South Dakota

[Goblen]

Congratulations on a successful hunt to you and your hunting buddies. Thanks for sharing!

[joey46]

You may give some thought to posting any picture that causes negative feelings even among some fellow turkey hunters.  Adding clear indication that it is an advertisement for a call manufacturer probably doesn't help make it more palatable.  I'll stick with the opinion that one nonresident bird per state should be good enough in an era with diminishing populations of birds in so many areas coupled with an increase in the number of public land hunters.  How many have now checked out hunting the res?  I'm betting many (yes I know the res isn't public land).  A vicious cycle.  On the old NWTF forum I once posted that if you give me $10,000 I'll get a slam every year.  That post didn't set well with everyone either.  We may have to adjust the 10g for inflation.  Oh well.  I'll get over it.   

[High plains drifter]

I'm putting a thumbs down on anybody who shoots more than 4 birds in the spring.

[Marc]

I also don't understand the thought that only non-residents should be limited to one bird.  If the populations are so desperately in need of help, then limit EVERYONE to one bird.  Why only pick on the non-residents?

Not so much picking on non-residents, as prioritizing residents.

When numbers start to drop, it would seem to make sense to first drop non-resident opportunities, and prioritize the people that live in the area.

That being said, If I travel to turkey hunt, I would not want to be limited to 1 bird...  But I can choose not to travel to that area.

And...  Honestly, I think a happy medium would be one public tag, with multiple tags being available for private land hunting.  While it would incentivize pay to play, it would also incentivize improved habitat management for improved turkey production.  And, if people are willing to pay to hunt on good private land, it would almost certainly reduce the opportunities of locals to get access to private land without paying themselves...

The Internet has been a wonderful way of sharing the passion and exchanging information...  It has also put an end to many of the good public spots in my own area that were previously productive and relatively unhunted.

[joey46]

Good thoughts Marc.  Being a Florida resident, as I am,  has almost zero benefit and that is flat wrong in a State that is overrun with non resident hunters chasing the Osceola dream every spring.  Residency should have some benefit.  That one bird limit for non-res on public land would be a great compromise in any State not just Florida. 

Good conversation even though it has pi$$ed some off and cost the forum a beneficial contributor.

Add - Before it comes up I have every intention of chasing the Merriam dream next month.  I have already obtained my Wyoming tag and Conservation Stamp.  It is for one bird.  WY is a one bird State. Talk the talk, walk the walk I guess.  Good luck to all the remainder of the season no matter your views on this rapidly evolving passion.

[GobbleNut]

I get the notion that if a guy is going to go to the expense of traveling to hunt with all the associated costs involved, that being limited to a single "animal" might be frustrating.  However, with the existing circumstances in lots of places where we are taxing the resource with excessive hunting pressure and associated harvest, we have to get away from the "body count" mentality.  If any one of us is hunting spring gobblers to stack up dead turkey bodies, we are in it for the wrong reasons. Learn to enjoy the experience more,...and pull the trigger less. It is as simple as that! 

[TonyTurk]

I get the notion that if a guy is going to go to the expense of traveling to hunt with all the associated costs involved, that being limited to a single "animal" might be frustrating.  However, with the existing circumstances in lots of places where we are taxing the resource with excessive hunting pressure and associated harvest, we have to get away from the "body count" mentality.  If any one of us is hunting spring gobblers to stack up dead turkey bodies, we are in it for the wrong reasons. Learn to enjoy the experience more,...and pull the trigger less. It is as simple as that!

But the OP was not hunting an area where the resource has been taxed with excessive pressure.  He was hunting 3 million privately owned (tribal) acres which only issues 700 tags and has a very healthy turkey population.  That's 4,285 acres per tag!  The limit is two, and he took two.  Why should he only shoot one because the resource is taxed somewhere other than where he is hunting?

Let me ask this...would people have been upset if it was a picture of just Neal alone, with 2 birds?  Or are they upset because it's a picture of everyone in his party, with 2 birds each?  The tribe issues 700 total tags regardless.  He didn't take opportunity away from anyone else.  What difference does it make?  End of rant and appreciate the civil discussion.

[VA Gobble Addict]

I get the notion that if a guy is going to go to the expense of traveling to hunt with all the associated costs involved, that being limited to a single "animal" might be frustrating.  However, with the existing circumstances in lots of places where we are taxing the resource with excessive hunting pressure and associated harvest, we have to get away from the "body count" mentality.  If any one of us is hunting spring gobblers to stack up dead turkey bodies, we are in it for the wrong reasons. Learn to enjoy the experience more,...and pull the trigger less. It is as simple as that!

