Wisconsin's Flock Dwindling

[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....    )

If winter kill is a problem in states like Michigan and Wisconsin then wouldn't global warming be beneficial, that is "IF" it was real lol. Anybody else notice the same NASA that has done all these CC predictions are the same NASA that predicted Global cooling in the 1970's. They also said the Mississippi River was drying up?? Hard to tell with all the flooding going on. Weather cycles and is not under our control so we have to work on the problems we can control. Habitat,predators and hunting mortality

Frankly, I am a bit surprised it took so long....    
Hint:  If 99% of the world experts on a subject agree on something,...you might want to listen to them,...especially when the future of your kids and their kids,...and their kids (ad infinitum)  is at stake...  ...your choice...   

[Bay1985]

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....    )

If winter kill is a problem in states like Michigan and Wisconsin then wouldn't global warming be beneficial, that is "IF" it was real lol. Anybody else notice the same NASA that has done all these CC predictions are the same NASA that predicted Global cooling in the 1970's. They also said the Mississippi River was drying up?? Hard to tell with all the flooding going on. Weather cycles and is not under our control so we have to work on the problems we can control. Habitat,predators and hunting mortality

Frankly, I am a bit surprised it took so long....    
Hint:  If 99% of the world experts on a subject agree on something,...you might want to listen to them,...especially when the future of your kids and their kids,...and their kids (ad infinitum)  is at stake...  ...your choice...   

I debated rather to post anything about your first CC remark. I knew full well you would not answer any question posted but continue to repost the same  thing over and over. You might want to look at your numbers again it's not 99% of scientists and if it was a fact it be 100% it is a theory not a fact. I've never seen a response to the NASA contradiction or the Al Gore idiot predictions. They keep missing there supposed deadlines for the apocalypse and keep pushing it down the line and the followers either don't see it or don't want to believe it.

[guesswho]

Well, we have twelve years to figure it out, actually a little less now.   

[fallhnt]

In the midwest, Iowa has had all day hunting as long as I  can remember. Noon stopping time was so the nest wont be disturbed. That isn't very scientific. I hunt in NE and KS too. All the states I hunt have all day hunting,except two,Fall hunting and good habitat. Fall isn't a real threat to turkeys in the midwest, as the Whitetail rules. Sounds like states with major issues have horrible forest management.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[eggshell]

Dang I am posting on the wrong forum.....I thought this was about wild Turkeys, not just turkeys! Now where is that discussion on wild turkey hunting 

[Rzrbac]

Some really good stuff in this thread. I used to read as much as I could about turkey biology. I have mentioned factors previously that I believe have helped in our decline. I stand by them because it's what I have observed. Hogs, poaching, lack of law enforcement and improper timber management along with terrible weather have to be contributing factors.

Are there other factors we are not considering?  I'm not a biologist and just don't read as much as I did when I was younger. I do wonder what other factors have yet to be discovered. I get the whole recruitment process to stabilize or increase numbers. I'm sure if just one of the factors I mentioned were corrected, it would not produce an immediate increase in our birds. Weather would probably make the biggest impact but it's out of our control.

I sometimes think there's some unknown factor we have yet to figure out. I'll just throw this observation out here. In my hunting area Canada's have been on the increase and thick. While they may not share the majority of habitat it will overlap. Used to be rare to see many resident Canada's around in a pasture around here. Now instead of turkeys it's only Canada's. Don't misunderstand me and think I'm blaming geese. It's just an easy observation and something different than I used to see. For someone like me to notice something like that makes me wonder what changes in our environment and management practices have changed that may not be so easy to see.

[GobbleNut]

First off:  Forget my comments on climate change. I'm sorry I replied to the initial comment on it.  The fact is that whether someone believes in it or not, there is little that can be done by a small group of turkey hunters that will ever make a difference.  Again, my apologies for ruffling feathers.

There are, however, things that we can do that might help offset some of the factors that are limiting our turkey populations, both individually and collectively.  Banding together to put pressure on wildlife agencies and that organization that is supposed to be representing us,...the one with four letters starting with N and ending in WTF,... and getting them to do something would be a really good start.

[eggshell]

Sorry gobblenut the "N" train went off the rails into the abyss a long time ago....

