Jakes not breeding ?

[ChesterCopperpot]

I'd add that it's not only the overall loss but that research now suggests the removal of alphas early season (something greatly increased by modern tactics—strutter decoys, reaping, etc.) and the subsequent timeline of restructuring the social ladder also leads to inadequate/incomplete breeding cycles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I keep seeing this repeated over and over on social media and forums. It is important to realize that this HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BY SCIENCE. It is currently THEORY and there is research looking into it. Structuring seasons based on theory is a dangerous path because once opportunity is taken away, we likely won't get it back!

Not saying the above is wrong. But it is important that we don't start letting season structures be adjusted based on theory, mostly that of one man.

I didn't say anything about restructuring season dates. I said that research now suggests the timeline for social ladder restructuring takes longer and has a greater impact than previously thought, that when an alpha is taken out of a population that spot isn't filled the next day or days or perhaps even weeks, and that that can and does have an impact on inadequate/incomplete breeding cycles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chordeiles]

Y'all still have not realized that this Chamberland feller is a kook

Curious. Why is he a kook?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[owlhoot]

I'd add that it's not only the overall loss but that research now suggests the removal of alphas early season (something greatly increased by modern tactics—strutter decoys, reaping, etc.) and the subsequent timeline of restructuring the social ladder also leads to inadequate/incomplete breeding cycles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I keep seeing this repeated over and over on social media and forums. It is important to realize that this HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BY SCIENCE. It is currently THEORY and there is research looking into it. Structuring seasons based on theory is a dangerous path because once opportunity is taken away, we likely won't get it back!

Not saying the above is wrong. But it is important that we don't start letting season structures be adjusted based on theory, mostly that of one man.

I didn't say anything about restructuring season dates. I said that research now suggests the timeline for social ladder restructuring takes longer and has a greater impact than previously thought, that when an alpha is taken out of a population that spot isn't filled the next day or days or perhaps even weeks, and that that can and does have an impact on inadequate/incomplete breeding cycles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Restructuring dates?  Hasn't that already happened? In some southern states. And isn't it based off theory?

[owlhoot]

All of this is all well and good, but the real question comes down to whether or not, in any given turkey population, there are enough (viable) male turkeys in the population to accomplish "breeding saturation".  That is, are all breeding-age hens being fertilized such that they have the opportunity to nest and potentially pull off a successful clutch of poults? 

If there are not, then THAT is the problem, not whether it is a mature gobbler or jake that is doing the breeding.  Bottom line is that if wildlife biologist's anywhere are focusing on viability of the male turkeys in any given area without correspondingly investigating the percentage of breeding-age hens in that population that are producing fertile eggs, then they are just spinning their wheels. 

Sure, it is a good idea to know all these percentages about male turkeys, but ultimately, it all comes down to making sure the hens are being fertilized in some way, shape, or form.  Really, I suspect that these corresponding studies are being carried out at the same time.  I'm just pointing out the obvious.... 

Lots of studies of hens nesting percentages. Nest and re-nest of older hens and younger ones obviously.

As far as I am aware (which I admit I may not be fully up to date on the matter), those studies are based on populations where the "base parameters" include the assumption that there are enough gobblers in the population to result in full breeding of the hens in that population.  Nesting percentages based on the assumption of full breeding are not the same as percentages based on an inadequate number of gobblers available to accomplish that.

My current thought/question is that, in these seriously declining turkey populations we currently speak of, are there too few viable gobblers,...whether they be mature birds or jakes,...to result in all viable hens being bred?  I am not so sure there have been studies done to find that out,...perhaps there have been. 

Spring gobbler seasons are based on the fundamental premise that, since turkeys are polygamous, there will always be a harvestable surplus of gobblers in any given population each spring.  Without regular, recurring population recruitment (i.e....successful nesting), every year we hunt a population that is not having that nesting success, we are gradually decreasing the number of viable gobblers.  At some point in time, that decrease has to result in inadequate/incomplete breeding of the hen population. 

Have we reached that point in some populations now?  I don't know, but in my mind THAT is a very important consideration in all of this discussion.  When we reach a point where there are not enough gobblers left to result in that "breeding saturation" mentioned,....and we continue to kill a few more of the remaining gobblers each spring,...there comes a point where we cannot justify that fundamental spring-hunting premise of "surplus gobblers".  There has to be a tipping point where there are no longer surplus males. 

Again, I don't know if there are areas of the country where this situation exists,...but it is something that needs to be ascertained at some point.  And finally, I want to emphasize that in no way am I trying to state that spring gobbler hunting,....within healthy turkey populations,...is a significant factor in population declines.  It is not,...but there comes a point in certain situations where we have to ask ourselves,..."should we be killing the few remaining gobblers we have in this population?"

