Nobody Hates a Turkey Hunter More Than…

[mookyj]

Nobody Hates a Turkey Hunter More Than...

If you asked me this back when I began chasing gobblers three decades ago I might have answered: Anti Hunters, Vegetarians, maybe Bow Hunters during overlapping weeks in the fall season.  In recent months we now have our own version of wildly indignant "Camo Karen's" among our ranks....

More: http://www.turkey-talk.com/tblog/?p=2163

[El Pavo Grande]

Thanks for sharing.  Here's an honest assessment of the read, or better yet an opinion.  You make some valid points about Mother Nature, fall hunting, and things to address with populations, among other points. 

In my opinion, you miss the mark by labeling anyone and everyone that voices concern over social media practices as "Camo Karens".   And you can clarify, do you think those that do voice these concerns are blaming social media as THE reason for population declines?

To quote:
"Despite declining numbers of hunters overall, States should not be promoting hunting tourism, or paying outdoor TV shows or outdoor writers to promote hunting to bolster future generations of hunters. Greedy capitalism is to blame.
TV outdoor shows filming hunts as nonresident hunters is a level up offense and single handedly responsible for population declines and causes resident hunters to put up with others shooting "their turkeys." You Tubers are the scourge of the turkey hunting fraternity and cause of declining turkey populations."

Overall hunter numbers are declining, but what about turkey hunters?  So, you agree that states should pay influencers to promote to hundreds of thousands (in reality the information is available to millions) to hunt public land for turkeys, of which are in decline in most of those areas and all the while reducing hunter opportunity?   

Printed form (magazines, newspaper articles) is a fair comparison to the footprint of social media now, with 24 hours a day and 7 days a week of free flowing information, all in the palm of your hand?
Here's a few numbers from a 5 minute review of 4 popular YouTubers (Considering YouTube only)
YouTube#1:  378K Subscribers (one state specific turkey video - 278,000 views on YouTube alone)
YouTube#2:  64.5K Subscribers (one state specific turkey video - 56,000 views on YouTube alone)
YouTube#3:  35.1K Subscribers (one state specific turkey video - 36,000 views on YouTube alone)
YouTube#4:  28.8K Subscribers (one state specific turkey video - 461,000 views on YouTube alone)

To quote:
"Advertising of great public land locales through tourism practices, social media has single handedly ruined the sport and decimated these hunting grounds. Odd that I can recall hunting guide articles that came out every year that gave advice on where to hunt on WMA's with the best odds of success since I started hunting in 1985.  I recall reading similar articles in very old hunting magazines in hunting camp."

So, while I don't disagree with some of your points and agree that no doubt a few probably say such outlandish things, in your research was it very high number of hunters stating what you say they do, such as "shooting their turkeys" or "single handedly responsible for population declines"   If so, that would be different than what I've seen as a whole. 

To quote:
"Rich in selfism, and envy of others"
In regards to the social media references, I would challenge a broader examination with an open mind. What is selfishness?  What is personal gain?  I hope ALL can enjoy healthy populations and a future of turkey hunting.  But what often brings great entertainment and enjoyment may not necessarily be responsible and prosperous in the long run.  Beyond the warm and fuzzy feelings could be consequences.

[mookyj]

A civil response is not seen all that much when considering how much of the passionate responses are often very uncivil. It is appreciated. I expect those who do not read my writings fully will assume plenty that is not said. As we can agree how easy it is to point out the stereotypical "Karen's" in everyday life, the same applies for "Camo Karen's" as I see it. What I do not say is that those that are simply voicing a concern or perspective  is projecting themselves as such a derogatory character. 

You assume to some level that in listing out some of the Karenisms that I hold an opinion of the opposite or infer something else. I did add a disclaimer and it is an intentional statement. Am I a fan of youtube shows? Not really, except for a few that offer a learning platform. Some of it is hard to watch and I move on. State tourism paying for promotion of their outdoor opportunities is normal and expected, In seeing so many comments on the topic, one might conclude that the state has no business promoting hunting and fishing. It is my opinion that it is an absurd viewpoint.

