3 bird limit???

[REN]

What some fail to realize is NR revenue or lack there of does impact Resident hunters. I 100% agree in concept that Id be happy if no NR ever came to hunt turkeys here again lol
However from a revenue stand point it makes a difference in additional land management, NEW land, improved land to just name a few. You lose that revenue and now your budget cannot be applied to a lot of that stuff. Just saying its a very double edged sword for resident hunters.

Having said that, Im saying this as if the TWRA is spending money wisely and appropriately within the budget. We all know any agency like this has plenty of wasteful spending

 

[Southern Sportsman]

The ones involved in the study have said over and over in the paper , when the preliminary results were released and everything out that there is no reproductive benefits to a delay. I Watched Dr. Harper in a podcast that was put on this site as he talked of this study. I see the exact chart you are talking about it's chart 2.3. I also realize that the chart right below it 2.4 that you may or may not have seen states no documented effects of delayed versus non delayed on nesting success or any other aspect of the study and all numbers are basically equal. I may be misunderstanding the whole study and they actually said there are numerous reproductive benefits to a delayed season documented, I have been wrong before, certainly wouldn't be the first time.

I'm not a scientist or a statistician, and my opinions certainly may be wrong as well. I really, really hope I am. There is literally nothing on earth I like to do more than hunting turkeys. If I knew it wouldn't hurt the turkey population long term, I would LOVE for the season to run March 1 to June 1 with a 10 bird limit. But turkeys cannot sustain that. However, if a conclusive, peer reviewed study comes out convincingly showing that our "Saturday closest to April 1" start date has no adverse effect on the turkeys, praise Jesus. Move it back and turn us lose. But that's not what this paper is. Nothing has been proven or disproven yet, so I'm an "err on the side of caution" guy. Especially with something as important as turkeys.

And I have listened to Harper's presentations and podcasts plenty. To be fair, he was in full denial of Chamberlain's early start date theory before this season delay study even began. I don't think Harper and Chamberlain like each other much. Chamberlain actually offered to come give a presentation to our Fish and Wildlife Commission about his early research on the subject in 2020, before TN started this part of the study. He offered that for many of the southeastern game agencies, several of which gratefully accepted. It would have been free from our state's perspective, as Chamberlain has funds available through UGA for travel and lodging when he presents. Our commission declined him because Harper didn't want him to come. And forgive my skepticism, but this student's thesis paper reads as though the study sought to disprove the early start date theory, rather than just evaluating it. Although they are supposedly studying the delay's impact on reproductive parameters, they excluded re-nesting attempts from their analysis. Why? Re-nesting is fairly common. The study mentions that, on average, hens will attempt a second next 24 days after their first nest fails. Isn't is plausible that the early removal of breeding-age male turkeys might negatively impact re-nesting hens, and therefore overall reproduction? But they excluded it. And yes, I looked at Table 2.3. I don't understand any of it. Too many Greek letters for me. If you, or anyone else knows how to read the data, I would love an explanation.

But table 2.2, and the data analysis (pp. 22-30) I do understand a little.

I think everyone will agree that nest success (i.e., the percentage of nests that successfully hatch a turkey) is an important measure of reproductive success. I'm repeating myself, but I think it bears repeating. We delayed the season in three counties, and left it the same in two. In the three counties with the season delay, nest success increased >20% in the two years immediately following the delay. In the two counties that did not delay the season, nest success decreased approximately 5%. As an aside, I'm not saying that nest success always results in increased populations. If there are enough mesopredators, maybe all the poults get eaten whether nest success is 5% or 50%. If we have a terribly wet, cool spring, maybe all the poults die no matter how many hatch. There are a lot of moving parts and a lot of ways for baby turkeys to die. But it cannot be disputed that, having a higher percentage of nests successfully producing poults is a step towards having more adult turkeys on the landscape. This is where the paper lost me. The actual numbers show a clear, significant increase in nest success following the delay. I fully realize that correlation does not always equal causation, but **** -- if we delayed the season and immediately saw a 20-25% improvement in nest success, how/why does the next chart claim that there was "no documented effect" on nest success?

