around 100k and and the harvest only increased 10-12k for a short time. Is now back down to levels when 100k less authorization 20 years ago. Looks like after 2008-10 they issue around 220k authorizations, since that harvest fell 12-14k and has not recovered since.
Could increasing harvest not leave enough left to allow for further increases?
Could the predator population be increasing?
Wisconsin DNR does report that 74% of hen loss is due to predation.
They reported 1 raccoon every 12-40 acres in good habitat in 2012 and stated populations as robust recently.
Quote from: brittman on June 03, 2021, 05:20:19 PM
Wisconsin season kill will drop from just shy of 45K birds in 2020 to around 35K - 38K birds (last "F" season stats not in yet).
2021 harvest will be in the bottom quartile of the past 21 years. 37,800 (2013) was the only time below 38K kill over that time.
Certainly not bad, but it is closer to the new normal.
Why the large one year drop in WI ???
maybe people not "registering" their harvest online?
i miss the days of taking birds to the registration stations
Nebraska will be the next state whining about it all. 3 bird spring limit and I believe you can shoot all in one day if you choose? I didn't see where it said otherwise. Stuff like that needs go weather or not you have plenty.
In every State- make sure Fanning/ Reaping is Banned. Ban ALL Decoys in every State for 2 Springs at least.
Ban all TSS Ammo so this Asinine practice of taking 60 + 70 yard Shots is stopped.
Quote from: eggshell on May 31, 2021, 06:50:31 AM
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
Hmmm, maybe time for Thanos
So we now introduce Bill Gates and Dr. Fauchi.....
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Our Turkey population is down as well. We can take up to 3 in the Spring. The thing here is loss of habitat and huge population of coyotes. Back 30 years ago we didnt have Bobcats like we do now either. Now, we also got these dang armadillos moving in. A game warden in TN told my brother that he had a camera on a hens nest. He was also a Turkey hunter as well by the way. Watched the nest get raided by a coon and also an armadillo right before hatch.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Got a another question to throw out there. Have we seen a harvest increase in the states or areas where hunters are fanning/reaping? Not starting an argument here just curious if the harvests have increased? I personally have never tried this and dont intend to.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Cowboy on June 06, 2021, 08:39:51 AM
Got a another question to throw out there. Have we seen a harvest increase in the states or areas where hunters are fanning/reaping? Not starting an argument here just curious if the harvests have increased? I personally have never tried this and dont intend to.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Good question. That data may be hard to uncover, but maybe not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: quavers59 on June 06, 2021, 02:45:44 AM
Ban all TSS Ammo so this Asinine practice of taking 60 + 70 yard Shots is stopped.
There are some survey reports from S. Carolina that state that around 23% of the turkeys shot at were not killed or recovered. I personally don't think all of that is because of TSS ammo.
No significant change from 2010-2020 I noticed in this regard.
Long distance shooting talk has been a subject that this forum has been against and surveys like this support that stance. It is not good for the sport.
ain't too many complete misses with a shotgun.
State of NH is testing the blood of turkeys harvested for West Nile virus. They have been assessing whether or not the virus has impacted their ruffled grouse population, so maybe a virus or disease has something to do with declining turkey populations?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Quote from: saltysenior on June 06, 2021, 09:06:42 PM
ain't too many complete misses with a shotgun.
Amen and double amen. I have not been someone who watched a lot of videos, but of the ones I have 95% of the claimed missed where actually hit birds. I have a few misses in my portfolio too, but I know they were also hit birds. Misjudging distance is my biggest problem in the past. Of all my misses I have three I know were complete misses, because I shot trees. This year I shot a tree and the gobbler didn't even know he had been shot at, he just heard a loud noise and moved out of range. In 48 years I have cleaned a bunch of birds with healed over shot in them. If you break a bone the bird is dead. Thankfully turkeys are tough critters and unless shot gets into organs they will survive. Most so called misses are hunter error and long shots result in more than close shots. Some complete misses I have seen have been ultra close and thus very small patterns. I think we claim a miss in self defense many times. In reality if we don't put the bird down for the count he is in essence a wounded bird.
There is one more scenario that grinds my grits. Shooting a bird in a group and hitting other birds. I can't tell you how many times I have watched this happen in videos and real life. Let the dang birds separate.....aarrrrgggg
I think most Spring Seasons are just too Damn Long.I think that States with Declining Turkey Populations should really think about going to a 3 Week Spring Turkey Season. That's it- 21 Days.
Some States go for 5 Full Weeks. That's too long of a Spring Turkey Season for any 1 State.
There is one more scenario that grinds my grits. Shooting a bird in a group and hitting other birds. I can't tell you how many times I have watched this happen in videos and real life. Let the dang birds separate.....aarrrrgggg
[/quote]
That is one thing that I have really worked into my mind, I know I have only one turkey under my belt but I knew no mater what unless I had a shot I could be proud of I would not have shot that day, they were darting one in front of the other, could have shot at any time but had worked it into my head not to shoot if I felt they were to close. We see that in a lot of videos, though I think some of what we seen in videos can be misconstrued because of camera angle vs shooter angle.
Quote from: eggshell on June 07, 2021, 07:00:47 AM
Quote from: saltysenior on June 06, 2021, 09:06:42 PM
ain't too many complete misses with a shotgun.
Amen and double amen. I have not been someone who watched a lot of videos, but of the ones I have 95% of the claimed missed where actually hit birds. I have a few misses in my portfolio too, but I know they were also hit birds. Misjudging distance is my biggest problem in the past. Of all my misses I have three I know were complete misses, because I shot trees. This year I shot a tree and the gobbler didn't even know he had been shot at, he just heard a loud noise and moved out of range. In 48 years I have cleaned a bunch of birds with healed over shot in them. If you break a bone the bird is dead. Thankfully turkeys are tough critters and unless shot gets into organs they will survive. Most so called misses are hunter error and long shots result in more than close shots. Some complete misses I have seen have been ultra close and thus very small patterns. I think we claim a miss in self defense many times. In reality if we don't put the bird down for the count he is in essence a wounded bird.
There is one more scenario that grinds my grits. Shooting a bird in a group and hitting other birds. I can't tell you how many times I have watched this happen in videos and real life. Let the dang birds separate.....aarrrrgggg
Agree on all counts. I've watched way too many videos of guys that should know better taking ill-advised shots at turkeys that most certainly resulted in either a wounded gobbler or collateral damage to other birds nearby.
Here's a wild and crazy idea: Instead of having bag limits for in-hand dead birds, we should have "shell limits". If the bag limit in your state is, say, three gobblers, you get to carry three shells for the season. Every shot fired is counted as one bird in your limit, regardless of whether it is a recovered bird or not. That wouldn't stop the flock shooting, but maybe it would discourage all the poor shot choices hunters seem to be willing to take on a regular basis. That "spray and pray" mindset seems to be far too common amongst us.
Of course, I am just "punking" everybody with that suggestion, but there is no doubt the need for more self-discipline in the turkey hunter's world. If the number of videos that demonstrate poor shot choices is any indication, there are a lot of dead or wounded gobblers left in the field every year around the country.
LOL GobbleNut...I've always referred to that as guys suffering from the "One Lucky BB Syndrome".