There is current research on looking at all the possible factors as to their actual contribution to the decline or in combination with other factors to be a significant cause of it. The number of call outs on youtube or other platform subscribers and paying those to promote hunting is a fools errand as each state has the immediate ability to regulate based on wildlife biology data, not anecdotal impressions of social media. Much of anecdotal evidence or marketing data put forth is often self-serving, "my birds","my hunting spots on public land" I'll point this out: I wrote "is often," not all.  From my home I can access over 20,000 acres of public land in 30 minutes in 1,000+ acre tracts. They are under hunted, even for deer as many hunters will tell you that public land sucks. Of course I disagree and fill just as many tags on public grounds as I do private holdings. It is different around the country, state by state. I have hunted in 14 states, and each offer varying experiences. I probably won't hunt Cumberland gap again due to being so bad with intruding hunters that you did not want a bird to gobble, just come in silent as to not get intruded on from several directions.  Beautiful 80,000 acres to hunt on and covered up in hunters. I do hunt along the coastal region and it is altogether different. Parts of Ohio are like that too with hunting pressure.

In working with NYSDEC biologists as I did while on the state board we got to learn what research was going on and why they were pursuing it. We (NY  NWTF) sponsored some of their efforts. Wildlife agencies have many ways to reduce harvest numbers and when they do cut back we scream like hell about it. At the end of the day the season dates, hunting hours, bag limits and methods of take are to limit a maximum total harvest based on their data, not our impressions and individual experiences. We have been spoiled with plenty of over the counter tags and month long seasons and in some states, 4 and 5 gobbler bag limits.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the public hunting grounds are for all to enjoy, hunters and non hunters, like it or not. Personally, I like my solitude in the turkey woods. I also realize that I do not own these places and I am to share it with others. As I mentioned, public lands  are under hunted close to me, but I hunt all over the state, and other states and it does get crowded. Sometimes you get beat to your spot. I'll come back later after they warm them up for a few hours. It had been effective on public grounds.

Thanks for the civil response. It is my opinion that Mother Nature affects our wild turkey resource in a global and massive way and I find it a matter of human arrogance to think we are more powerful in influencing wild turkey populations. I agree we can be very destructive  such as we were with market hunting more than a century ago that has been long deemed illegal. Should the states manage wildlife for political concerns then I might change my opinion. Currently in NY my unfortunate governor has everything filtered through his office. There are problems that are concerning for future wildlife management. I live in a beautiful state full of all the resources you could want, yet ran by insane people and taxed to death.

[eggshell]

Everyone has an opinion. Thankfully debate and opinion sharing is part of the process of solution finding. I agree with much of your post, but I wouldn't go so far as disparaging people as "Karens" for sharing their opinions, right or wrong. Sorting out the facts through science is the job of our state and Federal Wildlife agencies. Every research project starts with a hypothesis and most of those are opinions. Some are grossly wrong, some with marginal validity and some prove to be correct. This is science and bias enters when we categorically discard opinions because we "don't feel the same about it". I think we see way too much bias in our research. My stance is let the opinions fly and let the experts sort out the trash. Sure there are enough facts that biologist can systematically invalidate some hypothesis/opinions on face value alone, but that should not mean we deny people the right to voice them. That is why you are entitled to yours and the rest of us ours. I have probably crossed the line myself at times and maybe appear to be a "Karen", but in reality I dislike name calling and try to refrain from it, but alas some days I fail.

I appreciate your passion and opinion, even though I may not totally agree. Keep on writing, it's all valuable discussion.     

[Gooserbat]

Birdhunters because the NWTF stocked all those turkeys and they eat baby quail... Don't believe me just ask one.

[eggshell]

Birdhunters because the NWTF stocked all those turkeys and they eat baby quail... Don't believe me just ask one.

I literally Laughed when i read your post, but not in disbelief. I have heard similar things from grouse hunters that say they tore up grouse nest and eat the eggs. Also, they eat all the morel mushrooms. It's a good way to get permission to hunt...tell old farmer Bob, hey I'll kill those darn turkeys before they eat your (name it)

[quavers59]

  I am going to say - Mountain Bikers. They travel State to State like a Turkey  hunter. They are well organized and would rather that we were not present near " their" Trails..