But the OP was not hunting an area where the resource has been taxed with excessive pressure.  He was hunting 3 million privately owned (tribal) acres which only issues 700 tags and has a very healthy turkey population.  That's 4,285 acres per tag!  The limit is two, and he took two.  Why should he only shoot one because the resource is taxed somewhere other than where he is hunting?

Let me ask this...would people have been upset if it was a picture of just Neal alone, with 2 birds?  Or are they upset because it's a picture of everyone in his party, with 2 birds each?  The tribe issues 700 total tags regardless.  He didn't take opportunity away from anyone else.  What difference does it make?  End of rant and appreciate the civil discussion.

Agreed. I'm not sure how you can burn a private spot with limited tags?

[GobbleNut]

I get the notion that if a guy is going to go to the expense of traveling to hunt with all the associated costs involved, that being limited to a single "animal" might be frustrating.  However, with the existing circumstances in lots of places where we are taxing the resource with excessive hunting pressure and associated harvest, we have to get away from the "body count" mentality.  If any one of us is hunting spring gobblers to stack up dead turkey bodies, we are in it for the wrong reasons. Learn to enjoy the experience more,...and pull the trigger less. It is as simple as that!

But the OP was not hunting an area where the resource has been taxed with excessive pressure.  He was hunting 3 million privately owned (tribal) acres which only issues 700 tags and has a very healthy turkey population.  That's 4,285 acres per tag!  The limit is two, and he took two.  Why should he only shoot one because the resource is taxed somewhere other than where he is hunting?

Let me ask this...would people have been upset if it was a picture of just Neal alone, with 2 birds?  Or are they upset because it's a picture of everyone in his party, with 2 birds each?  The tribe issues 700 total tags regardless.  What difference does it make?  End of rant and appreciate the civil discussion.

Of course, your assessment of this specific situation is right on the money,...which is why I prefaced my comment with the qualifying statement:  "...with the existing circumstances in lots of places where we are taxing the resource with excessive hunting pressure and associated harvest, we have to get away from the "body count" mentality." 

There are still places where multiple-bird bag limits are not an issue.  This is apparently one of them,...and I am sure most of us are familiar with others.  However, there are most definitely places where multiple-bird bag limits do not "fit" with the current levels of hunting pressure and its impact on the resource.  Rather than fight tooth and nail to keep outdated regulations intact, we need to recognize, where it is needed, that we need to adjust our attitudes about pulling the trigger for the good of the resource.

Your point is valid,...but at the same time, there are what seem to be increasing numbers of places where hunters would be wise to understand the fact that we should be restraining ourselves.   

[TonyTurk]

I get the notion that if a guy is going to go to the expense of traveling to hunt with all the associated costs involved, that being limited to a single "animal" might be frustrating.  However, with the existing circumstances in lots of places where we are taxing the resource with excessive hunting pressure and associated harvest, we have to get away from the "body count" mentality.  If any one of us is hunting spring gobblers to stack up dead turkey bodies, we are in it for the wrong reasons. Learn to enjoy the experience more,...and pull the trigger less. It is as simple as that!

But the OP was not hunting an area where the resource has been taxed with excessive pressure.  He was hunting 3 million privately owned (tribal) acres which only issues 700 tags and has a very healthy turkey population.  That's 4,285 acres per tag!  The limit is two, and he took two.  Why should he only shoot one because the resource is taxed somewhere other than where he is hunting?

Let me ask this...would people have been upset if it was a picture of just Neal alone, with 2 birds?  Or are they upset because it's a picture of everyone in his party, with 2 birds each?  The tribe issues 700 total tags regardless.  What difference does it make?  End of rant and appreciate the civil discussion.

Of course, your assessment of this specific situation is right on the money,...which is why I prefaced my comment with the qualifying statement:  "...with the existing circumstances in lots of places where we are taxing the resource with excessive hunting pressure and associated harvest, we have to get away from the "body count" mentality." 

There are still places where multiple-bird bag limits are not an issue.  This is apparently one of them,...and I am sure most of us are familiar with others.  However, there are most definitely places where multiple-bird bag limits do not "fit" with the current levels of hunting pressure and its impact on the resource.  Rather than fight tooth and nail to keep outdated regulations intact, we need to recognize, where it is needed, that we need to adjust our attitudes about pulling the trigger for the good of the resource.

Your point is valid,...but at the same time, there are what seem to be increasing numbers of places where hunters would be wise to understand the fact that we should be restraining ourselves.   

Yes sir, we are in agreement on that.  My native state of Oklahoma just went from a 3 bird limit to 1 this year.  Time will tell if it helps. 

