IOWA DNR TURKEY RESEARCH UPDATE (YEAR 2)

[TurkeysForTomorrow]

Turkeys For Tomorrow's focus on the conservation of the wild turkey is not limited to one region, we are working to save the wild turkey in all regions of North America. Our partners at the Iowa DNR have been implementing practices and conducting research for the past two years that is providing vital information to their biologists and enabling them to make sound decisions related to the wild turkey. This research can be utilized throughout the country.


Dan Kaminski, a wildlife biologist with the Iowa DNR, has been marking hens and poults with GPS or VHF/radio transmitters since 2021. This has enabled Dan to evaluate population demographic parameters related to hen and poult survival, cause-specific mortality, and nesting rates. Some of Dan's findings have been in line with the trends that TFT has seen in other states as well as in research that they have funded. A portion of Dan's research is listed below and gives a glimpse into the challenges the wild turkey is facing in Iowa. These results are only for one year and so additional years of data are needed to understand how these numbers fit into the greater picture of turkey reproduction in Iowa.

OVERALL, FOR 2022:

? A total of 73 hens were marked last winter.

? As of early August, 27 hens have died for a mortality rate of 38%.

? Of 63 hens available to nest starting on May 1, only 7 nests hatched successfully (i.e., hatched at least one egg; 11% hen success rate).

? Of 33 hens marked with GPS transmitters, 7 hens did not incubate a nest, 17 incubated 1 nest, 8 incubated 2 nests, and 1 incubated 3 nests.


? Most of the nest failure was due to predation, however, one nest failed due to hay mowing and one failed due to abandonment by the hen

? The median day of nest failure was 8 days, and a preliminary nest survival model indicates 50% of nests failed by day 10 of incubation.

? Of the 7 nests that successfully hatched, the average clutch size was 9.9 eggs per nest and the average number of eggs hatched was 7.7 eggs per nest.

? Of the 54 eggs that hatched, 18 poults were observed during poult captures conducted within 1-3 days post-hatch and a total of 12 poults were marked with VHF/radio transmitters. 

? During 4-week flush counts for 6 of the 7 hens that hatched a nest, a total of 4 poults remained alive. One hen was not flushed because her transmitter failed prior to the 4-week flush count.

Much like the Alabama survey conducted by Dr. Will Gulsby these results clearly show that there is a serious issue in nesting, hatching of a brood, and the survival of a brood. Through a collaborative effort with TFT various state DNRs and Wildlife Biologists hope to identify trends and statistics that are prevalent in all areas where studies are being conducted. This information will prove vital to decisions that can be made to implement changes needed to help the wild turkey survive and prosper.

[nativeks]

Did they say what killed the 27 hens? I was wondering disease, predation, vehicle strike, etc.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[GobbleGitr]

Who were funders of this study that we should thank?

[Wigsplitter]

It's a tough life out there for the turkeys!!!

[2eagles]

I'm surprised we have any turkeys left in Iowa. And many people think it's ok to shoot hens during our fall season!
It would be nice to know what part of the state this was done, but should be kept hush hush. People would probably target the area in the fall hoping to get a transmitter wearing hen.

[GobbleNut]

To me, here's the bottom-line implication of these studies that seem to end up with similar conclusions.  That is, recent trends in a number of states/regions seem to indicate that long-term reproductive failure is gradually wiping out turkey populations,...or at least diminishing their numbers such that there will, at some point, not be viable numbers to justify hunting.   

If this is truly the case, we are headed for extreme restrictions on hunting,...or the total elimination of hunting,...unless we look at alternative methods of reinforcing turkey numbers in those places.  Artificial propagation (somehow protecting nesting hens through artificial means) and/or supplementation (transplants) will, at some point, have to be put on the table as a solution.

Regardless, we cannot keep killing turkeys in places where they are not naturally replenishing themselves in numbers that keep up with all the mortality factors involved.  For wildlife managers, and us turkey hunters, that is a no-win proposition.  Something has to give at some point.  We can't keep crossing our fingers and hoping that next year things will magically change and we will have successful nesting and population recruitment.  Alternatives to finger-crossing must be anticipated, contemplated, and explored. 

[El Pavo Grande]

To me, here's the bottom-line implication of these studies that seem to end up with similar conclusions.  That is, recent trends in a number of states/regions seem to indicate that long-term reproductive failure is gradually wiping out turkey populations,...or at least diminishing their numbers such that there will, at some point, not be viable numbers to justify hunting.   

If this is truly the case, we are headed for extreme restrictions on hunting,...or the total elimination of hunting,...unless we look at alternative methods of reinforcing turkey numbers in those places.  Artificial propagation (somehow protecting nesting hens through artificial means) and/or supplementation (transplants) will, at some point, have to be put on the table as a solution.

Regardless, we cannot keep killing turkeys in places where they are not naturally replenishing themselves in numbers that keep up with all the mortality factors involved.  For wildlife managers, and us turkey hunters, that is a no-win proposition.  Something has to give at some point.  We can't keep crossing our fingers and hoping that next year things will magically change and we will have successful nesting and population recruitment.  Alternatives to finger-crossing must be anticipated, contemplated, and explored.

Great post!!  But, it just has to be MORE than hunting regulations.  I've seen it first hand in my state of Arkansas.  We have reduced harvest greatly through regulations (for years), as much as simply having less turkeys.  And yet, the decline has continued.  I am all for research and appreciate it.  But, at some point I hope as much funding and focus is placed on actions that promote nest survival and poult survival to adulthood. 