[quavers59]

  The picture on top is funny as Hell!

[greencop01]

All this talk about you tubers.....balderdash. I hunt public land in a a populous state,Massachusetts and I get turkeys often enough to make it worthwhile. I've had guys set up 100 yds from me. I just move and more often or not get a tom. I am not disparaging anyone, just saying what happens to me. I also use topos and google earth and look for small wma's spots people pass up. Use your imagination for 'honey holes'. It's easy to complain, just use your wits. Anyone can hunt anywhere, I'ld like to see how successful these 'outsiders' are. Like total number of outsiders in relation to turkeys bagged by these outsiders. I know talkin bout this is like a but I just can't understand how people let this ruin their season and non-hunting time. Just my  :z-twocents:worth. No offense meant.

[GobbleNut]

I personally found the article to be thought provoking, and in many cases right on the money in terms of where we are at in the turkey hunting world.  Like others have pointed out, I think the same points could have been made with less of what appears to be an antagonistic "feel" to it.  Perhaps that interpretation is remiss, as you seem to indicate above, but when significant numbers of readers seem to feel the same way about it, maybe it's time to reconsider the methods used in presenting what are otherwise some well-thought-out points.  Please note that this is paragraph is only presented as "constructive criticism" of the (perhaps misinterpreted) underlying tone of the article.

To the content of the article itself, I agree to a great extent that many folks try to put blame on other hunters and their "manner and method" of hunting,...as well as their overall hunting ethic.  However, in each of those elements of blame, there is found to be a "tipping point" where each realistically becomes an issue. 

In an effort here to be short-winded (which, granted, is not one of my strong suits in these discussions  ). I will use your point about fall hunting and its impacts on turkey populations.  While I agree totally that fall hunting in healthy, stable turkey populations is a non-factor, there can indeed reach a point in unstable, declining populations where fall, either-sex hunting can have serious impacts on that population's ability to recover if and when conditions become favorable for improved reproductive success. 

Using the argument that a turkey population is in decline due to other factors and whether or not we hunt hens in the fall (that segment of the population that is the key to population recovery) will not change the ultimate outcome of the future of those turkeys,...well, that is a really poor excuse for justifying the killing of what few birds may be left.  Again, there reaches a tipping point where we hunters have got to have a conscience about these things. 

You can apply the same logic to just about every point made in your article.  That's not to say that they are not valid points,...they are.  It is just to say that there is a threshold for almost every one of them at which point actions should, and must, be taken.  Sure, there are hunters who are, in some instances, just "crying wolf" when there is no valid reason for it.  On the other hand, some folks may just have more "foresight" as to what is truly happening in some circumstances,...and throwing those folks unjustifiably into that "Camo-Karen" category you describe is doing them, and the resource and traditions they are trying to protect, a disservice.  A clear distinction needs to be made between the two.

Hmmm,...I guess that was a pretty poor attempt at being "short-winded"....   

[El Pavo Grande]

All this talk about you tubers.....balderdash. I hunt public land in a a populous state,Massachusetts and I get turkeys often enough to make it worthwhile. I've had guys set up 100 yds from me. I just move and more often or not get a tom. I am not disparaging anyone, just saying what happens to me. I also use topos and google earth and look for small wma's spots people pass up. Use your imagination for 'honey holes'. It's easy to complain, just use your wits. Anyone can hunt anywhere, I'ld like to see how successful these 'outsiders' are. Like total number of outsiders in relation to turkeys bagged by these outsiders. I know talkin bout this is like a but I just can't understand how people let this ruin their season and non-hunting time. Just my  :z-twocents:worth. No offense meant.

