Received an email from the ODWC that contained a survey about some proposed changes. Anyone who hunts Oklahoma should have gotten the survey, but if not I'm sure it's on their website. Basically it's proposing to shift the statewide season by 10 days (later), go from 3 tom limit to 2 toms, and a few other changes. If you hunt Oklahoma or think you might in the future, i encourage you to voice your opinion. There's also a section you can type additional comments in to the survey.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
And another state jumps on the bandwagon.
Just remember, there is no scientific evidence that shifting seasons to later starting dates will have an effect on turkey populations. At this point it is theory. And reducing the bag limit by 1 bird will not have a significant impact on overall population levels across the landscape.
If these changes had significant impacts, why hasn't Arkansas made a huge rebound? They've had similar changes in place for quite a while now.
This a dangerous path many states are taking. Now if the changes were 100% backed by peer-reviewed science, I wouldn't be so wary.
The only way to really make a difference is to manage habitat and/or predators. It all boils down to nest success and recruitment.
As a wildlife professional, it somewhat blows my mind at some of the regulation changes we are seeing at such a fast pace. What if some of this theory is wrong? We've taken away opportunity by jumping the gun. Once hunting opportunity is taken away, don't expect to get it back!
Here in Eastern Oklahoma, we are overrun with hogs, coyotes, and raccoons. All three of these will hurt turkey numbers is left unchecked I believe. I wish the state of Oklahoma would put a priority on curtailing some of their numbers back. Surely it would help out birds some
I just did the survey and laid it on them . Our department has lacked vision for a long time unless it swims or its venison . They hang their degrees on the wall and dont think they come out of the office . I will give some of the points I made .
1 . They have not done any research , none that I know of . How do you treat an illness if you dont identify the disease .
2. Late controlled burns in several wma's , the woods smoking coming in to set up camp .
3. They have been starting later in the south east a long time but have not seen bird numbers increase .
4.Horse back riding up to and right after season , and yes even into the set up during season all though not suppose to .
5. No law enforcement , have hunted a lot of wma's a long time and only seen a warden in one of them .
6. Allowed harvesting bearded hens in spring , fall , some areas either sex and hens with bow .
7. Later start date to do battle with snakes , ticks , poison ivy and heat , not to mention tornadoes .
8. I know game wardens saying they wont listen to them and other department personnel say they they try to talk to the biologist but no good .
9. No testing of blood samples from harvested birds .
I am not opposed to doing what is right for the birds , we owe them that , to be good stewards . I do expect decisions to be made after research , fact based and sound logic . Our department is not taxpayer funded , they are charged with a great responsibility and I expect them to operate at a very high level . The department years ago was something to be proud of , and they didnt have degrees .
Quote from: dah on May 05, 2021, 12:05:51 AM
I just did the survey and laid it on them . Our department has lacked vision for a long time unless it swims or its venison . They hang their degrees on the wall and dont think they come out of the office . I will give some of the points I made .
1 . They have not done any research , none that I know of . How do you treat an illness if you dont identify the disease .
2. Late controlled burns in several wma's , the woods smoking coming in to set up camp .
3. They have been starting later in the south east a long time but have not seen bird numbers increase .
4.Horse back riding up to and right after season , and yes even into the set up during season all though not suppose to .
5. No law enforcement , have hunted a lot of wma's a long time and only seen a warden in one of them .
6. Allowed harvesting bearded hens in spring , fall , some areas either sex and hens with bow .
7. Later start date to do battle with snakes , ticks , poison ivy and heat , not to mention tornadoes .
8. I know game wardens saying they wont listen to them and other department personnel say they they try to talk to the biologist but no good .
9. No testing of blood samples from harvested birds .
I am not opposed to doing what is right for the birds , we owe them that , to be good stewards . I do expect decisions to be made after research , fact based and sound logic . Our department is not taxpayer funded , they are charged with a great responsibility and I expect them to operate at a very high level . The department years ago was something to be proud of , and they didnt have degrees .
Amen. The department has done near nothing for our birds for years. Why? You put it perfectly, because they are not deer of fish. That's all who ever is running things seems to care about and our birds have suffering greatly. The last Oklahoma longbeard is shot was 2007. After that, they were going downhill way more. Oklahoma used to be packed with turkeys before then. I fear for them now unless something changes
I got the survey too. It sounds to me like the department already has their mind made up regarding these changes. I don't mind pushing the season back by 10 days, if it helps. But is that really going to help? Like dah said, it doesn't seem to have helped in the SE counties.