[snoodcrusher]

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....    )

Here's one "Climate Change " expert that missed his prediction lol.

If winter kill is a problem in states like Michigan and Wisconsin then wouldn't global warming be beneficial, that is "IF" it was real lol. Anybody else notice the same NASA that has done all these CC predictions are the same NASA that predicted Global cooling in the 1970's. They also said the Mississippi River was drying up?? Hard to tell with all the flooding going on. Weather cycles and is not under our control so we have to work on the problems we can control. Habitat,predators and hunting mortality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen !


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fallhnt]

First off:  Forget my comments on climate change. I'm sorry I replied to the initial comment on it.  The fact is that whether someone believes in it or not, there is little that can be done by a small group of turkey hunters that will ever make a difference.  Again, my apologies for ruffling feathers.

There are, however, things that we can do that might help offset some of the factors that are limiting our turkey populations, both individually and collectively.  Banding together to put pressure on wildlife agencies and that organization that is supposed to be representing us,...the one with four letters starting with N and ending in WTF,... and getting them to do something would be a really good start.

NWTF....Save the Habitat Save the Hunt.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Spurs]

I am a hard sell on the limiting hunting time. I don't have a problem only hunting a half day, but I also enjoy hunting a full day. Here in Ohio we traditionally had only half day hunting until the last few years the last two weeks allowed full day hunting. Afternoon hunting has never really took off locally. What makes me wonder just how much value this strategy has is one simple observance. I started hunting turkeys in 1971 and they were pretty restricted to certain state forest areas and by today's standards were not high density  nor widespread. The few birds we had got a lot of hunting pressure by today's standards. The small areas that had birds drew attention from hunters as far away as a 3 hr drive. Those birds flourished and multiplied like crazy and expanded their territory exponentially. Now it was only half day hunting, but I saw the same thing happen in  other states that had all day hunting. I personally think it is a minor issue in considering what is causing the decline. I think it's far more complicated than that. If those early populations could withstand the onslaught they had every spring, why can't today's birds? Several post back Gobblenut brought up recruitment. If we are getting recruitment in the zero gain or plus range then our flocks should not be declining. So we need to determine why we had plus (X^1-9) for many years and now are negative values. I seriously doubt changing hunting  times will stop a decline. Ohio's turkey population is estimated at 200,000. With the fall harvest (because that is the only time hens are legally killed) being around 1200-1500 annually and approximately 50% of that being female. That is 3.75% of the total population taken by hunters. Populations I'm guessing run more female than male due to gobbler harvest (~19,000 gobblers per year the last 5 years). Studies have shown gobblers suffer approx. a 10-15% mortality to hunting annually. If you factor that it brings you to ~5.3% of the breeding hen population. I doubt that incidental spring kills would add another .25% to that. To be in decline you have to have recruitment levels at zero gain or less or less than 1.5 surviving poults per hen in the spring, allowing for hunting. If you take the approx. 750 hens killed in the fall in Ohio then apply a 1.5/hen poult count you are adding 1,125 new recruits @ 50/50 hen to Males. That is assuming every one of those hens successfully produced 1.5 poults, which we know they would not. A good guess is 2/3rds will raise broods. Those would all be net gain birds. The numbers I heard thrown around most was 2.0 plus poults per hen survival as a target for sustaining 0 gain  population. IN Ohio we have seen a sustained levels above that, Mark Wiley (ODNR Turkey Biologist) stated in an article:

The 20 year poult-per-hen (pph) average is 2.9 — or an average of nearly three poults seen with each hen. In previous years, the state has seen an average of as many as 3 pph, and the highest was 5.9 following the brood V cicada emergence in 1999. "https://www.gameandfishmag.com/editorial/2018-ohio-turkey-hunting-outlook/191377

So in Ohio with a harvest that is around 20% of the total population annually we are left with ~160,000 turkeys as a breeding population. If only 50% of that is hens then we have ~ 80,000 hens. Those surviving hens only need to produce 40,000 poults to replace the harvest or .5 per hen. We all know that natural mortality takes many of those adults birds, so I'm guessing that balances out to the 2/hen. At 2.9/ hen average we have a growing and harvestable surplus.  I have read that Arkansas has been 1.2 for several years as a comparison. They are loosing their birds somewhere other than hunters. It could be predators or anything.