Quote from: vt35mag on June 06, 2021, 09:47:45 PM
State of NH is testing the blood of turkeys harvested for West Nile virus. They have been assessing whether or not the virus has impacted their ruffled grouse population, so maybe a virus or disease has something to do with declining turkey populations?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
[/quot
now we a possible reason for a decline that holds water everywhere....
Gobblenut, I know a guy who only carries two shells. He has always said it made him more disciplined. I talked him into the second shell just in case he needed a back up, which he never has.
Quote from: owlhoot on June 02, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Paulmyr on June 02, 2021, 10:34:53 PM
So with all this predator talk am I to believe that states or areas that have good turkey populations haven't had an increase in predators since the drop in trapping participation?
Doubtfull. Which states have increasing turkey populations ?
I have been looking online for state-by-state information about turkey populations and harvest, trying to compile a map of turkey population trends for each state (say, 2010 vs. 2020) to see if there are any patterns across certain regions.
It is challenging as some states have very spotty data on estimated turkey populations. Also, current harvest numbers compared to historical harvest can also be skewed due to online reporting vs. in-person historical reporting...
Quote from: vt35mag on June 06, 2021, 09:47:45 PM
State of NH is testing the blood of turkeys harvested for West Nile virus. They have been assessing whether or not the virus has impacted their ruffled grouse population, so maybe a virus or disease has something to do with declining turkey populations?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Pennsylvania has already did some research into West Nile and poults and concluded its likely not a problem. Here's a link to the synopsis:
https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/WildlifeSpecies/Turkey/Documents/West%20Nile%20Virus%20Likely%20Does%20Not%20Impact%20Wild%20Turkey%20Poults.pdf
https://www.pennlive.com/life/2020/10/how-is-west-nile-virus-impacting-pennsylvanias-turkey-population.html
Quote from: eggshell on June 07, 2021, 12:32:39 PM
Gobblenut, I know a guy who only carries two shells. He has always said it made him more disciplined. I talked him into the second shell just in case he needed a back up, which he never has.
My old clunky Mossberg 835 won't feed the shell in the magazine so I have one shell in the gun and one in my vest pocket. Maybe I need to invest in a lighter .410 single shot...
To be honest it's never occurred to me that someone would "open up" on turkeys. My perception is that it is a 1 shot 1 kill (or miss) and the second shot "may" be needed if the bird is wounded to the point where finishing him off may prove to be a challenge with my foot or bare hands. Where I hunt the bag limit is one bird per day.
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 07, 2021, 01:18:57 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 02, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Paulmyr on June 02, 2021, 10:34:53 PM
So with all this predator talk am I to believe that states or areas that have good turkey populations haven't had an increase in predators since the drop in trapping participation?
Doubtfull. Which states have increasing turkey populations ?
I have been looking online for state-by-state information about turkey populations and harvest, trying to compile a map of turkey population trends for each state (say, 2010 vs. 2020) to see if there are any patterns across certain regions.
It is challenging as some states have very spotty data on estimated turkey populations. Also, current harvest numbers compared to historical harvest can also be skewed due to online reporting vs. in-person historical reporting...
Yes , a challenging task to say the least.
To me online reporting makes it easy. Cell phone apps , really easy. Not having to take a 50 mile round trip to check one in saves gas money and time. You can get on with your day. I do miss the check station meeting other people and seeing what they shot too.
Unsure where you were going with that? More or less being checked in?
Quote from: owlhoot on June 07, 2021, 02:25:33 PM
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 07, 2021, 01:18:57 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 02, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Paulmyr on June 02, 2021, 10:34:53 PM
So with all this predator talk am I to believe that states or areas that have good turkey populations haven't had an increase in predators since the drop in trapping participation?
Doubtfull. Which states have increasing turkey populations ?
I have been looking online for state-by-state information about turkey populations and harvest, trying to compile a map of turkey population trends for each state (say, 2010 vs. 2020) to see if there are any patterns across certain regions.
It is challenging as some states have very spotty data on estimated turkey populations. Also, current harvest numbers compared to historical harvest can also be skewed due to online reporting vs. in-person historical reporting...
Yes , a challenging task to say the least.
To me online reporting makes it easy. Cell phone apps , really easy. Not having to take a 50 mile round trip to check one in saves gas money and time. You can get on with your day. I do miss the check station meeting other people and seeing what they shot too.
Unsure where you were going with that? More or less being checked in?
Lot less are checked in from mandated self-reporting compared to historical post-season phone survey data collection.
Some southern states, where mandated reported is fairly new, estimate that only 50-70% of harvested turkey are actually reported.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on June 07, 2021, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 07, 2021, 02:25:33 PM
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 07, 2021, 01:18:57 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 02, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Paulmyr on June 02, 2021, 10:34:53 PM
So with all this predator talk am I to believe that states or areas that have good turkey populations haven't had an increase in predators since the drop in trapping participation?
Doubtfull. Which states have increasing turkey populations ?
I have been looking online for state-by-state information about turkey populations and harvest, trying to compile a map of turkey population trends for each state (say, 2010 vs. 2020) to see if there are any patterns across certain regions.
It is challenging as some states have very spotty data on estimated turkey populations. Also, current harvest numbers compared to historical harvest can also be skewed due to online reporting vs. in-person historical reporting...
Yes , a challenging task to say the least.
To me online reporting makes it easy. Cell phone apps , really easy. Not having to take a 50 mile round trip to check one in saves gas money and time. You can get on with your day. I do miss the check station meeting other people and seeing what they shot too.
Unsure where you were going with that? More or less being checked in?
Lot less are checked in from mandated self-reporting compared to historical post-season phone survey data collection.
Some southern states, where mandated reported is fairly new, estimate that only 50-70% of harvested turkey are actually reported.
Wow , that's a ton. Isn't that illegal ? If so that is a bunch of poaching. Guess they don't run out of tags.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on June 07, 2021, 02:47:59 PM
Lot less are checked in from mandated self-reporting compared to historical post-season phone survey data collection.
Some southern states, where mandated reported is fairly new, estimate that only 50-70% of harvested turkey are actually reported.
Iowa - several years after they implemented mandatory reporting, Iowa DNR did some spot-checks and estimated only that 83.8% of the deer were reported (see graph below). This makes it difficult to get accurate estimates of deer/turkey harvest!
IMO, any "reported" turkey harvest number from a given state is likely ~20% or more underreported.
I personally know individuals who either don't report at all, or give misinformation when reporting (i.e. a different county/zone than they actually hunted). Their reasons range from "not wanting anyone to know how good the hunting is in XYZ county" to "I don't want the government nosing around in my hunting"...
The south uses the honor system typically...... no tags or make your own tags. Enough said
Quote from: arkrem870 on June 07, 2021, 04:08:28 PM
The south uses the honor system typically...... no tags or make your own tags. Enough said
The folks that shoot the "corn buzzards" on the deer leases probably don't send in anything during the fall.
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 07, 2021, 04:06:22 PM
I personally know individuals who either don't report at all, or give misinformation when reporting (i.e. a different county/zone than they actually hunted). Their reasons range from "not wanting anyone to know how good the hunting is in XYZ county" to "I don't want the government nosing around in my hunting"...