I honestly wish they would shut all turkey season down a few years, and dedicate that time to doing whatever it took to start bringing them back
The two main factors affecting turkey hunting are habitat degradation and hunter recruitment.
I do plan to hunt OK in the future after all the covid stuff lifts. I do not know if moving the dates will make a difference but I am not opposed to 1 less male bird there or here in NY and am totally for ending the taking of hens all together in all states, killing a hen is killing the future and makes no sense to me at all.
Sent from my S30U+ using Tapatalk
Quote from: Sanders153 on May 05, 2021, 10:08:19 AM
I honestly wish they would shut all turkey season down a few years, and dedicate that time to doing whatever it took to start bringing them back
I know they would never go for it because of revenue loss, but that would probably be of some help honestly. Also, I don't know why they don't do more to encourage trapping and predator control. I'm not saying monetize anything for an incentive, but public awareness campaigns on trapping or the benefits of predator control would only be a few hours of a department employees time. I feel like they could be doing a lot more than what they're doing, other than just making some regulation changes. I hope they figure something out pretty quickly.
By the way, I have lived in SE Oklahoma all of my life. Best I can recall, they started opening our season later than the rest of the state in 2007 or 2008 and in the time since, I have not noticed any significant increase in our population. Only an increase in hunting pressure and hunting before the opener. Also, I have never been checked by a game warden in any SE counties while turkey hunting, and I take a lot of time off of work and hunt almost every morning of our season. Even after I kill a bird, I hunt with family and friends. I got checked one time in NW Oklahoma a few years ago, and that is the only time I've ever been checked in about 20 years of turkey hunting in Oklahoma. Our department has a lot of room for improvement.
I would like to add.
I was in Oklahoma this year for the opener, thank you Oklahoma for the opportunity!
Never stepping foot in Oklahoma before I had 3 days scouting built into my hunt, before the 6th. On day one of scouting I ran into a Biologist, In The Field. In 32 years of hunting WV this has never happened to me! Also seen a GW first day of season.
We had a good chat. Very nice man, that seemed dedicated to his career. I asked the question of population. It's not just Oklahoma, it's the vast majority of the country that is experiencing this decline.
He and I had some very similar view points, and none of his I could disagree with, none.
He also told me they were looking at some rule changes, and some of them were up for restructure. He ran through a list of them.
One of these changes was to the land itself. In Western Oklahoma you are allowed one Tom per WMA/County. This rule is a speed bump for hunters. They were looking to make regions in the state, which may contain several WMA's/Counties. With the same one Tom rule. Bigger speed bump.
This Biologist agreed that the taking of Tom's had no adverse effects on the population. As long as done within moderation of the Local population. The rule of one Tom per WMA/County is for us, the hunter. To help spread the resource to multiple hunters, not just one guy tagging out in one little area. I liked the rule myself.
Predators... That is such a big, broad discussion. Let me put it my terms because that's all I know.
Remember back when Europe's economy went to crap? Then China? Then add in the Covid on the end of that. You have a string now of 6-7 years of poor to nothing fur prices. It's not worth it to trap, or it is not worth nearly what is was to trap. That has taking thousands of trappers out of the field country wide. Of those thousand most of them are hobby trappers like myself, but some were professionals as well.
Do a little research and you can see the difference in the last ten years of what has been available at international fur auctions. This has added, kept, a lot of predators in the field. These numbers are represented by thousands of trappers. Do you think a state field staff of 50-100 people can make up the difference? No, they can not, and most states do not have nearly that many boots on the ground anyway!
One other point I found interesting from the conversation I had with the Biologist. Hunting pressure. These people are aware of hunting pressure, not just who is in the field today, but 10 years ago as well. He sees an uptick in Non Res hunters and the amount of time spent in the field. This does effect population. Some of these original rules were not put in place to allow for a sustained pressure like has been seen in the last few years.
Lastly, I will throw out, weather. No state can control this. This is a huge portion of poult survival. What can we do about it?
During my scouting I ran a lot of Oklahoma's reported numbers, population, harvest reports, WMA harvest, county harvest, poult survival. Now, add in a number for mortality, poaching/unreported harvests. The numbers do not add up. The population is not self sustaining in Oklahoma at present.
I offered my thoughts of this to the Biologist. He gave me a funny look. I would bet a dollar he has put some time in those numbers since I brought it up to him in that manner.
I expect, we as hunters, if we continue to hunt the King of Spring will all endure some upcoming changes to help stabilize the populations we have across the country.
While in Oklahoma I seen 7 hens and 9 male turkeys. This was covering two different WMA areas, two different counties. 6 days of boots on the ground and a few miles of scouting. 7 hens, 9 males, anyone see a problem with this other than me?