Oh ok. That is interesting , I have wondered about that and like others try not to shoot out an area we hunt, based of sightings or amount of gobbling birds.
Stop shooting the jakes, let them grow into breeders.
Some of the studies I read recommended by Meleagris gallapova showed the percentage of tagged hens that nested with fairly high percentages. But Toms tagged seemed sufficient, so who knows?

[Meleagris gallopavo]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GobbleNut]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.

Theory and fact tend to bleed into each other.  Furthermore, what is a theory in one instance may actually be a fact in another.  Intuitive reasoning based on empirical evidence has to come into play at some point.  Personally, I have seen way too much evidence that the people in charge of the decision making processes in many instances lack the ability to comprehend that,...or if they have the ability, they tend to ignore it.   

[Happy]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.

Theory and fact tend to bleed into each other.  Furthermore, what is a theory in one instance may actually be a fact in another.  Intuitive reasoning based on empirical evidence has to come into play at some point.  Personally, I have seen way too much evidence that the people in charge of the decision making processes in many instances lack the ability to comprehend that,...or if they have the ability, they tend to ignore it.   

Huh? Can ya dumb that down for me? Maybe draw some pictures or something

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[GobbleNut]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.

Theory and fact tend to bleed into each other.  Furthermore, what is a theory in one instance may actually be a fact in another.  Intuitive reasoning based on empirical evidence has to come into play at some point.  Personally, I have seen way too much evidence that the people in charge of the decision making processes in many instances lack the ability to comprehend that,...or if they have the ability, they tend to ignore it.   

Huh? Can ya dumb that down for me? Maybe draw some pictures or something

Not sure that is possible in your case...  

[owlhoot]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would like to hear what you have come up with so far.

[Meleagris gallopavo]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.

Theory and fact tend to bleed into each other.  Furthermore, what is a theory in one instance may actually be a fact in another.  Intuitive reasoning based on empirical evidence has to come into play at some point.

If you look at my quote on my OG internet page you can see that I base most things on empirical evidence.  Published research studies are documented results that test empirical observations/evidence.  They give proof to what we have questions about.  So far as this thread is concerned, based on what I've read, is that jakes may contribute to bred hens and resulting poults, but not to a great degree.  There are a lot of factors that contribute to evidence of declining turkey populations in a given area.  One area may have different reasons for population decline than another.  But I think that relying on jakes to breed hens is not a sustainable answer to maintaining turkey populations.  Some Jakes "may" help or contribute to bred hens, but to a small degree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Happy]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.

Theory and fact tend to bleed into each other.  Furthermore, what is a theory in one instance may actually be a fact in another.  Intuitive reasoning based on empirical evidence has to come into play at some point.  Personally, I have seen way too much evidence that the people in charge of the decision making processes in many instances lack the ability to comprehend that,...or if they have the ability, they tend to ignore it.   

Huh? Can ya dumb that down for me? Maybe draw some pictures or something

Not sure that is possible in your case...  

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[owlhoot]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes a theory or a fact in this thread.

Theory and fact tend to bleed into each other.  Furthermore, what is a theory in one instance may actually be a fact in another.  Intuitive reasoning based on empirical evidence has to come into play at some point.

If you look at my quote on my OG internet page you can see that I base most things on empirical evidence.  Published research studies are documented results that test empirical observations/evidence.  They give proof to what we have questions about.  So far as this thread is concerned, based on what I've read, is that jakes may contribute to bred hens and resulting poults, but not to a great degree.  There are a lot of factors that contribute to evidence of declining turkey populations in a given area.  One area may have different reasons for population decline than another.  But I think that relying on jakes to breed hens is not a sustainable answer to maintaining turkey populations.  Some Jakes "may" help or contribute to bred hens, but to a small degree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, yes. Due to jakes having a low percentage of breeding capability from studies from harvested jakes.
I don't believe that jakes can be relied upon to maintain turkey populations.
I do believe that jakes should not be legal game and that they should be left to grow into future breeders, left for replacing the adult toms taken by hunting and those dying from natural causes such as age.

[tazmaniac]

Didn't read all the responses, but around 20 to 25% of Jakes are sexually mature and capable of reproduction their first year.  (Totally different than pen raised birds which are fed all they could want to eat... almost all of them are sexually mature their first spring)

Almost all jennies can produce a clutch their first spring, but usually a month or so after the adult hens lay.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

[Hooksfan]

I am just smart enough (barely) to say "I don't know".
I do not dismiss Chamberlains research. I am not a biologist, but i have chased these crazy birds waay more than any sane person
ever would have.
There are two things, through my observations (not scientific research), that I am quite certain about.
One is that not all male turkeys are breeders, including some non jakes. Second is that if you want to experience an early season gobbling and pecking party later in the season, then shoot the dominant bird in any given area. I have seen it happen too much over the years to dismiss it.
Both of these things do lead me to believe that some of these findings are worth listening to. Just my .02

[Gooserbat]

There is actually a study being conducted right now on the viability of Jakes as breeders.