Wisconsin's Flock Dwindling

[eggshell]

What if genetic diversity is the problem? It's a pretty simple task to try Trap and transplant....I done it for years, I know. I also know as state that insisted they could manage their native stock for years and finally broke down and moved in some new birds and bingo the stocks exploded.

[Spurs Up]

What if genetic diversity is the problem? It's a pretty simple task to try Trap and transplant....I done it for years, I know. I also know as state that insisted they could manage their native stock for years and finally broke down and moved in some new birds and bingo the stocks exploded.

I can see that. But...what if genetic diversity (whatever that looks like) is not the problem?  Isn't there as much or more risk in diluting the gene pool with birds that are not adapted to or well suited for the particular area?  Seems like that could be counter-productive. Basically make matters worse if any interbreeding took place.

[Spurs Up]

So whats wrong in your opinion Spurs Up?
Some time ago. The 70's and early 80's I have seen stocking turkey programs work very well.
The places were picked by the Missouri conservation department? Some areas were thought by some to be less than ideal.
The birds did well in the top areas along with not so great areas. Now birds are declining in all these areas.
You would imagine that those responsible would have chosen the best habitat before stocking the birds?
You would also imagine that they would not stock or re-stock turkeys in areas loaded with predators, turkey eaters or nest robbers?

Guess I'm not following you. I'm sorry. Did Missouri put turkeys in areas that already had turkeys in any significant number?

Everything I've ever heard restocking works where there is suitable habitat and no or too few birds to repopulate the area through breeding. No argument from me. But to put turkeys on top of turkeys because they are declining strikes me as government waste. Seems like money and efforts could be better spent elsewhere. At least until they can get a handle on what's going on.

[GobbleNut]

  Shouldn't you try to first figure out what's wrong, what's holding them back before you just dump more birds out???   Seems like there is a place and time for restocking but not just because they are on the decline.  At some point, it becomes put-n-take like trout streams in the east.

We know what is wrong already.  We are not getting enough population recruitment due to nesting failure/poult survival because of the factors already mentioned.  The entire trap and transplant program across the country was, in essence, a "put and take" program.  We "put" turkeys in places they had either never existed or had been extirpated,...and we have been "taking" them ever since. 

Habitat can surely be an issue in turkey populations.  However, if we have learned one thing about wild turkeys from the T&T programs, it is that wild turkeys are very adaptable,...and have an extraordinary ability, as adults, to avoid predation. They survive in places that wildlife managers had no idea they could survive.  Not only that, but they thrive in those places.  Based on that alone, I personally do not believe habitat is the limiting factor in most, if not all, population declines. 

If we, as turkey hunters and conservationists, want more turkeys somewhere, it ultimately comes down to accepting the fact that we have to act on that desire,...and then deciding what is the best and most acceptable way to achieve it.  We talk about predator control, but the fact is that societal acceptance of killing one species to increase other species has changed over the last half century.  Trapping, and the fur trade, has fallen into disfavor,...and is unlikely to return.

On the other hand, Increasing a species numbers by adding to the existing population is much less distasteful to a lot of folks. Telling people that you are going to "fix" a problem by adding live animals is much more acceptable to them than telling them you are going to kill a bunch of critters so that you can increase another critter's numbers.  Add to that the idea that we are trying to increase the one species at least in part because we want more of them to hunt just adds another layer of debate that we don't really want or need.

So, at the end of the day, looking at all the circumstances involved, I believe the solution to our dilemma is to accept that the "put and take" mentality might be the most satisfactory,...as well as the most productive,...answer to our problem in a number of ways.  Increasing genetic diversity by introducing more birds is a proven population invigorator.  Having more adult birds in a population logically increases the likelihood of some of those adult birds successfully nesting and raising young.  ...And the presence of more turkeys increases hunter satisfaction,...if that hunting is done in a controlled and scientific manner.

It's a "win" all the way around.  It is just a matter of convincing those that need to be convinced that it is the best way to go,...and then figuring out how to pay for it...

[GobbleNut]

I can see that. But...what if genetic diversity (whatever that looks like) is not the problem?  Isn't there as much or more risk in diluting the gene pool with birds that are not adapted to or well suited for the particular area?  Seems like that could be counter-productive. Basically make matters worse if any interbreeding took place.