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on May 04, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
And another state jumps on the bandwagon.
Just remember, there is no scientific evidence that shifting seasons to later starting dates will have an effect on turkey populations. At this point it is theory. And reducing the bag limit by 1 bird will not have a significant impact on overall population levels across the landscape.
If these changes had significant impacts, why hasn't Arkansas made a huge rebound? They've had similar changes in place for quite a while now.
This a dangerous path many states are taking. Now if the changes were 100% backed by peer-reviewed science, I wouldn't be so wary.
The only way to really make a difference is to manage habitat and/or predators. It all boils down to nest success and recruitment.
As a wildlife professional, it somewhat blows my mind at some of the regulation changes we are seeing at such a fast pace. What if some of this theory is wrong? We've taken away opportunity by jumping the gun. Once hunting opportunity is taken away, don't expect to get it back!
How is reducing tag numbers therefore spreading out the resource to more people a dangerous path? By increasing individual hunter success you keep people buying tags. If they do nothing things will stay how they are and people will stop coming. Less tags available=less hunter hours in the field bumping hens off of nests that they likely won't come back to unless they're far along in incubation. Later season dates means the hens will be further along in incubation and are more likely to return to a nest. I'm sure many other southern states would love to make the move to lower tag numbers to increase success but everyone is too greedy needing to shoot 3+ in a single state and they don't want to deal with the pushback.
Well I probably have as much vested interest in the Oklahoma turkey season as anyone else. I talk to a lot of people who are in the field besides game wardens and biologist. Hunters, ranchers and outfitters to name some. All these and some wardens and biologist will tell you when the hogs moved in the turkeys moved out. I don't know what percentage of the problem hogs are but I know they are a part of the problem.
There are factors that can't be controlled, weather, wildfire not controlled burning, and microbes aka disease. I do believe that predator numbers are through the roof, both fur bearers and hogs. I also think farming practices are not helping. Less herbicides more broadleaf plants and that translates to healthy poults.
I agree with above post that blood samples should be taken by biologist on WMAs and birds killed on a WMA should physical be checked in at headquarters for samples to be taken.
Here in NE Oklahoma I'm of the opinion that the poultry industry is a part of the problem but that's a financial storm if you ever mention Tyson and negative effects on wildlife. No one is going to touch it.
How do we fix it? I don't know but I am at least glad the department is doing something. I'd start with a zero hen harvest, and no Jakes except for youth tags. No biological reason not to shoot Jakes other than it gives another year for a bird to mature and breed the next spring. The season date change is fine by me.
The Louisiana wildlife professionals made the decision to move our opener back a few years ago and in my opinion it has helped. My understanding is that it allows more hens to be bred simple as that. I have seen without a doubt more turkey numbers on most places that I hunt. Coincidence? Maybe.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: AndyN on May 05, 2021, 12:29:17 PM
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on May 04, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
And another state jumps on the bandwagon.
Just remember, there is no scientific evidence that shifting seasons to later starting dates will have an effect on turkey populations. At this point it is theory. And reducing the bag limit by 1 bird will not have a significant impact on overall population levels across the landscape.
If these changes had significant impacts, why hasn't Arkansas made a huge rebound? They've had similar changes in place for quite a while now.
This a dangerous path many states are taking. Now if the changes were 100% backed by peer-reviewed science, I wouldn't be so wary.
The only way to really make a difference is to manage habitat and/or predators. It all boils down to nest success and recruitment.
As a wildlife professional, it somewhat blows my mind at some of the regulation changes we are seeing at such a fast pace. What if some of this theory is wrong? We've taken away opportunity by jumping the gun. Once hunting opportunity is taken away, don't expect to get it back!
How is reducing tag numbers therefore spreading out the resource to more people a dangerous path? By increasing individual hunter success you keep people buying tags. If they do nothing things will stay how they are and people will stop coming. Less tags available=less hunter hours in the field bumping hens off of nests that they likely won't come back to unless they're far along in incubation. Later season dates means the hens will be further along in incubation and are more likely to return to a nest. I'm sure many other southern states would love to make the move to lower tag numbers to increase success but everyone is too greedy needing to shoot 3+ in a single state and they don't want to deal with the pushback.
Well, if you support hunting moving a toward a more Democratic/Liberal approach, I don't guess there is a thing wrong with "spreading the wealth". Such a small percentage of hunters actually kill 3 birds in states that allow it, that it really has no significant effect on the overall population. Now it could have an effect on smaller localized areas. Or in areas where there aren't many turkey to begin with.