I always report but I completely understand the "not wanting anyone to know how good the hunting is in XYZ county." As hunting trends have shifted to primarily cyber scouting and more and more people travel, I honestly don't believe state agencies should be sharing harvest reports. I get that it's public information, but the agencies first objective is to protect the resource and if publishing those numbers has the potential to impact that resource in my mind they shouldn't be obligated to share. Same as agencies out west refusing to publish tracking collar data for elk. Legally it's yours to request, but they sure do everything in their power to make it hard to get your hands on, and rightfully so in my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Predator hunting will indeed help, but not much. one of the problems and people here have gotten mad at me for stating such here before is modern farming practices, you see people cutting down every hedgerow in site thus taking away cover, you have crops that are being cut in mid May to mid June that used to be cut in July and that is killing poults, nests, nesting/brooding hens, ducks (Friend ran some over a week ago in the field) deer and so on, the crops are cut closer to the ground than they used to be causing further problems and the machinery is driving faster making it harder for the animals to get away from said machinery.
Now you throw in all the chemicals that are used in farming of all kind whether that be to grow corn or in my area grapes for canning and the wineries that are so big here and that does not help the animals or us.
I think the spreading of turkey droppings has been shown to carry disease as well and I do not see how that is going to stop unless we stop eating domestic turkey but I seem to remember Avian Flu and one other one where they get bugs in their stomachs and then end up working up into their eyes was linked to domestic turkey droppings (I may be mistaken on the Avian Flu but not the other) so that is working against them and then you take the never ending stupid and uninformed comments about the deer can live with it and so can the turkey when the biological makeup of breeding and how it is done and how many turkey vs deer survive from being young to adult can't be compared and these animals are in real trouble.
Add to all that loss of habitat and urban sprawl and it really is scary to think what your great grandchildren are going to have left by the time they can hunt, heck for you guy that just have young children now your grandchildren may not have anything left.
On reporting harvest information. You are right it is public information because it is public paid for, but you are also correct it does not have to be publicly published. A request can take time and be complicated if they want, however; I am not in favor of that. I think sportsmen/women have the right to know. Unless there is definitive proof it's harming the resource, which there is not.
On farming practices. Yes farming has developed some techniques that are detrimental to wildlife survival. The big question is how do you feed the world without today's highly efficient farming....there's no easy answer. If you research it you will find that much of today's farming has some restrictions and conservation built into it (wetland protection/development and CRP) . I don't know about all areas of the country, but for the midwest conservation programs have been the basis for the return of many species. If you go back to the 60s whitetail deer and turkey were a rare sighting in many places, and totally absent in some. The EPA (although cursed by many) banned DDT and many other chemicals that were killing off many species. Bald Eagles are one of this nations great wildlife stories. They are common in many place now that were totally devoid of them as late as the 70s and 80s. Forest management has taken big strides over mass clear cutting and land stripping. Our streams are as clean as they have been in 75 years and filled with recovering species. I agree there is still too much land clearing and development, but how do you curb that on a planet with a growing population?. In summary, it's not all gloom and doom. All this is a daunting task for our future generations, but unlike our ancestors and even grandparents we are working on it. There was a time they thought the resources were unlimited and they killed everything in sight, cut down miles of forest and dug up every inch they could. Our ancestors did not leave a stellar legacy! The recent generations have done much better.
We sit back and complain about our wildlife agencies, but in reality they are hard at work and have quite a few success stories. Is there room for improvement, yes.
@eggshell "The big question is how do you feed the world without today's highly efficient farming....there's no easy answer."
I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.
The best habitat for turkey reproduction is a square mile that does not have 20+ nest raiders on it.
Quote from: owlhoot on June 08, 2021, 08:13:10 PM
The best habitat for turkey reproduction is a square mile that does not have 20+ nest raiders on it.
I agree with owlhoot on this. Turks have alot against them from the nest to maturity with predators.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Update on some earlier discussion in this thread.
Not necessarily about the turkey but nest raiders. Nest predator bounty program in S. Dakota
https://gfp.sd.gov/news/detail/1472/
.
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 08, 2021, 10:13:50 AM
@eggshell "The big question is how do you feed the world without today's highly efficient farming....there's no easy answer."
I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.
I agree with this statement to some degree. We have a food distribution problem. In an ideal world everyone would share food and not waste it. We don't, nor have we ever lived in an ideal world. Greed, laziness, politics et al are realities that stand in the way of ideals. I'd have to see some data showing farming practices harm wild turkey populations. Farming practices are different in different areas of the country. Farming practices haven't changed a ton since turkeys made a big comeback. If anything, growers are using more bird-friendly pesticides and conservation practices than they were during the phase when turkey populations were on the rise. Growers have always been mowing hedgerows and ditchbanks. Farmers being profitable is a delicate balance that fluctuates every year. Our food production system is less than perfect but necessary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: owlhoot on June 08, 2021, 09:09:31 PM
Update on some earlier discussion in this thread.
Not necessarily about the turkey but nest raiders. Nest predator bounty program in S. Dakota
https://gfp.sd.gov/news/detail/1472/
.
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
To put this in perspective, South Dakota is 77,000 square miles.
The bounty program pays $10 per predator up to $500,000 max. That is 50,000 nest predators.
That won't even reduce predators by 1 per square mile, over the scale of the state. So, instead of 20 nest predators per square mile you'll have 19...
I'm not saying there won't be localized impacts though, or that over time this might start to bring the predator population down by removing breeding females. Just saying that these states are huge, and a bounty program is unlikely to be large enough $ to be able to control predators on a statewide basis IMO...
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 09, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 08, 2021, 09:09:31 PM
Update on some earlier discussion in this thread.
Not necessarily about the turkey but nest raiders. Nest predator bounty program in S. Dakota
https://gfp.sd.gov/news/detail/1472/
.
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
To put this in perspective, South Dakota is 77,000 square miles.
The bounty program pays $10 per predator up to $500,000 max. That is 50,000 nest predators.
That won't even reduce predators by 1 per square mile, over the scale of the state. So, instead of 20 nest predators per square mile you'll have 19...
I'm not saying there won't be localized impacts though, or that over time this might start to bring the predator population down by removing breeding females. Just saying that these states are huge, and a bounty program is unlikely to be large enough $ to be able to control predators on a statewide basis IMO...
I agree.
I think that it is a start. Any bounty system in any state is a good one. It also shows that these bounty states or any state game departments that reports that predator problems are a major factor and need to be addressed.
As far as the South Dakota program we are talking about. What I like is the ETHICS SD program. "Educating youth on the importance of the trapline and wildlife management are key to ensuring our outdoor traditions remain strong for future generations," said Robling. "Trapping provides an experience to explore the outdoors and create lasting stories and memories while making a difference for managing wildlife in South Dakota."
Now hopefully those that participate won't stop just because the bounty for the year runs out. That some start hunting these predators too and as more people get involved the bounties grow.
One thing interesting is that in 2016-17 for the year they report that the nest predator harvest was around 34,000. In 2019 with the program start of April 1rst they had reached 50,000 by August 12.
Nesting seasons in there?
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 08, 2021, 10:13:50 AM
I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.
We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example, My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.
We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates. When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.
Quote from: eggshell on June 09, 2021, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 08, 2021, 10:13:50 AM
I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.
We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example, My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.
We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates. When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.
