Shooting Hens???

[bbcoach]

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers or point fingers or hijack any other threads but what is your opinion on shooting hens?  For some of us, we are seeing a decline in our state's turkey numbers.  IMO when we take hens out of our population, where legal (fall hen harvest or bearded hens anytime spring or fall), aren't we contributing to that decline?  If a hen drops 100 eggs in her lifetime and 20% make it to maturity (which is about average), we are removing 20 turkeys of our future population when we harvest a single hen.  Are we any better than the predators (coyotes, raccoons etc) that ravage those hen nests?  I know some will use the, "Well it's legal issue" but my question is just because it is legal does that make it Right? Just thinking outside the box and hoping ALL of us take the time to do what is BEST for this resource. 

[dejake]

If it's legal, do as you wish.  For me, I'll only shoot mature gobblers.  Just a personal choice.

[ChiefBubba]

What you're pondering is future turkey production. What about killing that gobbler? Let's just say he breeds 5 hens a spring, by your count that's 500 eggs in the lifetime of those hens. I'm not sure how it is in your woods but I see a lot more hen's then gobblers. Last I checked hen's can't just lay egg's without a gobbler. Got to have both to make turkey's. If it's legal then go out and have fun. Bubba

[fallhnt]

Fall hunting isn't an issue. Biologists allow for 10% loss,hunting, poaching etc. IL sold 1100 fall gun permits last year. Big deal. Archery guys kill that many. IL est population 100k. I shoot what's legal, spring or fall. Better start looking at habitat and predators.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[lacire]

I agree with fallhnt, habitat and predators take way more turkeys than us hunters whether it's gobblers or hens.

[Greg Massey]

My preference is gobblers, but i agree do as you wish, your the one who has to live with your decisions ... IMO....

[greencop01]

If I can help it I don't shoot hens. Hens are the future of our sport. A tom breeds every hen that sets for him, so taking a tom doesn't affect the population as much as taking a hen out. It does not take that much time to learn to distinguish between hens and toms. If it is legal it doesn't make it right. At the same time to each their own, if it is legal to take hens. But if you complain about turkey numbers being low don't cry if you shoot mature hens in the fall, point your finger at yourself. We are our own worst enemy sometimes. My  worth.

[tal]

 Yesteryear before old school was old they didn't shoot hens to keep production up as already stated. That was beat into me early so I don't. Where it's legal and does no harm I don't have a problem with it though.

[GobbleNut]

There are places where turkey populations are healthy and stable.  In those places, reasonable hen harvest in the fall is not going to be an issue. 

There are also places where turkey populations are apparently in serious decline.  Those declines are not caused by wisely-managed human hunting, but there is a tipping point wherein each remaining hen turkey could theoretically be important in the recovery of that population...if and when reproductive success occurs.   

Wildlife managers are the ones that should be making the decisions on whether to harvest hens...or not.  If they are competent at their jobs...and not influenced by pressures beyond proper wildlife management...they should be able to assess the status of their turkey populations and set harvest goals accordingly. 

Hunters should also play a role in this, as well.  Knowing your turkey populations and how they are doing...not only in the short term, but also the long term...should give each of us a clue as to whether we should be shooting our hens, even if legal by regulation.  In some cases, this goes for gobbler harvest, as well, but it should be pointed out that overall, hens are much more important to turkey population recovery than are gobblers in any given population.  Ideally, for a quick recovery of a struggling population, you want to have many hens, but you also have to have a few gobblers, as well.   

[Crghss]

If it's legal, do as you wish.  For me, I'll only shoot mature gobblers.  Just a personal choice.

I agree.

Lobby your local officials and wildlife managers if you want to change things.

[Happy]

Never shot a hen and never wanted to. Its at the point now that I don't get too serious about killing gobblers till after peak breeding season. Thats just my personal approach to it.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[scattergun]

"My question is just because it is legal does that make it Right?"

Of course it is right. I think what you mean to ask, is it going to significantly lower turkey populations.