I 100% believe that habitat is the foundation.  We have a loss of available habitat and a need for improvements in nesting / brooding habitat.  That can help offset predation and weather, etc.  But, despite much of the politically correct biologist talk, I just don't buy into thought that actual predator control can't play a role in management.  Basically, let's quit talking the talk, and let's walk the walk.  My state needs an all out campaign to incentive private land owners, and timber companies (good kick with that one) to improve habitat.   They need to look at the effects of baiting deer with corn... direct effects on turkey health and indirectly supporting the coon and possum populations, etc.  I am in the minority in my state to applaud the AGFC for addressing the harvest of male turkeys and protecting hens (no fall since 2011 and last year prohibiting bearded hens), but beyond directly addressing the problems head on with nest/poult success I'm not convinced.  I wore that's the trap other states fall on into.  Personally, I think the state needs to promote an increase in predator removal.  5X the increase of predators on improved habitat can still wreak some havoc. 

[Dtrkyman]

I agree on the habitat issues, i hunt a state that has loads of predators, but also has loads of turkeys and excellent nesting habitat!

I hunted Iowa last year and spoke to the biologist prior, just had a chat about the zone i hunted and confirmed an area I was interested in hunting, he had some great insight and told me not head further south in the zone due to cold weather as he stated the northern section had seen better recruitment in rencent years!

[ruffbritt4]

I'd like to know more about the flush counts they run to gauge brood survival. It is no surprise  that there is a higher mortality rate if these birds are being disturbed/separated and pushed into habitat that is not suitable for their survival.

There is a lot more to this than the predator issue that everyone is so quick to jump to. I have seen more poults this year than in the last 10. I also have not seen a hen with less than 2 poults all summer. If this study was indicative of the overall population, the wild turkey would be a thing of the past.

There is something here that is missing.

[2eagles]

I live and hunt in Iowa. I usually fill my spring tags, but not always and when I don't it's often my fault. I don't see lots of birds, but I am persistent. I went to check a new deer hunting property Sunday and was amazed. We saw 15 or 19 (might have counted a group of 4 twice) on a walk through a small 50 acre area. That's more than I've seen on a walk in a long time. My thoughts are that local populations can vary immensely depending on habitat, predators, food, hunting pressure and many other things. A few miles away there might not be a turkey to be seen. That's why a guy saying he has tons of birds doesn't mean much. Or someone saying saying all turkeys have been killed off. It takes statewide studies to really get good population densities. Iowans can submit county by county sightings in July and August to the DNR. Point is just like our once famous pheasant population, lots goes into managing the resource and work like this will help.

[Spurs]

To me, here's the bottom-line implication of these studies that seem to end up with similar conclusions.  That is, recent trends in a number of states/regions seem to indicate that long-term reproductive failure is gradually wiping out turkey populations,...or at least diminishing their numbers such that there will, at some point, not be viable numbers to justify hunting.   

If this is truly the case, we are headed for extreme restrictions on hunting,...or the total elimination of hunting,...unless we look at alternative methods of reinforcing turkey numbers in those places.  Artificial propagation (somehow protecting nesting hens through artificial means) and/or supplementation (transplants) will, at some point, have to be put on the table as a solution.

Regardless, we cannot keep killing turkeys in places where they are not naturally replenishing themselves in numbers that keep up with all the mortality factors involved.  For wildlife managers, and us turkey hunters, that is a no-win proposition.  Something has to give at some point.  We can't keep crossing our fingers and hoping that next year things will magically change and we will have successful nesting and population recruitment.  Alternatives to finger-crossing must be anticipated, contemplated, and explored.

Great post!!  But, it just has to be MORE than hunting regulations.  I've seen it first hand in my state of Arkansas.  We have reduced harvest greatly through regulations (for years), as much as simply having less turkeys.  And yet, the decline has continued.  I am all for research and appreciate it.  But, at some point I hope as much funding and focus is placed on actions that promote nest survival and poult survival to adulthood. 

I 100% believe that habitat is the foundation.  We have a loss of available habitat and a need for improvements in nesting / brooding habitat.  That can help offset predation and weather, etc.  But, despite much of the politically correct biologist talk, I just don't buy into thought that actual predator control can't play a role in management.  Basically, let's quit talking the talk, and let's walk the walk.  My state needs an all out campaign to incentive private land owners, and timber companies (good kick with that one) to improve habitat.   They need to look at the effects of baiting deer with corn... direct effects on turkey health and indirectly supporting the coon and possum populations, etc.  I am in the minority in my state to applaud the AGFC for addressing the harvest of male turkeys and protecting hens (no fall since 2011 and last year prohibiting bearded hens), but beyond directly addressing the problems head on with nest/poult success I'm not convinced.  I wore that's the trap other states fall on into.  Personally, I think the state needs to promote an increase in predator removal.  5X the increase of predators on improved habitat can still wreak some havoc.

AGFC leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to habitat management...even when it comes to the public lands. Their attempt over recent years to cast the blame toward private land owners is lost on me.  The largest land owners in our state is the large timber companies.  They will never do it, but the only way to reign them in is to institute a STRICT stream management zone (again, this will NEVER happen).

So to get to what they could do that is a little more realistic IMO.  Allow year round trapping, begin thinning out WMAs with wildlife (not timber value) in mind, utilize the monetary gains from those timber harvests in the region it came from to create actual food plots (not just sling some oats/clover and call it a food plot), and mandate a check in/check out survey when hunting all WMAs that provides useful data on hunter satisfaction/success.

That is one thing that there is never enough of and that honestly, the north gets right.  It seems like a vast majority of public hunting up north provide tons more usable habitat than they do down south.  I remember when I first started traveling how amazed I was in Wisconsin.  They had cut corn fields, alfalfa, standing soy beans, etc.  There were thinning, thickets, and open bottoms.  One walk thru any of the WMAs in AR and you will see nothing but single story growth for miles upon miles.

Sure, some places get a little more attention than others, but I would say that 90% AR problems steam from the AGFCs failure to recognize whats right in front of them.