If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 09, 2021, 05:06:24 PM
Quote from: eggshell on June 09, 2021, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 08, 2021, 10:13:50 AM
I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.
We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example, My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.
We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates. When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.
If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.
I'm not saying we don't produce enough food, right now. Food is either purchased or given away in the U.S. currently to a great degree. Because we are good at producing food people don't pay a lot for food, relatively speaking. Folks don't starve to death a lot in the U.S. relative to other countries. Our homeless have access to food. Food production is a complex topic that affects every facet of our lives. I believe it's an oversimplification to say that because some folks don't eat everything on their plate each meal that we overproduce food to fill the pockets of a few wealthy people. So far as Montana, if you took urban America and spread them out over the U.S. in individual dwellings, the landscape, and wildlife habitat would be very different. Some areas on this planet support human survival better than others. Not every region of every country can support high populations of humans without a lot of help. If you want to see a good example of a city that takes up a lot of resources to prop up, look out the plane window when you fly over Las Vegas Nevada. There's an artificial environment in the middle of a desert created by humans. Do they produce any food in Las Vegas or are there a lot of farmers there growing food for the city's populace. No. It's mostly all brought in, much like an IV bag. The grass is really green though...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 09, 2021, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 09, 2021, 05:06:24 PM
Quote from: eggshell on June 09, 2021, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 08, 2021, 10:13:50 AM
I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.
We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example, My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.
We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates. When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.
If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.
I'm not saying we don't produce enough food, right now. Food is either purchased or given away in the U.S. currently to a great degree. Because we are good at producing food people don't pay a lot for food, relatively speaking. Folks don't starve to death a lot in the U.S. relative to other countries. Our homeless have access to food. Food production is a complex topic that affects every facet of our lives. I believe it's an oversimplification to say that because some folks don't eat everything on their plate each meal that we overproduce food to fill the pockets of a few wealthy people. So far as Montana, if you took urban America and spread them out over the U.S. in individual dwellings, the landscape, and wildlife habitat would be very different. Some areas on this planet support human survival better than others. Not every region of every country can support high populations of humans without a lot of help. If you want to see a good example of a city that takes up a lot of resources to prop up, look out the plane window when you fly over Las Vegas Nevada. There's an artificial environment in the middle of a desert created by humans. Do they produce any food in Las Vegas or are there a lot of farmers there growing food for the city's populace. No. It's mostly all brought in, much like an IV bag. The grass is really green though...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do not believe I said that it is to fill the pockets of wealthy people, I said it is both politics and corporate greed that prevent it from being distributed the way it could be. I have heard of cases were lets say country B has food brought into it and then the politicians or the local warlords either do not allow it to leave the landing strip or it is taken into custody and used to feed people that do not need it or it was not intended for in the first place. Then you have the nightmare of food quarantine which if you talk to many people in the industry which I have in the past will tell you that it is blown way to far as far as everything that they do before it can be released and much of the food will spoil before it can ever be handed out. That is a part of what I am trying to get at. There is more than enough food to feed the people of the world.
Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.
-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.
-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.
-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.
I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.
https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 09, 2021, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 09, 2021, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 09, 2021, 05:06:24 PM
Quote from: eggshell on June 09, 2021, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: Sir-diealot on June 08, 2021, 10:13:50 AM
I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.
We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example, My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.
We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates. When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.
If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.
I'm not saying we don't produce enough food, right now. Food is either purchased or given away in the U.S. currently to a great degree. Because we are good at producing food people don't pay a lot for food, relatively speaking. Folks don't starve to death a lot in the U.S. relative to other countries. Our homeless have access to food. Food production is a complex topic that affects every facet of our lives. I believe it's an oversimplification to say that because some folks don't eat everything on their plate each meal that we overproduce food to fill the pockets of a few wealthy people. So far as Montana, if you took urban America and spread them out over the U.S. in individual dwellings, the landscape, and wildlife habitat would be very different. Some areas on this planet support human survival better than others. Not every region of every country can support high populations of humans without a lot of help. If you want to see a good example of a city that takes up a lot of resources to prop up, look out the plane window when you fly over Las Vegas Nevada. There's an artificial environment in the middle of a desert created by humans. Do they produce any food in Las Vegas or are there a lot of farmers there growing food for the city's populace. No. It's mostly all brought in, much like an IV bag. The grass is really green though...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do not believe I said that it is to fill the pockets of wealthy people, I said it is both politics and corporate greed that prevent it from being distributed the way it could be. I have heard of cases were lets say country B has food brought into it and then the politicians or the local warlords either do not allow it to leave the landing strip or it is taken into custody and used to feed people that do not need it or it was not intended for in the first place. Then you have the nightmare of food quarantine which if you talk to many people in the industry which I have in the past will tell you that it is blown way to far as far as everything that they do before it can be released and much of the food will spoil before it can ever be handed out. That is a part of what I am trying to get at. There is more than enough food to feed the people of the world.
I agree 100%. If we send other countries food we have no control over what happens when it gets there. My overall comments were in regard to U.S. and to some degree world agriculture in general. There's a finer line between feast and famine than most people are aware of.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on June 09, 2021, 06:31:31 PM
Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.
-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.
-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.
-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.
I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.
https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/
So, I'm going to go with ANY farming practice has an impact on wildlife, be it old or modern.
No farmer intentionally left grain or something in the field that could be sold. So when new developments are made that increase grower profits that's a bad thing? Everything we do in everyday life, including conversing on the forum is more efficient and easy than it was. To think ag should have been left at a standstill is illogical.
I will repeat what I said earlier about ditchbanks and hedgerows. Farmers have been cutting them for a very long time. There's as many hedgerows being cut now as there were when turkeys began making a comeback. I think the bobwhite quail suffered from the massive comeback cotton made in the late 80s. Not a lot to eat in and around the cotton field. I don't have data to back that up right this minute but I can try to find some if someone would like to see if I can do it.
I flat out disagree with the pesticide statement. First, let's correctly lump herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and all the other ag chemicals under the umbrella term of pesticides. A herbicide is a subcategory of the broader term pesticide. Many people think when they say pesticide they are referring to a chemical used to kill only insects. Insecticides are pesticides that are used to specifically target insects. The pesticides growers use now are: 1) used less frequently; 2) used at lower rates/acre; 3) have lower risk of acute and chronic toxicity; 4) less toxic to beneficial insects, including native bees; and finally 5) much more expensive than they used to be. It's a good thing growers spray fewer pesticides than they used to. My perception of farmers is that weeds are typically not tolerated, period. Never have been. Fields back in the day were just as weed-free at harvest as they are now, it just took a lot more effort to get to that point, which included more herbicide applications.
The CRP was really originally designed to pay farmers to temporarily hold land out of production in hopes of controlling supplies, increasing prices and conserving soil resources during the Dust Bowl era. Pretty much still the same today. When farm commodity prices drop the CRP increases. When prices increase the CRP decreases. The added benefit of CRP is temporary land conservation. Soil conservation practices are more mainstream in modern agriculture than they used to be. No till means the crop residue is left in the field after harvest instead of clean fallow (bare dirt). So I imagine there is more to eat there for the birdies if it isn't harvested. I have seen a heck of a lot of volunteer corn come up behind modern combines.