Personally, I think the hunters who have spent the time to craft their skill and become sure enough good turkey hunters, shouldn't have their opportunities reduced so "You get a bird! You get a bird! EVERYBODY GETS A BIRD!" But that seems to be the way our nation is going in everything. Now even turkey hunting.
If the state agencies are TRULY concerned birds aren't getting bred and want to make a difference...Ban male decoys and fanning. Especially in an open environment like western Oklahoma. Now THAT will make a difference! And I thought we'd never see a state agency do that in today's current environment...But i'll be danged, Alabama actually did it!
As far as hunters buying tags...If that turkey tag money was earmarked for TURKEY management or for purchasing more public lands...I'd be more concerned with declining turkey tag sales. But the truth is that license money is more than likely put in a 'Wildlife General Fund' where it is liable to spent wherever. And one key thing to remember is that the breadwinner is white-tailed deer, not turkey.
There is no peer-reviewed scientific research on hunters bumping hens off nest and hens not returning. That is why more states are are going to all-day hunting. There is research showing that early openers lead to increased hen mortality (hunters not ID'ing their target, hens getting caught in crossfire, etc.).
One of the biggest saviors to turkey hunting, especially public lands, would be to outlaw filming on public lands and do away with social media. But we know that is never going to happen. So in the meantime we get to deal with newer hunters introduced to the sport through social media, whining because they aren't good enough to kill their turkey and get their 'likes and subscribes'. And good turkey hunters will be punished through reduced opportunities.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on May 07, 2021, 11:43:58 AM
Well, if you support hunting moving a toward a more Democratic/Liberal approach, I don't guess there is a thing wrong with "spreading the wealth". Such a small percentage of hunters actually kill 3 birds in states that allow it, that it really has no significant effect on the overall population. Now it could have an effect on smaller localized areas. Or in areas where there aren't many turkey to begin with.
Personally, I think the hunters who have spent the time to craft their skill and become sure enough good turkey hunters, shouldn't have their opportunities reduced so "You get a bird! You get a bird! EVERYBODY GETS A BIRD!" But that seems to be the way our is going in everything. Now even turkey hunting.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on February 17, 2021, 08:57:06 AM
I actually sort of like the idea someone mentioned earlier in this thread about a 1-bird limit for non-residents. That'd definitely help spread the non-resident pressure. I've hunted several 1-bird states and often have fantastic hunts in them.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on March 10, 2021, 08:09:57 PM
Glad to see it! The public land pressure will definitely be better spread out. Folks were jumping around with the staggered opening dates on WMAs and zone differences. Don't know why someone would feel the need to kill 5 birds in a state... Get a few, if you need more, go to the next state.. A lot of the deer hunters recently turned turkey hunters crowd won't be near as successful those first 10 days without decoys. More gobblers on the landscape to help ensure the deed is done.
Well, which one is it? Should states reduce tag numbers or not? Should people just be happy with what's allowed and move on to the next state? More gobblers on the landscape to ensure the deed is done but I thought it had no significant impact on the population? I haven't hunted OK but what I'm hearing is too many people (primarily NRs) hunting a greatly reduced population of turkeys. The same thing is happening with Units 1 & 2 in KS right now. They are the only two bird units and that is where everyone went this year. Things looked good before season and went to crap really quick. I used to tell people to wait until May for more receptive birds and less people but that's not the case anymore. Now it's 3-6 guys per gobbler on public. Just from my observations it's got to be 70% or greater NRs in those units. I have someone I was going to take out late May and we aren't even going to go now. Not only is it not an enjoyable experience but also a safety concern when there are that many people crowding a single bird.
What a load of selfish drivel. " i just gots to shoot muh lot of turkey, one or two isn't enough to satisfy my ego or blood lust" me, me ,me that is exactly why our country is circling the drain. Everyone talks about making sacrifice's as long as it is the other guy, not ME. I don't know what the answer is to declining turkey populations, but it is obvious we need to start being proactive in it's solution. Keeping limits high with a declining population is absurd. It isn't the cure, but it is a start.We as hunters need to keep pressure on our respective DNR's to get them to focus on a way to improve long term sustainability of the flocks.
Quote from: AndyN on May 07, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on May 07, 2021, 11:43:58 AM
Well, if you support hunting moving a toward a more Democratic/Liberal approach, I don't guess there is a thing wrong with "spreading the wealth". Such a small percentage of hunters actually kill 3 birds in states that allow it, that it really has no significant effect on the overall population. Now it could have an effect on smaller localized areas. Or in areas where there aren't many turkey to begin with.
