Bird Numbers Down/ Decrees The Limit ?

[Happy]

I propose a mandatory dance off at every gate winner takes all.

[Marc]

Loose lips started sinking the ship the Covid lock down year.... That was where most of the statistics of decreasing the season all started... People turkey hunting for the first time and telling our Local TWRA that they didn't hear or see any turkeys... Not every place holds turkeys... This forum or people voicing or sharing opinions has very little effect on changes or opportunity... If it did we would have a lot more of these officials on the forum...

I agree...  What happened during COVID was a perfect strom of events.

*Technology available that allows users to know every piece of legal hunting areas with the topography, access roads, etc.  (i.e. OnX or Gaia)
*Social media popularizing turkey hunting (and spot burning)
*COVID allowing people time and incentive to get out of the house and go hunting.

[sasquatch1]

I see hardly anyone wanting to fund more, which is what really should happen!!

To buy more lands, manage lands better etc etc

I think hunting licenses and wma permits are far too cheap some places

Example here in south LA, there's several thousand acres of marsh lands that the local govt owns. It was always open to hunting (ducks)

Then they decided to sell permits to hunt it (like $50 per year)

Everyone complained like crazy!!! The same idiot that would totally lose the opportunity to even hunt the place if the state decided to lease it out!!! Then they'd WISH they could just pay $50 as then they'd be sitting home without a place to hunt!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[mountainhunter1]

If you feel there should be a decrease in tags then you should personally adhere to the limit you think it should be in principle and not take advantage of what the actual limit is.

Some are already doing just that. I for the past three years have on purpose not filled my last tag in my state and have not traveled - again on purpose.

[Paulmyr]

I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW...  It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT?   SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people.  Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....

I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than  that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.

[Wigsplitter]

I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than  that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.




This

[GobbleNut]

I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW...  It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT?   SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people.  Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....

I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than  that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.

One might use this reasoning to justify the position that the wildlife on Federal lands belongs to all of us.  However, that is an erroneous position based on current wildlife law.  Non-migratory wildlife within a state's boundaries is "held in trust" for the people of that state according to Federal wildlife law.  That applies whether that wildlife is found on Federal lands, private lands, or otherwise. 

Bottom line is that the individual states make the rules for wildlife management within their borders on all lands, with the exception being that of migratory wildlife such as waterfowl, which is managed by the Feds.  I am not sure if there are exceptions to this general policy on places like Federally-managed wildlife refuges, but on the vast majority of Federal lands, management authority falls to the individual states. 

[Greg Massey]

I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW...  It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT?   SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people.  Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....

I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than  that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.

One might use this reasoning to justify the position that the wildlife on Federal lands belongs to all of us.  However, that is an erroneous position based on current wildlife law.  Non-migratory wildlife within a state's boundaries is "held in trust" for the people of that state according to Federal wildlife law.  That applies whether that wildlife is found on Federal lands, private lands, or otherwise. 

Bottom line is that the individual states make the rules for wildlife management within their borders on all lands, with the exception being that of migratory wildlife such as waterfowl, which is managed by the Feds.  I am not sure if there are exceptions to this general policy on places like Federally-managed wildlife refuges, but on the vast majority of Federal lands, management authority falls to the individual states.

100 percent true, good post GobbleNut.... Individual States ....

[runngun]

I totally understand that something had to be done in the case of Homochitto NATIONAL Forest located in South Mississippi. But I don't understand how "they" being the State of Mississippi can make non-residents have to "draw" to hunt federal land? Why not everyone? Both residents and non-residents. Very well could turn into a court case, rightfully so. There is no way this is "Fair."

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Paulmyr]

I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW...  It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT?   SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people.  Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....

I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than  that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.

One might use this reasoning to justify the position that the wildlife on Federal lands belongs to all of us.  However, that is an erroneous position based on current wildlife law.  Non-migratory wildlife within a state's boundaries is "held in trust" for the people of that state according to Federal wildlife law.  That applies whether that wildlife is found on Federal lands, private lands, or otherwise. 

Bottom line is that the individual states make the rules for wildlife management within their borders on all lands, with the exception being that of migratory wildlife such as waterfowl, which is managed by the Feds.  I am not sure if there are exceptions to this general policy on places like Federally-managed wildlife refuges, but on the vast majority of Federal lands, management authority falls to the individual states.