If you look at a peanut field after it's been harvested you may wonder how peanut growers make any money. Peanut harvest is very inefficient for which the wildlife is glad.
All the while the number of farmers is decreasing, the average farm size is conversely increasing, while farm acreage is decreasing. Think on that.
Farming most certainly does impact wildlife. Not sure if the modern is worse than the less modern.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 09, 2021, 07:40:43 PM
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on June 09, 2021, 06:31:31 PM
Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.
-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.
-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.
-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.
I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.
https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/
So, I'm going to go with ANY farming practice has an impact on wildlife, be it old or modern.
No farmer intentionally left grain or something in the field that could be sold. So when new developments are made that increase grower profits that's a bad thing? Everything we do in everyday life, including conversing on the forum is more efficient and easy than it was. To think ag should have been left at a standstill is illogical.
I will repeat what I said earlier about ditchbanks and hedgerows. Farmers have been cutting them for a very long time. There's as many hedgerows being cut now as there were when turkeys began making a comeback. I think the bobwhite quail suffered from the massive comeback cotton made in the late 80s. Not a lot to eat in and around the cotton field. I don't have data to back that up right this minute but I can try to find some if someone would like to see if I can do it.
I flat out disagree with the pesticide statement. First, let's correctly lump herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and all the other ag chemicals under the umbrella term of pesticides. A herbicide is a subcategory of the broader term pesticide. Many people think when they say pesticide they are referring to a chemical used to kill only insects. Insecticides are pesticides that are used to specifically target insects. The pesticides growers use now are: 1) used less frequently; 2) used at lower rates/acre; 3) have lower risk of acute and chronic toxicity; 4) less toxic to beneficial insects, including native bees; and finally 5) much more expensive than they used to be. It's a good thing growers spray fewer pesticides than they used to. My perception of farmers is that weeds are typically not tolerated, period. Never have been. Fields back in the day were just as weed-free at harvest as they are now, it just took a lot more effort to get to that point, which included more herbicide applications.
The CRP was really originally designed to pay farmers to temporarily hold land out of production in hopes of controlling supplies, increasing prices and conserving soil resources during the Dust Bowl era. Pretty much still the same today. When farm commodity prices drop the CRP increases. When prices increase the CRP decreases. The added benefit of CRP is temporary land conservation. Soil conservation practices are more mainstream in modern agriculture than they used to be. No till means the crop residue is left in the field after harvest instead of clean fallow (bare dirt). So I imagine there is more to eat there for the birdies if it isn't harvested. I have seen a heck of a lot of volunteer corn come up behind modern combines.
If you look at a peanut field after it's been harvested you may wonder how peanut growers make any money. Peanut harvest is very inefficient for which the wildlife is glad.
All the while the number of farmers is decreasing, the average farm size is conversely increasing, while farm acreage is decreasing. Think on that.
Farming most certainly does impact wildlife. Not sure if the modern is worse than the less modern.
Not sure I see where the disagreement is in each of your comments,...and they are good ones. Looks to me like you are both making the same points but in different verbiage... ;) :)
Quote from: Meleagris gallopavo on June 09, 2021, 07:40:43 PM
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on June 09, 2021, 06:31:31 PM
Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.
-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.
-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.
-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.
I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.
https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/
So, I'm going to go with ANY farming practice has an impact on wildlife, be it old or modern.
No farmer intentionally left grain or something in the field that could be sold. So when new developments are made that increase grower profits that's a bad thing? Everything we do in everyday life, including conversing on the forum is more efficient and easy than it was. To think ag should have been left at a standstill is illogical.
I will repeat what I said earlier about ditchbanks and hedgerows. Farmers have been cutting them for a very long time. There's as many hedgerows being cut now as there were when turkeys began making a comeback. I think the bobwhite quail suffered from the massive comeback cotton made in the late 80s. Not a lot to eat in and around the cotton field. I don't have data to back that up right this minute but I can try to find some if someone would like to see if I can do it.
I flat out disagree with the pesticide statement. First, let's correctly lump herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and all the other ag chemicals under the umbrella term of pesticides. A herbicide is a subcategory of the broader term pesticide. Many people think when they say pesticide they are referring to a chemical used to kill only insects. Insecticides are pesticides that are used to specifically target insects. The pesticides growers use now are: 1) used less frequently; 2) used at lower rates/acre; 3) have lower risk of acute and chronic toxicity; 4) less toxic to beneficial insects, including native bees; and finally 5) much more expensive than they used to be. It's a good thing growers spray fewer pesticides than they used to. My perception of farmers is that weeds are typically not tolerated, period. Never have been. Fields back in the day were just as weed-free at harvest as they are now, it just took a lot more effort to get to that point, which included more herbicide applications.
The CRP was really originally designed to pay farmers to temporarily hold land out of production in hopes of controlling supplies, increasing prices and conserving soil resources during the Dust Bowl era. Pretty much still the same today. When farm commodity prices drop the CRP increases. When prices increase the CRP decreases. The added benefit of CRP is temporary land conservation. Soil conservation practices are more mainstream in modern agriculture than they used to be. No till means the crop residue is left in the field after harvest instead of clean fallow (bare dirt). So I imagine there is more to eat there for the birdies if it isn't harvested. I have seen a heck of a lot of volunteer corn come up behind modern combines.
If you look at a peanut field after it's been harvested you may wonder how peanut growers make any money. Peanut harvest is very inefficient for which the wildlife is glad.
All the while the number of farmers is decreasing, the average farm size is conversely increasing, while farm acreage is decreasing. Think on that.
Farming most certainly does impact wildlife. Not sure if the modern is worse than the less modern.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever."
I completely agree this is a detriment to wildlife, I have a friend that does farming and he admits this has hurt wildlife as well.
Also as I state how far down things are cut as well as how fast they are cut compared to the old days hurts wildlife.
-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.
I also completely agree with this and find it funny that the dustbowl is brought up because if I remember correctly removal of hedgerows, trees and I think it was called cross cutting are believed to have contributed to how severe the dustbowl was as there was no vegetation left to help break the wind and keep the soil in the ground. I see this further evidenced in my area where the Mennonite community as well as some of the "English" which they call us has also down and how bad the roads become during snow storms. If the hedgerows were there that blowing would not be as bad which is further backed by the fact that in the areas where they were having lots of accidents the county has started to put snow fences in the fields there are less drifts in the road and less accidents. If the cover is not there for the roads then it is clearly not there for the critters either.
All good points and discussion guys. I think Gobblenut is right we are mostly agreeing and it's a syntax/semantics problem.
I have driven over a lot of this country in the last 10 years and I do see more conservation practices being used. From leaving a few rows of corn in the upper midwest to wind breaks and water holes in the SW. I also see a fair amount of fallow ground, but it is correct CRP has decreased. In the "BIG" picture things have improved for wildlife in the agriculture world, but it's still not good. I don't see it changing much in a growing world.
One area I see less or little conservation is in the central U.S. and the corn belt. Particularly in Northern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The western states seem to be a tiny bit more wildlife conscious....but I could be wrong in my observations
Quote from: eggshell on June 10, 2021, 07:29:29 AM
One area I see less or little conservation is in the central U.S. and the corn belt.
I used to live and turkey hunt in Iowa.
Fencerow to fencerow corn/soybeans farming in much of the state.