That is a great question. ...And the answer is that, from past research and restoration efforts, those concerns have been insignificant when compared to the realized benefits.  The benefits have been shown to far outweigh the possible negative impacts.  Increasing genetic diversity in populations and the concept of "hybrid vigor" have been demonstrated to be very positive elements in restoring populations of numerous species, including wild turkeys.

If the concern is about genetic dilution of subspecies through the introduction of other subspecies,...well, that cat's been out of the bag for quite a while now.  However, there is no reason why geographically isolated populations of the same subspecies cannot be introduced to each other to achieve the desired positive benefits.

[Spurs Up]

GN, I'll yield to you and others more knowledgeable than I. Got a question... If they are dying faster than they are reproducing (is that what you mean by recruitment?), why won't that happen to the ones they transplant?  If that's the case, the population would increase only by the amount transplanted and would continue the same rate of decline.  That's just like put and take trout. Can't imagine that on any sizeable scale with turkeys. Seems like a fool's bet.

[owlhoot]

So whats wrong in your opinion Spurs Up?
Some time ago. The 70's and early 80's I have seen stocking turkey programs work very well.
The places were picked by the Missouri conservation department? Some areas were thought by some to be less than ideal.
The birds did well in the top areas along with not so great areas. Now birds are declining in all these areas.
You would imagine that those responsible would have chosen the best habitat before stocking the birds?
You would also imagine that they would not stock or re-stock turkeys in areas loaded with predators, turkey eaters or nest robbers?

Guess I'm not following you. I'm sorry. Did Missouri put turkeys in areas that already had turkeys in any significant number?

Everything I've ever heard restocking works where there is suitable habitat and no or too few birds to repopulate the area through breeding. No argument from me. But to put turkeys on top of turkeys because they are declining strikes me as government waste. Seems like money and efforts could be better spent elsewhere. At least until they can get a handle on what's going on.

Just asking what you thought was wrong?
I don't know if it's really turkey on top of turkey?
I know areas now that were once populated but now to see or hear one is next to impossible.
Some others 1 or 2 bird where there used to be 10-12.
Don't know if turkey were stocked were there was already quite a few though. Shot some in the early 80's that were tagged. Was told they were released close to that area.

[Bay1985]

As mentioned East Texas is currently stocking birds from Missouri and other states to an area with very low populations low enough they have closed the season in several counties. The area once had a decent population. In a few years we will have an answer of how we'll transplants work. My money says there will be a population boom just like the first transplants in the 70s and 80s time will tell.
As far as the "put and take" I have never heard of any state hunting the birds right  after release, there was at least a few years before hunting would be allowed and most of the transplants would be dead by then of natural mortality. Otherwise you'd may as well hunt a preserve like they do with quail. I know in La it was 5 years after the release before hunting was allowed on some land a friend leased for deer in the early 1990's.

[GobbleNut]

GN, I'll yield to you and others more knowledgeable than I. Got a question... If they are dying faster than they are reproducing (is that what you mean by recruitment?), why won't that happen to the ones they transplant?  If that's the case, the population would increase only by the amount transplanted and would continue the same rate of decline.  That's just like put and take trout. Can't imagine that on any sizeable scale with turkeys. Seems like a fool's bet.

Again Spurs Up, great comment.  Yes, basically populations fall when there are not enough young that reach adulthood to offset the adults that are dying in the population.  You are correct in stating that the transplanted birds might not solve that problem.  However, it could be reasonable to assume that the more adults you have in a population, the more likely you are to have successful recruitment over time.  That is what we have to hope for.  If the recruitment problem is not temporary based on some set of circumstances that are going to correct themselves naturally over time, then the population will eventually disappear.  We have to decide if we want to accept that fate,...or attempt to do something about it.

You are also correct in stating that it is comparable to "put and take" fish stocking,...to a degree.  The history of the trap and transplant efforts to establish turkey populations across the country has demonstrated that turkey numbers can increase dramatically, and in a relatively short time frame, with the introduction of relatively small numbers of birds.  In addition, there are plenty of places around the country where turkeys are abundant and could be taken for reintroductions or supplementation of struggling populations.