[RutnNStrutn]

It's sad that we've reached a point on this forum where turkey hunters can't post pictures of dead turkeys without drawing criticism.  They didn't poach, trespass, or kill over the limit. 

I also don't understand the thought that only non-residents should be limited to one bird.  If the populations are so desperately in need of help, then limit EVERYONE to one bird.  Why only pick on the non-residents?

Absolutely spot on 100% accurate!! This used to be a great and helpful forum, and lots of people congratulated you when you got a gobbler. Then the purists and the "do only as I do" crowd took over. I don't even post up my harvests any more except on my team's contest page. I don't need some random dude that I never even met criticizing me because I didn't kill my bird the way he would have.
You're also spot on accurate with the non-resident comment. I've experienced that first hand at my camp in SC. For years turkey tags were included with your license. The bag limit was 5 for residents and non-residents as well, although the most I ever took was 3. Then they lowered the bag limit to 3 for everyone. Then they lowered it to 2 for non-residents only and charged us $100 for turkey tags. This makes no sense. As you noted, why not have the same bag limit for all hunters if your concern is really about the turkey population? Especially since every state has a lot more resident hunters than non-residents. Add to that the $100 and you see SC's concern is hogging the birds for the residents while making money off of the non-residents.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[RutnNStrutn]

When numbers start to drop, it would seem to make sense to first drop non-resident opportunities, and prioritize the people that live in the area.

I have the exact opposite point of view. IF your concern is truly about the turkey population, you would want to limit everyone's harvest. After all, any given state has a heck of a lot more resident hunters than non-residents. So limiting non-residents will not give the desired conservation results. It will make the resident hunters happy though, and that's about the only result you'll see.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[eggshell]

A lot of differing opinions being shared and feelings expressed. There is one inherent truth to be spoken. The internet is a beast of it's own nature. It is a benign entity as a stand-alone media, but can be twisted, made pathogenic or become a fulfilling enhancement to life and a wealth of information. I have found bitter arguments, hurt feelings and pure hatred on-line. I have also found so much information and wonderfully kind people to share my many interest and passions with. In the end it is what we each make of it. Although I express personal feelings and opinions (sometimes very frankly) I have never held any animosity towards anyone and I do truly respect that we all are different and a diverse world actually works best.

I am sad to see Neal deleted all his post. It does not matter whether we agree or not, he was enthused enough to take the time to share. I respect that. We all need to understand that at times we will say and do things that will evoke feelings and response, some good and some not. It's all food for thought and growth. Discussion is good. Have I reacted adversely to critique and discussion....you bet I have, I'm human. In the end we all loose when less is shared. However, weigh the possible responses when you share a post.

Let me just make some pro and con statements that may or may not be true about the OP

Pros
It was an awesome hunt for all involved and they were excited
They made the commitment to travel and pay up for the hunt and took full advantage of it
I would guess a lot of us would enjoy such a great hunt
It had to be some crazy not stop action
It was a manged hunt run very well
It was within legal limits and a management plan
It was a demonstration of effort and skill

Cons
It could be conceived as gloating and look at me, how great I am
It smacked of commercial advertising (for the call company and the guides0
It draws undo attention to an area
It stirs up jealously
Some see it as hunting gluttony and bragging
It could be conceived as a stamp of approval that stack em high hunting is Ok everywhere
It just plain started a bitter thread line

[Marc]

When numbers start to drop, it would seem to make sense to first drop non-resident opportunities, and prioritize the people that live in the area.

I have the exact opposite point of view. IF your concern is truly about the turkey population, you would want to limit everyone's harvest. After all, any given state has a heck of a lot more resident hunters than non-residents. So limiting non-residents will not give the desired conservation results. It will make the resident hunters happy though, and that's about the only result you'll see.

Actually a good discussion, and within any good discussion there will be a difference of opinion...  Nobody can say you are right and I am wrong, or I am wrong and you are right...  They can only agree or disagree with us...

But...  I do not wait until I am out of gas before I fill the tank.  As far as turkey numbers, I would rather see the issue addressed before it is a problem.

Were I to live in an area with a healthy turkey population, and lots of non-resident tags being utilized...  And we were beginning to see declining (but still healthy numbers), I would want to see increased non-resident tag prices (the proceeds of which would hopefully go towards turkey conservation), and see reduced numbers of non-resident tags for public land use.
 
I still feel that the greatest issues we face with turkeys, as well as every other game bird or animal in the U.S., is habitat reduction.  There are many situations, that I feel that reducing harvest limits is akin to treating a heart attack with a  band-aid.  Might be a little comforting, but nothing is being accomplished.  In other situations, reducing harvest numbers could very well be an appropriate and effective means of conservation.

[eggshell]

well thought out post Marc