Yet turkey populations/harvest has been relatively steady (harvest generally fluctuating between 10,000 and 14,000 birds) over the last couple of decades, in fact, 2020 reported turkey harvest was the highest on record!
https://www.1380kcim.com/2020/05/23/iowa-hunters-have-record-turkey-harvest-in-spring-of-2020/
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 10, 2021, 09:35:49 AM
Quote from: eggshell on June 10, 2021, 07:29:29 AM
One area I see less or little conservation is in the central U.S. and the corn belt.
I used to live and turkey hunt in Iowa.
Fencerow to fencerow corn/soybeans farming in much of the state.
Yet turkey populations/harvest has been relatively steady (harvest generally fluctuating between 10,000 and 14,000 birds) over the last couple of decades, in fact, 2020 reported turkey harvest was the highest on record!
https://www.1380kcim.com/2020/05/23/iowa-hunters-have-record-turkey-harvest-in-spring-of-2020/
Which leads me to my earlier comments that modern farming practices don't have a major impact on turkey populations. That's not to say as a whole that farming practices don't impact wildlife or specifically turkeys. The impact can be positive or negative. I think targeting farming practices as the reason for declining turkey populations in some areas is barking up the wrong tree.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]
I think targeting farming practices as the reason for declining turkey populations in some areas is barking up the wrong tree.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]
I agree.
I have read all the replies and added a few of my own.
THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY OF US NOW...
Not only that,I think there is a whole lot more Spring Turkey Hunters taking over the Bag limit in every State then most here realize. Someone here wrote this and,I agree--- We Have Met The Enemy- And It Is Us.
I've followed this thread with some interest. I'm going to jump out on a limb here and state that if we had absolutely no YouTube nor social media whatsoever we'd have absolutely no problem. We'd have not even half of the current hunters which we do. New hunters would have to be self-educated as many of us have done. Weather and other environmental factors would end up averaging out.
Maybe we should start a Facebook and YouTube campaign that makes turkey hunting seem boring, aggravating and dangerous at times. Empty tailgates. People asleep (we see some of these, we need more) or watching movies on their cell phones while hunting. People playing cards or board games in blinds or in the woods. Pictures of calls used with a description of how expensive they are and how often they don't work. Pictures of bloody hunters with torn clothes with stories about how they were attacked by a gobbler and barely made it out. More stories about hunters getting shot by other hunters. Turkeys carrying diseases harmful to humans. Pictures of spurs impaling body parts. Diaphragm calls causing oral cancer or at least teeth problems that are expensive to correct. True stories about turkey call addiction and how it creates financial problems. Videos of mean, tame turkeys attacking hunters. Turkeys vandalizing hunter's trucks when they're in the woods. These are just a few ideas I've had. If we make it look miserable we may have fewer hunters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL there you go. The alternative is to give the coordinates of where you find birds...public or private...on YouTube or such. It'll give you great satisfaction calling a bird to gun that five other guys are simultaneously calling LOL.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Lots of personal opinions and thoughts on this thread so far with some good science mixed in along the way. Grant just released a great video addressing this topic with a biological view. https://youtu.be/RzIn0dSgeiU
Quote from: bwhana on June 10, 2021, 06:39:15 PM
Lots of personal opinions and thoughts on this thread so far with some good science mixed in along the way. Grant just released a great video addressing this topic with a biological view. https://youtu.be/RzIn0dSgeiU
Great video,...Thanks for posting. Unfortunately, the video brings up a couple of very juxtaposed issues. The first is the very real need for predator control. The second is the reality that overall societal views on things like predator control and trapping are changing such that the general human population in this country is less accepting of it. Finding an acceptable balance between those two issues is a major challenge we face.
The fact is that hunters (and wildlife managers) just declaring that we are going to kill predators solely with the purpose of providing more game species for us human hunters to kill is a really big PR problem for all of us. Any solution we seek to dwindling game numbers, whether it be turkeys or otherwise, has to include the recognition that increasing numbers of our fellow citizens do not accept that first statement in this paragraph.
And here's a News Flash for those out there that just declare that "By God, I am going to do what I want on my own land!". ...Guess what? If that 97% of the general public gets to the mindset that "NO YOU AREN'T!", I guarantee you will not be "doing what I want" on your own land when it comes to the wildlife there.
Second News Flash: YOU do not own the wildlife that lives on your property! The citizens of your state own it! If those citizens decide that it is more important for that wildlife to live than it is for you to kill it, THAT is what is going to happen!
The bottom line is that wildlife managers HAVE to deal with that other 97% of our citizenry in making wildlife management decisions. Those decisions are increasingly having to be made based on factors that are more complex than "if we want more game animals, let's just kill off the predators that compete with us".
Sorry, fellers, but that is the unfortunate reality of where we are....
:z-winnersmiley:
Both the video and Gobblenut's post are very good.
I danced the dance for 30 years and I can assure you that sportsmen don't want to stir the pot too vigorously, we will lose if we pick a fight with John Q Public. This is the balancing act that wildlife agencies do everyday. How do we draw attention and thus funding support to our cause, when a large majority could care less.
I once saw a story about a homeless guywho had built a shanty on a property and squatted for many years. Someone thought it would be great to fix up his shack and clear the brush and put it on the news. The landowner then had him removed and tore down his shack. when he was in-obscure and deemed harmless he could live in peace, but after the attention the landowner feared legal ramifications and his property becoming a homeless community. His neighbors also complained. So think hard before you cry wolf.
Our agencies could always improve, but they aren't doing as poorly as many think.
Quote from: bwhana on June 10, 2021, 06:39:15 PM
Lots of personal opinions and thoughts on this thread so far with some good science mixed in along the way. Grant just released a great video addressing this topic with a biological view. https://youtu.be/RzIn0dSgeiU
Thanks for sharing! He definitely has a strong opinion on nest predators.
I made a graph of spring turkey harvest in Iowa (a state I used to live and turkey hunt in), from 2007-2021 (mandatory reporting started in 2007). Am I to assume that nest predators have not increased in Iowa compared to Missouri? Why is Iowa's turkey harvest relatively stable while other states seem to be struggling?
It seems that if predators were truly the main issue due to lack of trapping/low fur prices, that Iowa would be suffering along with other states...
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 11, 2021, 03:03:59 PM
Quote from: bwhana on June 10, 2021, 06:39:15 PM
Lots of personal opinions and thoughts on this thread so far with some good science mixed in along the way. Grant just released a great video addressing this topic with a biological view. https://youtu.be/RzIn0dSgeiU
Thanks for sharing! He definitely has a strong opinion on nest predators.
I made a graph of spring turkey harvest in Iowa (a state I used to live and turkey hunt in), from 2007-2021 (mandatory reporting started in 2007). Am I to assume that nest predators have not increased in Iowa compared to Missouri? Why is Iowa's turkey harvest relatively stable while other states seem to be struggling?
It seems that if predators were truly the main issue due to lack of trapping/low fur prices, that Iowa would be suffering along with other states...
Restoration efforts ended in 2001. Harvest went almost half in 2007. Since then harvest is at levels of about 1992. In that year 1992 there were a bit over 30k licenses, from 2007 -2019 there were 45-55k licenses. Success rates dropped from near 50% in the early 2000s to 20% in 2007 to present. Fall harvest has dropped to 7% success and looks like under 1000 birds taken. Since 2007 to 2019 licensed fall turkey hunters fell from 11,024 to 6,296. Question is why?