Personally, I think the hunters who have spent the time to craft their skill and become sure enough good turkey hunters, shouldn't have their opportunities reduced so "You get a bird! You get a bird! EVERYBODY GETS A BIRD!" But that seems to be the way our is going in everything. Now even turkey hunting.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on February 17, 2021, 08:57:06 AM
I actually sort of like the idea someone mentioned earlier in this thread about a 1-bird limit for non-residents. That'd definitely help spread the non-resident pressure. I've hunted several 1-bird states and often have fantastic hunts in them.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on March 10, 2021, 08:09:57 PM
Glad to see it! The public land pressure will definitely be better spread out. Folks were jumping around with the staggered opening dates on WMAs and zone differences. Don't know why someone would feel the need to kill 5 birds in a state... Get a few, if you need more, go to the next state.. A lot of the deer hunters recently turned turkey hunters crowd won't be near as successful those first 10 days without decoys. More gobblers on the landscape to help ensure the deed is done.
Well, which one is it? Should states reduce tag numbers or not? Should people just be happy with what's allowed and move on to the next state? More gobblers on the landscape to ensure the deed is done but I thought it had no significant impact on the population? I haven't hunted OK but what I'm hearing is too many people (primarily NRs) hunting a greatly reduced population of turkeys. The same thing is happening with Units 1 & 2 in KS right now. They are the only two bird units and that is where everyone went this year. Things looked good before season and went to crap really quick. I used to tell people to wait until May for more receptive birds and less people but that's not the case anymore. Now it's 3-6 guys per gobbler on public. Just from my observations it's got to be 70% or greater NRs in those units. I have someone I was going to take out late May and we aren't even going to go now. Not only is it not an enjoyable experience but also a safety concern when there are that many people crowding a single bird.
There is a difference in reducing CURRENT OPPORTUNITY and already being a 1-bird limit state.
I'm not really in support of drastically reducing opportunity especially when it isn't backed by science and is just a theory.
Like I previously mentioned. Arkansas started reducing opportunity, moving seasons back, etc. nearly a decade ago. And they really aren't much better off now than they were then. Until other management factors start being implemented that CAN have a substantial impact on turkey populations, we won't see leaps in populations from these proposed changes.
I do believe (and previously stated) that in areas with few turkey to begin with (and when I say few, I mean FEW, i.e. a couple turkey per couple square miles), that some damage may can be done with very early season harvest. We have situations such as this in far south Mississippi amongst tens of thousands of acres of piss poor habitat and our season opens March 15. I hunt all over the US and have saw very few places in this extreme. Most people would give up turkey hunting if they had to hunt a place like this. This is NOT the case in many states that are currently reducing opportunity.
My comment towards gobblers getting the deed done was in reference to the outlawing of decoys the first 10-days in Alabama. So many henned-up dominant gobblers die now early in the season that were living until mid-April just 10-15 years ago. Back before the strutter decoy/fanning craze. Back in the days where he flew down with hens and you couldn't budge him until about mid-April. Or if he was a field bird, sometimes you got lucky and bushwhacked him. Man, those were the days! It actually took a lot more skill back then... But I digress. More gobblers on the landscape CERTAINLY improves hunt quality. More gobblers = more competition = more gobbling and normally more carryover. But carryover does very little for poult recruitment.
I have hunted OK. I have hunted KS, multiple times. You want to know what has happened to those states? Mother nature and social media. Kansas was the first state that social media ruined in the early 2010s. And this very forum is one of the places it started. As social media has progressed, so has the damnation of our public lands. OK and KS have both turned into scenarios where if you aren't there opening week, your odds of success are greatly reduced. Yeah, turkey populations are lower, thanks to Mother Nature and other human induced factors such as habitat degradation and fragmentation. But the public land hunting quality has went to crap thanks to 'the gold rush syndrome' and overpressure. As far as public land populations? You can look up Oklahoma harvest data. There are western OK WMAs that are killing more turkey now than they were 5 years ago. The difference is those turkey are just dying much earlier in the season. Last I looked they had still killed 70+ on Black Kettle which is ~30,000 acres. That harvest is definitely down, but it still VASTLY surpasses most southeastern state's public land harvest rates. So many people think all they have to do is point their vehicle west, get out, and be rolling in gobbling turkeys. They all finding out now it just isn't so anymore.
Now since I've typed the above, I've finished reading your words. We obviously are 100% on the same page there!