If declines are serious then hunting restrictions would be a valid response, but I can tell you that I am pretty confident in saying that even if all hunting stopped on a declining population that the decline would continue. in today's world of regulated hunting species are not being hunted into extinction or even decline. The issue lies elsewhere. Modern hunting is managed to harvest surplus only. I do not have the answer beyond that. I know in my area the population has declined from what it once was but has been very stable for the last 10+ years. I think some of the concern is only in the minds of hunters who wrongly assumed the population explosion max production would last forever.

Here are the numbers I used:
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/hunting/2018%20Fall%20Turkey%20Report.pdf

One thing that keeps me on the half day hunting is actually not the flock production as much as it is the "enjoyment" factor.  In my experience, it seems that state with a half day rule have more vocal birds...not that they are easier to kill, but at least you feel like you are in the game. 

[GobbleNut]

One thing that keeps me on the half day hunting is actually not the flock production as much as it is the "enjoyment" factor.  In my experience, it seems that state with a half day rule have more vocal birds...not that they are easier to kill, but at least you feel like you are in the game.

Spurs, your preference is one thing,...and that is a personal reason for liking a regulation,...and it is fine.  However, that is an "aesthetic" reason for preferring something,...not a reason based in biological foundation.  I have no problem with a majority of hunters somewhere deciding they want to have a certain regulation that is biologically sound,...whatever it might be.  What I have a problem with is wildlife managers grasping at straws in making regulations without some data-based, biological justification for making those regulations.  And I especially have problems with those regulations when it appears that wildlife managers are not making an effort to address the more obvious limiting factors.

You see above that I highlighted "biologically sound".  An example of hunters wanting something that they should not have is the desire to start hunting too early in the spring.  Too many hunters have the tendency to think that, just because gobblers have started gobbling, it is time to start hunting them.  Wildlife managers should not succumb to that kind of public pressure.  Again, regulations should be biologically-based first and foremost. 

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having "aesthetically-based" regulations either.  They just should not be confused with,...or prioritized over,... sound, biologically-based regulations.

[Spurs]

One thing that keeps me on the half day hunting is actually not the flock production as much as it is the "enjoyment" factor.  In my experience, it seems that state with a half day rule have more vocal birds...not that they are easier to kill, but at least you feel like you are in the game.

Spurs, your preference is one thing,...and that is a personal reason for liking a regulation,...and it is fine.  However, that is an "aesthetic" reason for preferring something,...not a reason based in biological foundation.  I have no problem with a majority of hunters somewhere deciding they want to have a certain regulation that is biologically sound,...whatever it might be.  What I have a problem with is wildlife managers grasping at straws in making regulations without some data-based, biological justification for making those regulations.  And I especially have problems with those regulations when it appears that wildlife managers are not making an effort to address the more obvious limiting factors.

You see above that I highlighted "biologically sound".  An example of hunters wanting something that they should not have is the desire to start hunting too early in the spring.  Too many hunters have the tendency to think that, just because gobblers have started gobbling, it is time to start hunting them.  Wildlife managers should not succumb to that kind of public pressure.  Again, regulations should be biologically-based first and foremost. 

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having "aesthetically-based" regulations either.  They just should not be confused with,...or prioritized over,... sound, biologically-based regulations.

I'll have to disagree to that point.  The mission of government intervention was to not only to promote and enhance natural resources, but to also to give people access to it for enjoyment. 

If "biologically sound" was 100% of all regulations, then there wouldn't be allowances that we currently have.  Biologically sound regulations would be to hunt turkey in the fall when no breeding takes place and poults have matured, deer hunting would be restricted to only a short period before the rut, and no fishing would be allowed during spawning season if that were true.

The reason that hunting is allowed during those crucial periods of an animal/fish's life is for the enjoyment factor.  Buck chasing does, turkey gobbling, etc. 

[GobbleNut]

I'll have to disagree to that point.  The mission of government intervention was to not only to promote and enhance natural resources, but to also to give people access to it for enjoyment. 