Supplementing populations may, or may not, stave-off the disappearance of our turkey populations in certain places.  It would certainly lessen the speed of that,...and might give us time to figure out a way to solve the problems.  It is also possible that the introduction of new turkeys might, in itself, solve the problem for reasons already mentioned.  The ultimate question boils down to,..."Is it a bad thing to try to find out"?  Personally, I think it is a good,...and proven,...idea.

[eggshell]

Recruitment is the adding of new individuals to maintain or even add to current level, in essence it is survival of new poults into the adult population. Just like the army recruits to maintain levels of personnel to replace outgoing personnel. In time of need/war they recruit more than maintenance levels to compensate for higher than expected losses. if needed this is done by drafting personnel....taking from within the population at will instead of by volunteers.

I agree problems need to be identified and addressed when present. With that said, the highest danger is transporting disease not putting birds where they won't adapt. We've proved they will adapt. Research any animal husbandry industry and you'll find that they monitor genetic diversity very closely. Gobblenut is right new stocks when brought in often bring a vigor with them. Normally there is not a problem if you started with a diverse population, but I think what happened with many of the trap and transplant programs a bulk of all birds were taken from a few individual sites and thus was built off a very small genetic pool. Perhaps sometimes all within one family group. I think to introduce vigor, agencies will need to go to other geographic regions for stock. Hens and poults should be targeted for moving. If one new hen is successful and rears 1 hen to adulthood the next year there are two and then 4 and 8 and 16, at that point the original hen is probably dead, but still the gain is only minus one in the fifth year. Assuming 50/50 sex ratio that is also 16 gobblers in year 5. In that aspect supplemental stocking does add. Now you may need to move three hens to get that one successful breeder. In fisheries we often stocked to add success to endangered stocks, not just put and take. 

One point that I concede is carrying capacity is indeed a factor and we need to ask ourselves; are the stocks really in danger? Have we had multiple years of failed recruitment due to weather or some natural cause. Has that cause passed. If it has been gross loss of habitat then dumping more birds won't fix it. Is food lacking (typically not the case with today's agriculture). However, feeding will prop up populations, but I am not a fan of it.

Some of us are just spoiled. We got used to the explosion level and now that populations have leveled out we're not satisfied. Most states average around 5 birds per sq mile for the whole state, but we all think on the terms of 15-30 or more per sq mile in our hunting areas. I'm not sure what is a sustainable number, but on our farm I have kept a pretty close watch and it seems that we consistently hold around 20-30 per sq. mile. As I said before that is a tightly managed farm.

Her's an interesting article:
https://www.popsci.com/wild-turkey-decline/

[idgobble]

Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR.  I wonder if it's affecting turkeys.  Here's what a range scientist friend pointed out to me and he's correct: Higher temps and dryer summers have resulted in chukars moving higher in elevation, even if it's only a few hundred feet, to spend more time there. Bunch grass, which provides cover and seeds for food, has died out by 50%. There used to be, only 15 years ago, noticeably more of it.  These are subtle things that most people wouldn't notice and they happened very gradually. Based on what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some subtle change in habitat that is affecting turkeys in some parts of the country. I'm sure there are other factors, too, that have been mentioned here. Overall, I don't think shooting bearded hens is a major factor.  How many bearded hens have you ever seen? I do think wounding gobblers by long range shooting has had a major effect. That's one of my pet peeves. Imagine telling hunters that, with a 3.5" magnum and the new loads,  they can be effective at 75 yards! That's the gun and ammo manufacturers and salespeople saying that. Most guys can't tell the difference between 65 and 85 yards but it only takes 1 pellet in the right place to fatally wound a turkey, even if it lives for another month. When a pellet pulls part of a feather into a wound it can easily turn into gangrene a couple weeks later. I've shot chukars that had gangrene and wouldn't have lived much longer.

[GobbleNut]

Climate change is having an effect on the chukars I hunt in ID and OR.  I wonder if it's affecting turkeys. 

Of course it is,...but you don't want to mention the "CC word" around here....  Too many climate scientists on here that disagree with that assessment....   
(....and I fully expect we will here from some of them shortly....    )

[guesswho]

As long as we have enough turkeys for the next 12 years.

[GobbleNut]

As long as we have enough turkeys for the next 12 years.

  You're optimistic,...then again, you're a little bit younger and still have that youthful enthusiasm.  Me,..I'm hoping to last a few less than that,...or at least until we're all medium rare...   

[nativeks]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article224470505.html