In regards to my comment on Alabama reducing the limit, to me, there is a big difference between a 3 bird limit and 5 bird limit. And I know very few hunters killed the 5-bird limit so reducing it to 4 isn't going to do anything for populations. But dang, FIVE in one state?
But there is another slippery slope that comes with reducing limits. Management of private lands. In the southeast there are some SERIOUS turkey hunters/hunting clubs that manage strictly for turkey. Especially in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia.... You start fooling with limits and seasons too much and you reduce their incentive to manage for turkey....Private lands are the wheelhouse for turkey across the eastern U.S.
And yup, the 1-bird states I've hunted are 1-bird for both residents and non-residents. With the exception of Iowa. And none of those 1-bird limits are from recent reductions to limits. Will a 1-bird limit help HUNT QUALITY, dang right it will! Do I support historically 3-bird limit states dropping to 1-bird for everyone? Heck no! And I sincerely hope the turkey situation never gets so bad that there is a need for it.
I'll agree with you on most of that. But when we can't get people to do the management on private property even with endless funding options for them I feel the next best move is to reduce harvest numbers to maintain a quality hunt. If mother nature would cooperate for a couple years in a row things could bounce back pretty quick. The problem is years of back to back poor production caused by either too much or too little rain. Nests either get flooded out from too big of rains or we get a good hatch and then slip into a drought over the summer and poults don't make it. Many public areas still crank out some good bird numbers even if turkeys aren't the center of their management practices. The problem is those good numbers last maybe a week before the bulk of the birds are either shot or pushed off onto private property. Everyone wants to blame agricultural practices but when you look at states further north that's a tough one to argue. Some of the best states I hunt are primarily crop ground and any remaining grass is hayed too early and too often. Yet they still produce plenty of birds even with that poor habitat. What they do have is consistent moisture and lower tag numbers than southern states whether it's managed on a statewide or unit by unit basis.
Quote from: AndyN on May 07, 2021, 03:01:31 PM
I'll agree with you on most of that. But when we can't get people to do the management on private property even with endless funding options for them I feel the next best move is to reduce harvest numbers to maintain a quality hunt. If mother nature would cooperate for a couple years in a row things could bounce back pretty quick. The problem is years of back to back poor production caused by either too much or too little rain. Nests either get flooded out from too big of rains or we get a good hatch and then slip into a drought over the summer and poults don't make it. Many public areas still crank out some good bird numbers even if turkeys aren't the center of their management practices. The problem is those good numbers last maybe a week before the bulk of the birds are either shot or pushed off onto private property. Everyone wants to blame agricultural practices but when you look at states further north that's a tough one to argue. Some of the best states I hunt are primarily crop ground and any remaining grass is hayed too early and too often. Yet they still produce plenty of birds even with that poor habitat. What they do have is consistent moisture and lower tag numbers than southern states whether it's managed on a statewide or unit by unit basis.
And I'll agree with everything you just said! We are basically on the same page. I just want folks to realize that reducing opportunity is not the magic bullet and once anything is taken away, we likely won't get it back.
Key words: "reduce harvest numbers to maintain a quality hunt". Reduce harvest enough, especially on public lands, and it can definitely help with hunt quality. But don't expect much in overall terms of population. Ideally there will be a bit more carryover IF those birds saved aren't killed by other hunters OR killed by someone taken by a hunter that has limited out.
I am not completely against lowered public land limits. As a public land manager myself, it saddens me to see the turkey get raped and pillaged on public lands. But what I do not appreciate, is a state like Ohio, proposing to reduce the public land limit while actually adding another weekend to their statewide season! They act like they are doing something to save turkey, but yet increase the #1 factor that leads to dead turkey = days of opportunity. Its not fair to the hunter that only has public lands to hunt in Ohio. And i'm willing to bet that in Ohio, less than 5% of turkey hunters get both their birds on public land. Ohio will allow more turkey to be killed by adding that extra weekend than they will save on public lands by reducing the limit to 1.
It's real simple. I don't want to see OPPORTUNITY lost! I'd rather have more regulations that make a bird harder to kill then to take away the days I can hunt!
One is an obstacle and the other is a restriction!
I'd rather see a state be bow only with no blinds or decoys then to shorten my season!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I haven't had the pleasure of ever getting to hunt Oklahoma, but it has always been on my hit list of states to turkey hunt.
I hate to see declining turkey populations, anywhere. I am from WV and in my 52 years of hunting experience I have seen the turkey population rise from a hand full of counties with turkeys, to every county in the state and unbelievable numbers in some. That said I have also seen decline in some of the traditional turkey counties.
SO with that being said I believe turkey hunters are justified in Ok to seek the best management plan the state can put together. I wish you success!