Iowa coon hunters still take a lot of raccoons. In 2011-2014 Around 300k, fell after until 2019 or so to around 100k. Last Missouri report I think said 22k killed?
Quote from: owlhoot on June 11, 2021, 03:55:51 PM
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 11, 2021, 03:03:59 PM
Quote from: bwhana on June 10, 2021, 06:39:15 PM
Lots of personal opinions and thoughts on this thread so far with some good science mixed in along the way. Grant just released a great video addressing this topic with a biological view. https://youtu.be/RzIn0dSgeiU
Thanks for sharing! He definitely has a strong opinion on nest predators.
I made a graph of spring turkey harvest in Iowa (a state I used to live and turkey hunt in), from 2007-2021 (mandatory reporting started in 2007). Am I to assume that nest predators have not increased in Iowa compared to Missouri? Why is Iowa's turkey harvest relatively stable while other states seem to be struggling?
It seems that if predators were truly the main issue due to lack of trapping/low fur prices, that Iowa would be suffering along with other states...
Restoration efforts ended in 2001. Harvest went almost half in 2007. Since then harvest is at levels of about 1992. In that year 1992 there were a bit over 30k licenses, from 2007 -2019 there were 45-55k licenses. Success rates dropped from near 50% in the early 2000s to 20% in 2007 to present. Fall harvest has dropped to 7% success and looks like under 1000 birds taken. Since 2007 to 2019 licensed fall turkey hunters fell from 11,024 to 6,296. Question is why?
If you're referring to Iowa, in 2007 mandatory reporting started, so comparing 2007+ to prior to 2007 is problematic because no one knows for sure what the % reported harvest is (i.e. not all birds shot are reported). That's likely why it looks like harvest "dropped" in 2007, because the metric to determine harvest is different than pre-2007. I was living in Iowa in 2007 and nothing was noticeably different about that year compared to previous years.
However, we can more reliably compare Iowa data that is all 2007+ (assuming reporting rate is somewhat the same year-over-year).
No trends pop out to me in that Iowa dataset from 2007-2021, certainly not any declining harvest.
So, why do other states show declining harvest, while Iowa is stable for the last 15 years of harvest data?
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 11, 2021, 04:21:07 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 11, 2021, 03:55:51 PM
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 11, 2021, 03:03:59 PM
Quote from: bwhana on June 10, 2021, 06:39:15 PM
Lots of personal opinions and thoughts on this thread so far with some good science mixed in along the way. Grant just released a great video addressing this topic with a biological view. https://youtu.be/RzIn0dSgeiU
Thanks for sharing! He definitely has a strong opinion on nest predators.
I made a graph of spring turkey harvest in Iowa (a state I used to live and turkey hunt in), from 2007-2021 (mandatory reporting started in 2007). Am I to assume that nest predators have not increased in Iowa compared to Missouri? Why is Iowa's turkey harvest relatively stable while other states seem to be struggling?
It seems that if predators were truly the main issue due to lack of trapping/low fur prices, that Iowa would be suffering along with other states...
Restoration efforts ended in 2001. Harvest went almost half in 2007. Since then harvest is at levels of about 1992. In that year 1992 there were a bit over 30k licenses, from 2007 -2019 there were 45-55k licenses. Success rates dropped from near 50% in the early 2000s to 20% in 2007 to present. Fall harvest has dropped to 7% success and looks like under 1000 birds taken. Since 2007 to 2019 licensed fall turkey hunters fell from 11,024 to 6,296. Question is why?
If you're referring to Iowa, in 2007 mandatory reporting started, so comparing 2007+ to prior to 2007 is problematic because no one knows for sure what the % reported harvest is (i.e. not all birds shot are reported). That's likely why it looks like harvest "dropped" in 2007, because the metric to determine harvest is different than pre-2007. I was living in Iowa in 2007 and nothing was noticeably different about that year compared to previous years.
However, we can more reliably compare Iowa data that is all 2007+ (assuming reporting rate is somewhat the same year-over-year).
No trends pop out to me in that Iowa dataset from 2007-2021, certainly not any declining harvest. So, why do other states show declining harvest, while Iowa is stable for the last 15 years of harvest data?
yes Iowa , all kinds of information on there sight. The data says that 2007 shift. Are you saying that mail in surveys are or where more dependable than mandatory? That they took the time to mail in the kill and now half don't? Maybe I am missing something.
Yes it looks like the harvest has been stable . I just pointed out that what was puzzling is that the huge increase of hunters and still the same amount killed.
Just having a discussion. Looking at the charts , most of my posts are as much of what do guys think rather than I know . I'm just reading and looking at the charts. Since 2007 to 2019 licensed fall turkey hunters fell from 11,024 to 6,296. Question is why?
Iowa coon hunters still take a lot of raccoons. In 2011-2014 Around 300k, fell after until 2019 or so to around 100k. Last Missouri report I think said 22k killed?
Quote from: owlhoot on June 11, 2021, 04:51:10 PM
yes Iowa , all kinds of information on there sight. The data says that 2007 shift. Are you saying that mail in surveys are or where more dependable than mandatory? That they took the time to mail in the kill and now half don't? Maybe I am missing something.
Yes it looks like the harvest has been stable . I just pointed out that what was puzzling is that the huge increase of hunters and still the same amount killed.
Just having a discussion. Looking at the charts , most of my posts are as much of what do guys think rather than I know . I'm just reading and looking at the charts. Since 2007 to 2019 licensed fall turkey hunters fell from 11,024 to 6,296. Question is why?
Iowa coon hunters still take a lot of raccoons. In 2011-2014 Around 300k, fell after until 2019 or so to around 100k. Last Missouri report I think said 22k killed?
Those are good observations and questions. I don't have all the answers either, just trying to look at what data is available to help guide the discussion (knowing that data is never perfect either).
Regarding 2007 vs. previous, I'm not sure if more people mailed in vs. online, I just remember there was quite a bit of pushback from hunters about the mandatory reporting and the thought is that not all hunters accurately report online. Not sure what the % is, but that is the likely shift from the pre-2007 data to the 2007+ data. That could also explain your question about the increase in hunters but not harvest - can't easily compare data either side of 2007, can only really look at trends past 2007.
Fall turkey hunters - not sure why the decrease, but as far as I know Iowa has a quota system by zones so this could be a local change, i.e. the quotas changed in certain zones? Once the quota is reached no more tags are available. Iowa has one of the best population monitoring programs, so maybe they proactively decreased fall turkey tags a while back, not sure?
Quote from: PNWturkey on June 11, 2021, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: owlhoot on June 11, 2021, 04:51:10 PM
yes Iowa , all kinds of information on there sight. The data says that 2007 shift. Are you saying that mail in surveys are or where more dependable than mandatory? That they took the time to mail in the kill and now half don't? Maybe I am missing something.
Yes it looks like the harvest has been stable . I just pointed out that what was puzzling is that the huge increase of hunters and still the same amount killed.
Just having a discussion. Looking at the charts , most of my posts are as much of what do guys think rather than I know . I'm just reading and looking at the charts. Since 2007 to 2019 licensed fall turkey hunters fell from 11,024 to 6,296. Question is why?
