For those who look at the past 5-15 years data as a guideline as to what the statewide population is like today, I want to hear your opinion below. Personally, I am not a big fan of looking at "checked in data" as a true indicator of what the overall population is doing. Yes, it's better than nothing, but as discussed in this thread, there are just too many variables as to what makes up the "checked-in data", and those variables change year to year, and for sure change drastically over 5-10 years. LBLMan has eluded to a lot of them as far as the hunters being more efficient with decoys, HTL shot, tight chokes, etc, and in turn, this high "hunter efficiency" typically leads to success, which in turn leads to those same successful hunters returning next year, and out years with continued success, albeit on a "possible" lower statewide turkey population. In contrast, if you remove all of these "advancements" that make more of the turkey hunters successful, hunters do not kill as many birds this year, I suspect you lose some hunters next year and even more in out years due to be unsuccessful and no fun while afield. In turn, the turkey population likely thrives more so than the previous example I outlined (
high efficient hunters = success = continued success = continuous hunter recruitment in out years = higher pressure on birds for years to come).
So back to using the statewide kill data (
checked-in data) as a guideline for managing the flock and instituting changes, or not.
If you were the statewide turkey biologist in 2002, and you had this "harvest/checked-in data" in front of you as a guideline, what would your opinion of the population be? Would you recommend any changes? More restrictions? More liberal bag limits? Anything? Let's hear your thoughts. There is no right or wrong answer, so fire away.