"Are we any better than the predators (coyotes, raccoons etc) that ravage those hen nests?"

Again, better is not a good choice of words. Coyotes, raccoons, etc. are just doing what they do. They eat animals. It is not a bad thing.

I shoot hens all the time, not just turkeys. If I'm out to get food, and a mallard hen comes in, you better bet she's coming down. If I'm out looking for a longbeard, then I'm looking for a longbeard. For me, it is more about the experience. In the fall, I'm not going to blast the first turkey I see on day one, unless it is a real nice tom. Skip forward to day 5, and a bunch of failed sits or stalks, and you bet Ms. Hen is getting it if that's what I get. I have yet to see evidence that the fall harvest of hens has any impact on population numbers at all.

[Mossberg90MN]

I wouldn't make some one feel personally bad about it, but I wouldn't do it. Mainly for a lot of the points others have mentioned already.

I used to have a different opinion on this. I used to think if its legal then whatever. But my opinion on that has changed... again I'm not gonna shame people if it's legal, but there personal guidelines have changed.

I used to want a hen wing for roost calling, now... I'm okay not having one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ihuntoldschool]

You are spot on.  Everyone wants to blame predators (especially coyotes) which is laughable. 
Not sure what area you're from but in the Southeastern US it's the timber harvest that by FAR contributes more to the decline (and will continue to)
than any predator or anything else.

Shooting hens certainly won't help anything especially in areas that are experiencing noticeable declines.
Disease too, Restocking efforts never provided much diversity in the gene pool. 

Predators?   That's mostly just hunters looking for an easy target to blame.   They love to throw that out when the state tries to manage the steep declines by Heaven Forbid reducing one of THEIR Ha Ha   turkey tags...   How dare they try to help the turkeys by reducing bag limits when we all know the only real threat is coyotes.   Laughable, give me a break, Wake up and face Reality. 

[eggshell]

There are do many different dynamics involved in sustaining a population of wildlife. No. 1 and foremost, if you have excellent habit (producing food, water and shelter) then animals will thrive. Some influences on this dynamic is disease and human intrusion, included is hunting. One principle that has existed since human harvest has begun is that females are sacred during the reproductive period. Even the Bible addresses this:

Deuteronomy 22:6
English Standard Version

6 "If you come across a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.

However, the rest of the year she is just another part of the total flock. Outside of over harvest, the legal killing of hens will not cause the failure of a population. Sure if you over hunt a specific flock and take too many hens you'll cause problems, but this is extremely rare.

Like Gobblenut said, populations in serious decline should be looked at differently. States have a tendency to look at regions and state wide trends and often ignore local situations. This has always frustrated me.

Here is my feelings - As an over all management position, harvesting of surplus hens in a healthy flock with good habitat is sound management and harmless.

Looking back at hunting and historical management techniques will show you that species with dimorphic differences in the species had hens protected, but less definable species did not. An example of this is ringneck pheasant and bobwhite quail. Pheasants traditionally had hens protected, but quail did not. Both done quite well together in the same habitat, it made no difference that hens were shot in one and protected in the other. What did matter is a huge degradation of habitat and the use of farm chemicals. Then came a catastrophic weather event and boom, they suffered a huge drop. Hunting never done this, habitat decline did.

I am in the camp that if a species is in serious decline you first look at environmental issues and then hunting. If you are looking at a serious decline then all harvest should be stopped. The impact becomes exponential at some point. Yet, sate wildlife agencies are very reluctant to do that for social, economic and political reasons. So we often see a species hunted right to the edge of threatened existence. In the end it doesn't matter if the root cause isn't addressed. First biologist must identify the problem, but they often knee jerk with new regulations that give them social credence. A prime example is the American Bald eagle. They almost disappeared in the lower 48, but once the problem was discovered (DDT) and stopped, it only became a matter of helping spread the breeders around and protect them. Today they are thriving again. Mother nature takes care of her own if we don't cause major problems. Shooting of a few hens is not the problem with turkey declines, but stopping it may well be a useful strategy in places where needed.