Iowa coon hunters still take a lot of raccoons. In 2011-2014 Around 300k, fell after until 2019 or so to around 100k. Last Missouri report I think said 22k killed?
Those are good observations and questions. I don't have all the answers either, just trying to look at what data is available to help guide the discussion (knowing that data is never perfect either).
Regarding 2007 vs. previous, I'm not sure if more people mailed in vs. online, I just remember there was quite a bit of pushback from hunters about the mandatory reporting and the thought is that not all hunters accurately report online. Not sure what the % is, but that is the likely shift from the pre-2007 data to the 2007+ data. That could also explain your question about the increase in hunters but not harvest - can't easily compare data either side of 2007, can only really look at trends past 2007.
Fall turkey hunters - not sure why the decrease, but as far as I know Iowa has a quota system by zones so this could be a local change, i.e. the quotas changed in certain zones? Once the quota is reached no more tags are available. Iowa has one of the best population monitoring programs, so maybe they proactively decreased fall turkey tags a while back, not sure?
they do the data don't they?
Noticed that they jumped in and reduced tags after a poor hatch they said. They seem to be doing good work. Would like to see that population of turkeys grow but being stable after seeing the declines in north Missouri, I would take stable for sure. I guess as far as this states reporting is concerned 2007 to present is what to look at to be able to come up with something.
Not a ton of spring hunters, but significant 55k 2007 to 47k in 2019.
Fall harvest dropped way down , but didn't have far to go to almost nothing.
Seem to be killing lots of coons, around 100k. Now maybe not enough per square mile but maybe some states could follow their lead.
This part kinda gets me. Turkey hunting is the big thing right now, but in this case 2019 spring harvest was 11,389. Raccoon hunting isn't a big thing but yet 100k harvested. Doesn't that stick out as a problem with the population of prey/predator ? Ecological balance .
They do have a lot of zones with quotas and 4 seasons spring too. Not sure how many of those a resident can hunt ? Non resident by draw and 1 bird limit for a max of 2,148 licenses, no non resident youth. And if you don't have an valid license you don't get to go out and call or assist for others that do have a valid license.
When I lived in New Mexico 20 something years ago they would adjust the turkey bag limit every year. Sometimes it was one bird, sometimes it was two depending on the circumstances. IDK if they still do it like that or not but it seems like a good idea-to be flexible and adjust as needed. Don't really see any other states doing that.
I might try my Luck next Sprng on Mississippi Public Land. Maybe if,I arrive 5 days early,I will have a Tom located before the Hordes move in on me.
Just a thought right now. There has to be good pockets of Birds,I can find before ,I see Arkansas Plates next to my SUV.
In Massachusetts the opener is the beginning of the second gobbling period. The theory is that the big toms have a chance to reproduce. We have so many turkeys near the population centers they are considered vermin by the locals. Last year they went to two toms a day, the Spring limit. The state went up a bird with two in the Spring and one in the Fall. The state is trying to thin out the flock.
I think there should be a national study of states that have their opener at the beginning of the second gobbling peak allowing the first peak to have no hunting while the big toms have a chance to breed. Jakes breed but I think they have poorer broods than mature toms that have fought their way there way for the hens. Just my opinion and my :z-twocents: worth. :OGturkeyhead:
Found this old post and I've got turkey on the brain...
Do I think turkey harvest have an impact on turkey numbers? Yes, to an extent. I get to hunt quite a bit of public land across a handful of states and, generally speaking, the areas with less pressure do tend to have more birds. That should be pretty obvious - if you have good habitat and fewer predators (hunters in this case) there's going to be more turkey. Does that mean I think bag limits are the biggest issue? No- I think your average hunter shoots one, maybe two per year...for that guy, it doesn't matter if the bag limit is 10 birds a season, he's shooting his one bird and then going fishing. Most guys on here aren't representative of your "average" hunter....or you wouldn't be spending your free time on a forum about turkey. I'm not advocating for a 5 bird bag limit but I don't think it's the biggest factor either. I DO, think that the season timing is critically important because season's starting too early is going to disrupt the breeding window and can/do result in some hens not getting bred....which is one less turkey that has the ability to reproduce that year.
Again, given that habitat is decent (it doesn't have to be ideal, in my experience) I think the single biggest issue is NEST predators - raccoons in particular. I forget the exact number but I believe its around 70% (someone correct me if you know what it is off the top of your head) of nest are destroyed or fail before the eggs ever get a chance to hatch.... That's an astoundingly high number when you consider every nest may have 10+ turkey that are getting wiped out before ever taking a breath of air. I've spent way too much time trying to research this but you can look at population trends of wild turkey and then overlay them with time periods where raccoon and skunk populations were limited by disease and there's a definite overlap...I'm not a biologist but I can read a graph and when turkey numbers were at their height (from the early 90's to the early 2000's), also at it's height was rabies, during this same time period. I'm not advocating for rabies, just pointing out that when mother nature was controlling the nest predator population, the turkey population was at it's peak. I won't flat out say that these two events overlapping factually correlated, but it is a fact that these two events overlapped each other during that time frame.
Common sense tells me that more nest predators in an area= more nest destroyed. Less nest predators in an area = less nest destroyed.
...Which brings me to my next point - I don't have a problem with youtubers as long as they are responsible with how they handle keep areas discreet. What I would call them to do is understand that they have a platform that reaches a lot of people and influences them. Some of these guys are celebrity status in their industry, at this point. Use that platform to help the game animal and influence people to do what they can (most people can afford a dog-proof raccoon trap, for example) to build/maintain the population. People do watch these video's and then go do what they see these guys do...that includes doing their part to help the turkey population. Whether you hunt public or private land, you can spend some time doing your part to put more turkey back in the woods...
Quote from: eggshell on May 31, 2021, 06:50:31 AM
Quote from: silvestris on May 30, 2021, 02:05:23 PM
It is going to take a major die off ...................of turkey"hunters". "We have met the enemy, and it is us,"
Hmmm, maybe time for Thanos
Or Bill Gates.
Predators are the #1 reason turkey numbers are down. Dont forget that we, humans, are predators. Our part to this has been hit on here. Our urban expansion, treating turkeys like an inexhaustable resource and our lack of predator control, including us, has had an impact. Egg stealers such as racoons, skunks and possums are out of control around here. Coyotes are also going unchecked. I have also seen more bobcats in the last 3 years than in the previous 50. And lastly, but not the least, our egos/internet exposure. Everybody wants to show off their hunting prowess. I am in the woods more than most and throughout the year and I have noticed a decline in raw numbers over the past 3 years. This is the 4th year of our bag limit being 2. More people hunting= more birds killed. A lot of new hunters are happy just to shoot a jake and good for them. But I live/hunt in a little spot of a town and saw h
vehicles from 9 different states this year. That is a lot for this small area. We will crash in my area if we dont do something. I have sent my proposals to our state F&G commission and shoot as many " non turkey friendly" critters as possible. I cant complain if I dont do my part, I just see what all you veteran turkey hunters from traditionally great states have warned us about happening right now. Its a very sharp peak and I am afraid that it will fall off just as sharply. God help us all. Good luck, be safe and God Bless. Al Baker