Guys, keep in mind this post was started about Oklahoma.
I think with the terrain and available habitat to hunt, if you haven't been there, you have No business posting. Even if you think you are a professional.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on May 04, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
And another state jumps on the bandwagon.
Just remember, there is no scientific evidence that shifting seasons to later starting dates will have an effect on turkey populations. At this point it is theory. And reducing the bag limit by 1 bird will not have a significant impact on overall population levels across the landscape.
If these changes had significant impacts, why hasn't Arkansas made a huge rebound? They've had similar changes in place for quite a while now.
This a dangerous path many states are taking. Now if the changes were 100% backed by peer-reviewed science, I wouldn't be so wary.
The only way to really make a difference is to manage habitat and/or predators. It all boils down to nest success and recruitment.
As a wildlife professional, it somewhat blows my mind at some of the regulation changes we are seeing at such a fast pace. What if some of this theory is wrong? We've taken away opportunity by jumping the gun. Once hunting opportunity is taken away, don't expect to get it back!
Great post!!! This has been my argument all along as an Arkansas resident. If we rely on hunting regulations alone to make a significant impact, then we will be very disappointed with the results. What many in other states don't realize is that the Arkansas season has been late and "later" for several years. Once they were concerned with a decline in the early 2000s, the season was moved back a week to around the April 10-14 range, then to the range of April 16-20, back to an April 8-10 range, and now back again to April 19. Reduced season from 30-39 days in early 2000s to around 21 days. The length of season settled around 15-16 days for close to 9 straight years, and back to around 20 days this season. They cut the fall season out in 2009 and implemented a no jake (1 allowed per youth) rule in 2011.
What have the results been? A continually decline in the population. A WMA I am very familiar with went to a draw about 7-8 years ago. Drastically reduced hunter #s and hours spent hunting. Habitat is unchanged. The harvest has been reduced by at least 1/4 to 1/5. And yet, far less turkeys are there now than before. Other public land areas shut down, so no hunting pressure, and still less turkeys. There are areas of the state that have faired better than others, but this is the norm for most of the state. A few reports of solid rebounds on well managed properties focused on habitat and intense trapping / predator control.
We have had high rainfall averages during April, May, June that in my opinion have wreaked a lot of havoc on success of hatches. 2012 was very dry in that period and the hatch report was very good. Not surprisingly 2014 yielded a good harvest total. We had dismal hatch results in 2017 (.86 PPH), 2018 (.95 PPH), and 2019 (1.13 PPH), with slightly better results in 2020 (1.53).
So, while I support conservative season structures, within reason, it would be hard to convince me that season structures alone will have any significant impact. I can't disagree though that it's sound management to take conservative approaches.
Here are the important points to be made (in my opinion):
Turkey populations are totally dependent upon nesting success and poult survival. In populations that have stable reproductive success, well-regulated human harvest is irrelevant to the overall health of that population.
Timing of the spring season is absolutely a factor in affecting potential full-breeding of the hens ,...IN STRUGGLING TURKEY POPULATIONS. Disruption of the breeding cycle in populations with low numbers of gobblers can result in incomplete breeding of the hens in that population. Combine hunting too early in populations that are having little or no population recruitment (due to whatever factors), and you have a sure recipe for continuing declines in turkey numbers.
Bag limits and season lengths do have an impact,...again, in those turkey populations that are not having sustainable population recruitment. If you are not having male (and female) turkeys coming into the population on a sustainable level, every year that population is hunted, more and more of the mature gobblers will be removed through hunter success. The question then becomes,... when does a population reach the "tipping point" where there are not enough mature gobblers to result in full breeding of the hen population?
That tipping point is most certainly going to be reached more quickly with high bag limits and longer seasons. Really, what wildlife managers are doing by reducing bag limits IN STRUGGLING POPULATIONS is gambling that there will eventually be reproductive success in that population,...and that by reducing gobbler harvest, there will be adequate numbers of gobblers around to make sure the hen population is fully bred. (the same concept should be applied in either-sex fall hunting, as well)
Make no mistake about it, in turkey populations with little or no recruitment/nesting success, both the quality and quantity of your hunting will suffer tremendously in the long run. The choice for the turkey hunter is ultimately the same as for the wild turkey manager,...Do you want to leave some gobblers "out there" in hopes that there will be enough of them left over time so that if and when successful nesting and population recruitment occurs there are enough turkeys in the woods to take advantage of that?