Yup your right. But I still have the right to be there. I think it's a slippery slope when states start to manage wildlife on federal lands for benefit of their residents. It would not be very difficult to see a move by the federal govt to take over the management of wildlife on federal land  if the right buttons are pushed. Not that I'm In favor of more govt control but I could see a federal agency being implemented if the  gov't felt it could make some money off the sale of special federal land hunting permits especially if states try regulate these lands differently for residents compared to non residents.

I know there are states doing this already but if enough pressure is applied, I don't see it being to much of a stretch especially if the law makers think they can add a few million to their coffers.

On another note. At this point in time the wildlife in the state belong to everybody in the state not just the hunters. State agencies are obligated to manage wildlife for benefit of everyone who has an interest in seeing non resident permits being sold and not just in the interest of the resident hunters.

I'm not saying this is what I'd like to see but money talks and bs walks when talking about how govt's manage their resources.

[sasquatch1]

I totally understand that something had to be done in the case of Homochitto NATIONAL Forest located in South Mississippi. But I don't understand how "they" being the State of Mississippi can make non-residents have to "draw" to hunt federal land? Why not everyone? Both residents and non-residents. Very well could turn into a court case, rightfully so. There is no way this is "Fair."

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

You don't have to draw to go hike.

The state owns the game, and they make the hunting regulations for that game.

I'm a lonnngggg time MS Nr hunter, do I like it? Not really but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[runngun]

Yeah, me too as well, I live on the Stateline and reside in Louisiana. I hunt Mississippi as well. So apparently, the State of Mississippi owns the wildlife that lives in the national forest. The national forest is owned by the federal government.  Just don't agree with the draw for non residents.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[joey46]

The National Forest belongs to all discussion is an old one.  It was once proposed that there be a one price hunting license just for federal lands.  It seemed to die until covid when many states stopped selling nonresident licenses.  At some point if a state's policy of limiting or pricing OOS hunters out of the National Forest is found to be discriminatory it could be a problem for the states involved.  Would be an interesting court case with far reaching ramifications.
An easy compromise would be if one group (non-res) has to draw to hunt federal land then everyone (residents included) also has to draw.  Wouldn't that be a hoot. 
These conflicts were mostly seen in western states where the price differences on license fees for res and non-res big game are extreme.  Bottom line is that the non-res is still given the opportunity it just cost more.  He isn't banned from hunting activity. A prime example in my experience is Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in western KY and TN.  This area has draw quota turkey hunts every spring.  Anyone can put in for this hunt with an equal chance.  Residents of KY and TN don't receive bonus points in the draw.  If drawn and not a resident your state license will cost you more but the LBL permit cost is the same for everybody.  Could be where we're heading on all federal land.
Remember the power just one Federal Judge can weild before you wish a OOS hiatus in your state.

[zelmo1]

I know that $$$ is the center hub for all the issues with healthy game populations. But common sense tells us that if we dont protect the resource, it will go away. Then nobody gets to enjoy it. I think that all states should reciprocate with the state that a non resident is from. If one state reduces the bag limit and or hunting days, then the other state should as well. If a state does not allow or limits non resident hunters, then their resident hunters should be treated the same if they go out of state. Fair is fair. Non residents pay extra for their licenses, they shouldnt be penalized again. I usually only hunt locally and possibly my neighboring state that I work in. Just be fair to all, I know thats a pipe dream, but that seems more fair to me.  Z

[TauntoHawk]

Im careful what I wish for, it would be devastating to see turkey go the route of western big game where you are buying preference points for 7, 9, sometimes 15 years just to draw $1000 tag obviously that's extreme but piling this stuff on ourselves as hunters is not something we should be pursuing IMO.

I don't think we can bag limit our way into a better populations, when you talk about limiting the harvest of mature gobblers it's a massive case of treating a symptom and not the disease. So no I don't think states halfing the bag limit is the right answer. We need better poult production and survival, the turkey factories are the hens they need nesting and brooding habitat. We could also get into the fact we've made it so incredibly idiot proof to kill a gobbler with technology and tactics that might not be in the best interest of the sport.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk