• Help Support TNDeer:

3 bird limit?

MickThompson said:
It would require greater input from producers- they'd have to replant the field each year. However, it can be timed to also provide a jam up dove field. TWRA doesn't have the authority to force producers to adopt conservation. But it's a great option for the farmer that wants to manage for wildlife as well as cattle.
Click to expand...
I wish there were an easy solution... I just don't see how a landowner can make up the input cost for annual hay crops, when fescue yields 2 or 3 cuttings per year (and the ability to background graze in late Sept or early Oct in the drier years where a 3rd cutting isn't feasible. We get 2.2 to 2.5 bales (1200lb bales) per acre on the first cutting on average. Another 1.8 on 2nd cutting. At $60 per bales, that's $240 per acre yield. Not counting the value of 3rd cutting or background grazing cattle.

I do a LOT for wildlife... plant supplemental wildlife life plots, add clover to my fescue fields, limit cattle numbers to well under carrying capacity, rotate cattle to leave blocks ungrazed and stockpile forage during the winter. Some of those things end up being cost neutral, some cost me a LOT of money. With the cost of fuel, labor, fertilizer, equipment, etc, it's hard for us to even break even on our farms.

But mother nature is the real killer.... get a really early spring and the hayfields jump in mid April which attracts nesting hens, combined with a really wet late spring/early summer causing hay to be cut late, and it's a disaster for the turkeys.
 
I get to practice my program on several properties and in 2 states. Between food plots, habitat management, quotas and predator control, without habitat nothing else matters but even with great habitat predator control causes the biggest readily visible improvement. I would recommend a limit of 2 males with a season starting 2 weeks later and lasting 28 days, end the fall season, end all hen harvests and look to every org and agency for more funds to encourage acres dedicated to habitat like CRP programs with mow and burn standards focused on fall and winter. I would also encourage trapping and taking of predators by what ever means I could including looking for bounty monies, eliminating license fees, even allow spotlighting of yotes. This will upset some but one of the problems turkey have is they are more sensitive than deer to hunter numbers that far exceed the reach of the revenue stream. We need more conservationism in our harvests. In other words those of you who dont plant habitat or food, those that dont kill predators, yall dont pay enough for your turkey tags.
 
My opinion.... our boss breeding gobblers are getting slaughtered opening weekend and week of season. Strutter decoys ,Jake decoys, fans, now make it to where what used to be the hardest bird to kill in early season is basically the easiest to kill. Just stake one out or crawl around behind a fan (ridiculous) lol. And he sprints away from his harem of hens and gets eliminated from the flock right off the bat. I am no biologist or expert but have enough sense to know that isn't helping the situation. I am not near as old or as knowledgeable as a lot of you guys but rewind 15-20 years ago before YouTube,Facebook, and smartphone's was bragging about fanning a bird them ol gobblers would have hens till may or later. I know this isn't the crowd favorite answer but it's mine, i don't think the 3 bird limit will make a drastic change at all but maybe a step in the right direction, I just want to always be able to hear some gobble in the spring for years to come whatever that takes!
 
I am not a biologist or has smart has some of you guys in regards to this subject in general. But it seems that even though Kentucky has a slight decline they are still above Tennessee. Looking at various articles and the KFW website it seems the population in Kentucky is between 370,000 to 400,000 birds. Tennessee from what I have read on TWRA and other publications is around 300,000 to 320,000 birds. To me like I said no expert but it seems the two biggest differences are a later start date and a two bird limit. Just using Kentucky since they are a border state, terrain is very similar, weather patterns are similar.
 
I believe going from a 4 to a 3-bird limit will make a larger difference than most of you seem to be thinking. Huge difference? No.
But it is a good step in the right direction.
Popcorn said:
I would recommend a limit of 2 males with a season starting 2 weeks later and lasting 28 days, end the fall season, end all hen harvests and look to every org and agency for more funds to encourage acres dedicated to habitat like CRP programs with mow and burn standards focused on fall and winter. I would also encourage trapping and taking of predators by what ever means I could including looking for bounty monies, eliminating license fees, even allow spotlighting of yotes. . . . . . We need more conservationism in our harvests.
Click to expand...
Popcorn is right.

Unfortunately, many the best ideas become impractical (statewide) due to a lack of manpower and funding.

So what is practical & easily done?

Biggest single thing now would be to open our season at least 1 week later.
This is from a regulatory & "statewide" perspective.

More localized & individually, we as hunter/managers/conservationists can work more on improving habitat, reducing predation, and just generally being ethical hunters, i.e. "conservationists".

Perhaps of more value than a limit reduction, would be a paradigm shift in thinking as to what are high-probability "ethical" hunting shots (with intension of eating the bird) vs. taking lower-probability long-range body shots ---- this way of thinking can typically cause one to annually pass up killing about half the birds he could otherwise kill, yet still enjoy the game of hunting them.

What I'm talking about is only taking high-probability head/neck shots within good range. "Assumed" missed (shot at) and/or wounded birds commonly die within a matter of days, totally unrealized by the hunters. All it takes is a single pellet injuring one leg, a single pellet injuring one wing, or a single pellet penetrating the stomach/gut --- bird is likely dying soon, either from infection or predation. We see the bird run or fly away, seldom realizing his fate.

As an aside, not saying if you personally don't eat your birds, you shouldn't turkey hunt. I do know some passionate turkey hunters who do not like to eat turkey. But if you regularly blow several pellets thru the breasts, no one else wants to eat them either. To me, it is akin to "wanton waste" to body shoot a turkey.
 
Another perspective on the bottom-line effect of reduced limits
is it's effect on bottom-line "carry-over" of surviving birds to the next year.

Let's say in a given area there are typically 10 longbeards when turkey season opens.
Assume under a 4-bird limit, 7 of them are killed by hunters, leaving 3 at season's end.

Of these 3, assume 1 soon dies of natural causes, 1 is the victim of a coyote, leaving only 1 of these 10 longbeards to begin the next turkey season as an "older" Tom.
(We "hope" there were at least 9 surviving jakes to then provide a total of 10 longbeards in the subsequent year as well.)

But, what if under a 3-bird limit only 1 less bird was killed by the collective hunters? How might that effect the bottom line "carry-over" to the next season?

Let's say in a given area there are typically 10 longbeards when turkey season opens.
Assume under a 3-bird limit, 6 of them are killed by hunters, leaving 4 at season's end.

Of these 4, assume 1 soon dies of natural causes, 1 is the victim of a coyote, leaving 2 of these 10 longbeards to begin the next turkey season as an "older" Tom.

In this hypothetical scenario, killing just 1 less bird actually doubles the surviving longbeards. Let's say this alone actually increases the number of "longbeards" by 5% the next year. After four years, wouldn't we then have about a 20% increase in the number of longbeards? Significant?

Of course, so many factors relating to ongoing turkey populations are beyond our control. It's just that what we kill or don't kill is one of the few factors within our control.
 
If you could get some farmers and hunters on board with the ideas it will help. But a lot of farmers are just trying to make a living, and a lot of hunters just hunt and don't do anything else. I love the incentive idea and suggestions.

Get rid of the unethical unsportsmanlike decoys it will help or perhaps fix it.

Reckon what percentage of the 40,000 gobblers killed last spring was with a decoy? What percentage of those were killed with a decoy on opening weekend when hens still needed to be bred??
 
woodsman04 said:
Reckon what percentage of the 40,000 gobblers killed last spring was with a decoy? What percentage of those were killed with a decoy on opening weekend when hens still needed to be bred??
Click to expand...
At the same time, how many would still have been killed if no hunters had used any decoys?

I think just opening the season a week later would make more difference than anything to do with decoys, which about as often harm a hunter's odds as they help a hunter's odds.
 
Right now there are very good incentives for land managers to improve habitat through the farm bill programs. As far as predator control goes, that's a tougher but to crack, as all birds of prey are federally regulated, and all the mammalian predators are also fur bearers, and there's another group of sportsmen that want an adequate population of them. Raccoons are a whole different issue altogether.

I'd say one good step would be to quit feeding corn to wildlife. The aflatoxin risk for turkeys is well documented as is the elevated predation risk at bait sites. And you're subsidizing nest raider populations.
 
Boll Weevil said:
Exactly 100% where I was going with that question gentlemen. A bit like the saying, you can't save yourself to profitability. How is sparing 2400 toms out of 40k total gonna turn around the population slide some areas have seen?
Click to expand...
If the bag limit does not impact the population, maybe the limit should be set a 5 or 8? Why not an even dozen?

Enforcement of the game laws we have could have a great impact. What happened to the $300 per illegal bird reward ???
 
MickThompson said:
A reward is great for getting information but it doesn't punish a violator
Click to expand...
You are correct. Punishment is left up to the judicial system. Suspending the hunting license of a violator does little good in my opinion. That doesn't stop them from hunting. They are violators. We used to call all game poachers. Sounds better.

It's been many years since my hunting license was checked in the field. With the popularity of social media, it should be easier than ever to identify poachers. They can't wait to post their "achievements."
 
Boll Weevil said:
Anyone know how many toms the 3 bird limit is projected to "save."
Click to expand...
Not a lot but the biggest impact will be those like myself that just like to hunt and will save that 3rd tag all season, so in effect we just shoot 2.
actually Ive been doing that anyway.
What the study will probably end up suggesting is;
1- we should start the season later in the year, several hens are going unbred.
2- nest predators are an issue, so set some traps and help reduce the coon, possum, skunk population.

You can always plant some wsg or do some patch cuts , edge feathering for nesting inhancements, it provides a lot of deer browse also.
 
MickThompson said:
Someone would have to go verify each and every field wasn't cut early if it was enough of an incentive to delay harvest. What would be the funding mechanism?That delay comes at a cost in hay quality. Im not opposed to it at all, just would love to see it work. Lots of hay gets cut just to mow a field and gets left to rot in fencerows. And it's the most expensive grass a cow can eat.

Hay cutting is no small reason for the decline in quail too.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone use a MoCo? This disc mower country! Lol
 
TheLBLman said:
Another perspective on the bottom-line effect of reduced limits
is it's effect on bottom-line "carry-over" of surviving birds to the next year.

Let's say in a given area there are typically 10 longbeards when turkey season opens.
Assume under a 4-bird limit, 7 of them are killed by hunters, leaving 3 at season's end.

Of these 3, assume 1 soon dies of natural causes, 1 is the victim of a coyote, leaving only 1 of these 10 longbeards to begin the next turkey season as an "older" Tom.
(We "hope" there were at least 9 surviving jakes to then provide a total of 10 longbeards in the subsequent year as well.)

But, what if under a 3-bird limit only 1 less bird was killed by the collective hunters? How might that effect the bottom line "carry-over" to the next season?

Let's say in a given area there are typically 10 longbeards when turkey season opens.
Assume under a 3-bird limit, 6 of them are killed by hunters, leaving 4 at season's end.

Of these 4, assume 1 soon dies of natural causes, 1 is the victim of a coyote, leaving 2 of these 10 longbeards to begin the next turkey season as an "older" Tom.

In this hypothetical scenario, killing just 1 less bird actually doubles the surviving longbeards. Let's say this alone actually increases the number of "longbeards" by 5% the next year. After four years, wouldn't we then have about a 20% increase in the number of longbeards? Significant?

Of course, so many factors relating to ongoing turkey populations are beyond our control. It's just that what we kill or don't kill is one of the few factors within our control.
Click to expand...
There is actually some modeling research going on in regards to this. They are looking at the affects of decreased bag limits on turkey populations. Alabama has already completed some of their research and Mississippi State University is doing a study as well. From what I've heard, decreasing the bag limit by 1 bird does not have near as much of an effect on population as we'd like to think. I agree that carryover helps and couldn't hurt, but the models show carryover doesn't help to the extent we'd hoped. I did a quick Google and couldn't find either study yet. The AL one should be published first and the MS State one may be a year or two later.
 
MickThompson said:
I'd say one good step would be to quit feeding corn to wildlife. The aflatoxin risk for turkeys is well documented as is the elevated predation risk at bait sites. And you're subsidizing nest raider populations.
Click to expand...

There is also some research coming out soon about aflatoxins in corn. It was eye opening how quickly aflatoxins reached harmful levels for turkey poults when corn was poured on the ground during the summer. In about 5 days if corn already had aflatoxins present. In 10 days, some of the corn actually had high enough levels to affect fawns. Now this is corn sitting on the ground, exposed to the summer elements. Not corn in feeders (they tested both). During other seasons of the year (they tested in November too), the element exposed corn did not experience the same aflatoxin growth, just summer. So take home message = EXPOSED CORN ON GROUND IN SUMMER FOR LONGER THAN 3 DAYS =VERY BAD FOR POULTS/BOBWHITE AND POSSIBLY EVEN FAWNS!

This study should be in the process of being published. You won't find it available right now online.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top