If "biologically sound" was 100% of all regulations, then there wouldn't be allowances that we currently have.  Biologically sound regulations would be to hunt turkey in the fall when no breeding takes place and poults have matured, deer hunting would be restricted to only a short period before the rut, and no fishing would be allowed during spawning season if that were true.

The reason that hunting is allowed during those crucial periods of an animal/fish's life is for the enjoyment factor.  Buck chasing does, turkey gobbling, etc. 

Good rebuttal,...but only partially true.  Part of the "mission of government" (which comes in the form of wildlife managers hired to oversee biologically-sound wildlife management) is to provide recreational opportunity for human beings to enjoy and utilize our wildlife resources.  While I agree that there are times when wildlife managers succumb to public pressure and institute regulations that are not based on the "best available science" (i.e. too early starts to spring hunting in some states), generally speaking there are few regulations put in place that are not based on that science to begin with.  In other words, we establish "baselines" that are based on sound biology first, and then tailor hunting regulations around that.

Using your example of spring gobbler hunting, again the reasoning surrounding it is based on the "science" that because
turkeys do not "pair up" (like quail, for instance) and a few gobblers are all that are needed to insure breeding of hens, we can remove many of the gobblers from a turkey population without impacting the overall reproductive potential of the resource. 

Your statement that we hunt them in the spring because of the "enjoyment factor" is completely true.  I can assure you, however, that if wildlife managers determined that spring hunting was not "biologically sound" in terms of its impact on turkey populations, we would not have a spring gobbler season.  Again, biological soundness is the first consideration.

You also bring up other species and hunting regulations related to them.  You cite hunting deer (whitetails) during the rut.  The reason that occurs is because wildlife managers have determined that hunting whitetails in the rut has little or no impact on the resource.  On the other hand, many of the mule deer states have stopped hunting deer during the rut. That is because it has been determined that hunting mule deer during the rut is not a good idea based on the "best available science" which shows that mule deer populations are impacted by doing that.  I could give you many other examples demonstrating the same philosophy regarding other species.

The bottom line is that, to "Average Joe Hunter" it may appear that hunting regulations are set up strictly or primarily based on the "human enjoyment factor", I can assure you that is not the case in all but the rarest of circumstances.  In addition, any wildlife manager that is worth the uniform he wears will not allow that enjoyment factor to come before sound biology.   

[eggshell]

Thank you Gobblenut, from all former and current wildlife/fisheries workers and managers. Having spent over 30 years working for a wildlife agency in a supervisory and yes policy making position I can shed some light. I am retired, but I still keep connections to my former agency and fellow conservationist. Gobblenut has explained it very well. I assure you that Natural Resource personnel as a whole are dedicated to the resource first and foremost. Yes aesthetics and consumer participation are considered in laws, but I have never seen a policy or law that would endanger a species existence just for the sake of hunting or fishing. Outdoorsmen and women are a unique cog in resource management in that they are the primary funders of all wildlife and fisheries management. So engaging them and yes providing maximum enjoyment in their sport carries a big stick, but never at the cost of a species. If it makes sound biological sense and it is wanted by the sportsmen/women then it will be considered as part of the science. One of my greatest frustrations in my career is that some people thought that we as mangers never cared about the outdoorspersons. We were not and are not villains looking to steal away any opportunity. Almost everyone I ever new in the field had a heart for both the wildlife, environment and those who enjoy it. We done our jobs because we believed in what we done and that is was of upmost value to all. Workers in the field often made 30-50% less than their position counter-parts in the private sector. I have been called derogatory names like , lazy, stupid, political parasite and things that would make your mother weep, but I loved my job and know that I done what was right first for the resource and then those who enjoy it. We often had to make laws that were not popular and some that were, but they were almost always based on science. The one thing I know we all hated was when politics got involved. Yes there were times stupid laws were set not based on science, but when the man who's name is on your paycheck says so you do it or move on. This didn't happen often, but it did happen. None of us liked it, but if we lost our job we couldn't do everything else. Sometimes this was a result of well meaning people going to politicians to put pressure on wildlife managers, when they did not have the scientific knowledge. I nor any of my superiors never turned down an inquiry from a group of outdoors enthusiast. We'd set down and share our knowledge and reasoning. Some would listen and some wouldn't, often we ran into people who just wanted their way....be damned of the science, but this was rare.