Bottom line is that human hunting is rarely going to be the reason for turkey population declines. We have to identify and resolve the real reasons for those declines. However, in the meantime our choices are to ensure that there are adequate numbers of birds in the woods for when that problem is resolved,...or we need to be ready to supplement those populations with a renewed and vigorous trap and transplant effort where needed. Honestly, the best answer is probably to do both.
You can add Black Bears to the deer & fish focus that Oklahoma's wildlife department spends it time and money on.
I live in the Ouachita Mt area of SE Oklahoma. I'm convinced that along with nest predators, (bears included) pitiful forest management by the USFS is a factor of declining numbers of turkeys here. They have ruined large sections of turkey habitat. Select cutting and then abandon it. It's almost like a checkerboard. Areas that held turkeys ruined. After just a few years it becomes a thicket that you can't walk through. They do some controlled burns but it's always about 3 years late and it reverts back into a thicket quick. Areas that are clear cut hold a more turkeys and deer. Hell, if a clear cut had 1 turkey in it that's 1 more than a 500 acre briar thicket holds.
Turkey season has started late here for several years compared to the rest of the state. It hasn't helped. I'm not opposed to it if it gets more hens bread...but it's not helping here.
It's obvious, IMO, when Jakes AND bearded Hens are still legal, with numbers declining, that the "experts" aren't paying attention....
Oklahoma should ban the killing of jakes. They get slaughtered
Quote from: zeke632 on May 15, 2021, 12:16:30 AM
You can add Black Bears to the deer & fish focus that Oklahoma's wildlife department spends it time and money on.
I live in the Ouachita Mt area of SE Oklahoma. I'm convinced that along with nest predators, (bears included) pitiful forest management by the USFS is a factor of declining numbers of turkeys here. They have ruined large sections of turkey habitat. Select cutting and then abandon it. It's almost like a checkerboard. Areas that held turkeys ruined. After just a few years it becomes a thicket that you can't walk through. They do some controlled burns but it's always about 3 years late and it reverts back into a thicket quick. Areas that are clear cut hold a more turkeys and deer. Hell, if a clear cut had 1 turkey in it that's 1 more than a 500 acre briar thicket holds.
Turkey season has started late here for several years compared to the rest of the state. It hasn't helped. I'm not opposed to it if it gets more hens bread...but it's not helping here.
It's obvious, IMO, when Jakes AND bearded Hens are still legal, with numbers declining, that the "experts" aren't paying attention....
I live quite close to ya man.. you're absolutely right on all that. The forest management is poor poor in SE Oklahoma
A couple tough years on these public lands and the wanna be traveling turkey hunter will stop showing up! Guys will not drive across the country to have their teeth kicked in for 5 days!
Changing season dates would have no perceived negative effect and possibly enhance breeding on the suggestion of someone who has studied the bird for 30 years, seems logical to me.
I looked into hunting Ok. this year on the western side, called a biologist there and decided not to go, if the bird is struggling that much I just don't need to take one out. I actually like a tough hunt, however not hearing or working birds for days is just not fun!
Was also going to hit Kansas on the way home this spring, however I drive through there several times a year for the past 5 years and never see turkeys on my route. So I let em be.
We had some seriously good years hunting these birds, now we are on a down cycle and it too shall pass!
Quote from: arkrem870 on May 15, 2021, 10:12:39 AM
Oklahoma should ban the killing of jakes. They get slaughtered
This
At least here we have been saying we are a couple good hatches away since 2007. Do I know what the answer is...no. Maybe its all just coincidence but when they really opened up the seasons we saw the turkey numbers start to fall. We used to run the 2nd Wednesday in April to May 15th. Now we get special archery and youth seasons starting April 1, and we run the season out till May 31st. Pressure is insane, poaching is rampant. We just got 7" of rain and flooding that likely wiped out alot of nests. Another year of low turkey recruitment on the horizon. Kansas biologists had a plan set up that when certain triggers were met they would start throttling back. When they attempted to implement the plan the commissioners road blocked it until the problem was so glaring they could not ignore it anymore. I started hunting turkeys in 1996. I got to see the good ole days of KS turkey hunting just like my father got to see the good ole days of KS quail hunting. I don't think my kids will ever see it like that again.
Regarding recruitment/poult survival:
Does Oklahoma have any annual data on what percentage of hens successfully nest and/or the average number of poults per hen?
I used to live and turkey hunt in Iowa, the state had a "roadside survey" which kept tabs on upland game birds (pheasants, quail, partridge). The game wardens would drive specific routes at the same time each year collecting data on hens and poults.
It seems like something of this nature could help figure out how much of a factor lack of breeding and/or nest predation is playing in OK turkey declines?