While I understand your point of view, and I agree on how to approach public land hunting, I think your response is still missing the key points of the argument.   I for one use my imagination and wits, and don't let this ruin my season or off season.  It's not about about how to approach public land to be successful.  It's not about complaining.  It's about concern with you tubers that share videos touting public land in specific states, specific regions of the state, and sometimes intentionally or intentionally (same result) of specific public land.  Just considering the top 4 youtubers mentioned most, they combine for over 500,000 subscribers.  To be fair many are crossover subscribers to multiple channels.  Still a lot none the less.   One specific state video has been viewed over 460,000 times.  So let's say one specific popular state has videos with combined views (all you tubers) of 500,000 views (probably a low total) .  If just a quarter of 1% are persuaded to now go hunt that state, that's 1,250 hunters.  A half of 1% is 2,500, and 1% is 5,000.   That's the concern.  Is this added influx healthy for the current populations?  How does it relate to the decrease in hunter opportunities?   In the long run and in the name of long term "hunter recruitment", are these decreases in hunter opportunity a positive or negative in that regard?  I'm not trying to argue, but it's not about getting creative and hunting off the beaten path, or any other approaches to public land.  In my opinion, we can withstand natural growths and/or fluctuations in hunter numbers.  Social media and YouTube has created a level above and beyond natural or normal.   

[El Pavo Grande]

I personally found the article to be thought provoking, and in many cases right on the money in terms of where we are at in the turkey hunting world.  Like others have pointed out, I think the same points could have been made with less of what appears to be an antagonistic "feel" to it.  Perhaps that interpretation is remiss, as you seem to indicate above, but when significant numbers of readers seem to feel the same way about it, maybe it's time to reconsider the methods used in presenting what are otherwise some well-thought-out points.  Please note that this is paragraph is only presented as "constructive criticism" of the (perhaps misinterpreted) underlying tone of the article.

To the content of the article itself, I agree to a great extent that many folks try to put blame on other hunters and their "manner and method" of hunting,...as well as their overall hunting ethic.  However, in each of those elements of blame, there is found to be a "tipping point" where each realistically becomes an issue. 

In an effort here to be short-winded (which, granted, is not one of my strong suits in these discussions  ). I will use your point about fall hunting and its impacts on turkey populations.  While I agree totally that fall hunting in healthy, stable turkey populations is a non-factor, there can indeed reach a point in unstable, declining populations where fall, either-sex hunting can have serious impacts on that population's ability to recover if and when conditions become favorable for improved reproductive success. 

Using the argument that a turkey population is in decline due to other factors and whether or not we hunt hens in the fall (that segment of the population that is the key to population recovery) will not change the ultimate outcome of the future of those turkeys,...well, that is a really poor excuse for justifying the killing of what few birds may be left.  Again, there reaches a tipping point where we hunters have got to have a conscience about these things. 

You can apply the same logic to just about every point made in your article.  That's not to say that they are not valid points,...they are.  It is just to say that there is a threshold for almost every one of them at which point actions should, and must, be taken.  Sure, there are hunters who are, in some instances, just "crying wolf" when there is no valid reason for it.  On the other hand, some folks may just have more "foresight" as to what is truly happening in some circumstances,...and throwing those folks unjustifiably into that "Camo-Karen" category you describe is doing them, and the resource and traditions they are trying to protect, a disservice.  A clear distinction needs to be made between the two.

Hmmm,...I guess that was a pretty poor attempt at being "short-winded"....   

Great post.

[eggshell]

At the end of everything, we as turkey hunters have two choices; adapt or quit. There is no argument or discussion needed when it's time to walk out the door, you either go and do your best or stay home, choose.

Discussion is for the off season and that is what this is. A good solution process allows every thought and opinion to be expressed. After it is all said, the solution process begins. Those who have the ability/authority to effect change are then incumbent to act, if they identify a problem. If they are unwilling, then we go back to adapt or stay home. it's actually that simple

[GobbleNut]

Let me put it this way.  I rarely hear myself saying "the more, the merrier" when I pull up to my favorite hunting spot and see someone else parked there...  

[RND1983]

Let me put it this way.  I rarely hear myself saying "the more, the merrier" when I pull up to my favorite hunting spot and see someone else parked there...  

Very true!