As noted, I'm not a scientist or statistician. But, I have a good friend who is. He's a UT professor with a PhD in it. I'm sorry to be the "well, I have a friend who says . . ." guy, but he's the only person I know who actually understands the math here. My friend is not a turkey hunter at all, and doesn't give a damn about the reproductive rates of eastern wild turkeys. But he understands what all those Greek letters mean. I asked him to look at the paper and give his thoughts. I did not tell him mine. His first comment was that the paper makes no mention of COVID, despite a huge increase in hunting pressure during some of this study. His second comment was that there is "very weak support" between the actual data and the conclusion reached, based purely on math considerations that I don't understand. He emphasized (repeatedly) that this is a grad student's thesis paper, not a peer reviewed study, and he had serious doubts that the paper could ever withstand the peer review process. That's not what it was written for. To be clear, I am not trying to disparage the kid who wrote the paper. I am certain that some of the academic papers I wrote in grad school could be thoroughly shredded by anyone with a strong understanding of the subject matter. But, that's part of my point. There is a big difference between a thesis paper written by someone trying to impress his professor (Harper in this case) and get his degree, versus a published, peer reviewed scientific paper.

Maybe I'm just simple minded, but until someone can explain to me how a 21.6% increase in nest success in the delayed counties, with a simultaneous decrease in nest success one county over, equals "no documented effect," I will remain skeptical. I hope he's right, but it seems to me that there is a disconnect between the data and the conclusions drawn.

 

[MidTennFisher]

I'm not a scientist or a statistician, and my opinions certainly may be wrong as well. I really, really hope I am. There is literally nothing on earth I like to do more than hunting turkeys. If I knew it wouldn't hurt the turkey population long term, I would LOVE for the season to run March 1 to June 1 with a 10 bird limit. But turkeys cannot sustain that. However, if a conclusive, peer reviewed study comes out convincingly showing that our "Saturday closest to April 1" start date has no adverse effect on the turkeys, praise Jesus. Move it back and turn us lose. But that's not what this paper is. Nothing has been proven or disproven yet, so I'm a "err on the side of caution" guy. Especially with somethin as important as turkeys.

And I have listened to Harper's presentations and podcasts plenty. To be fair, he was in full denial of Chamberlain's early start date theory before this season delay study even began. I don't think Harper and Chamberlain like each other much. Chamberlain actually offered to come give a presentation about his early research on the subject in 2020, before TN started this part of the study. It would been free from our perspective, as Chamberlain has funds available through UGA for travel and lodging when he travels for presentations. Our commission declined his offer because Harper didn't want him to come. And forgive my skepticism, but this student's thesis paper reads as though the study sought to disprove the early start date theory, rather than just evaluating it. Although they are supposedly studying the delay's impact on reproductive parameters, they excluded re-nesting attempts from their analysis. Why? Re-nesting is fairly common. The study mentions that, on average, hens will attempt a second next 24 days after their first nest fails. Isn't is plausible that the early removal of breeding-age male turkeys might negatively impact re-nesting hens, and therefore overall reproduction? But they excluded it. And yes, I looked at Table 2.3. I don't understand any of it. Too many Greek letters for me. If you, or anyone else knows how to read the data, I would love an explanation.

View attachment 221413

But table 2.2, and the data analysis (pp. 22-30) I do understand a little.

View attachment 221418

I think everyone will agree that nest success (i.e., the percentage of nests that successfully hatch a turkey) is an important measure of reproductive success. I'm repeating myself, but I think it bears repeating. We delayed the season in three counties, and left it the same in two. In the three counties with the season delay, nest success increased >20% in the two years immediately following the delay. In the two counties that did not delay the season, nest success decreased approximately 5%. As an aside, I'm not saying that nest success always results in increased populations. If there are enough mesopredators, maybe all the poults get eaten whether nest success is 5% or 50%. If we have a terribly wet, cool spring, maybe all the poults die no matter how many hatch. There are a lot of moving parts and a lot of ways for baby turkeys to die. But it cannot be disputed that, having a higher percentage of nests successfully producing poults is a step towards having more adult turkeys on the landscape. This is where the paper lost me. The actual numbers show a clear, significant increase in nest success following the delay. I fully realize that correlation does not always equal causation, but yugo -- if we delayed the season and immediately saw a 20-25% improvement in nest success, how/why does the next chart claim that there was "no documented effect" on nest success?

As noted, I'm not a scientist or statistician. But, I have a good friend who is. He's a UT professor with a PhD in it. I'm sorry to be the "well, I have a friend who says . . ." guy, but he's the only person I know who actually understands the math here. My friend is not a turkey hunter at all, and doesn't give a damn about the reproductive rates of eastern wild turkeys. But he understands what all those Greek letters mean. I asked him to look at the paper and give his thoughts. I did not tell him mine. His first comment was that the paper makes no mention of COVID, despite a huge increase in hunting pressure during some of this study. His second comment was that there is "very weak support" between the actual data and the conclusion reached, based purely on math considerations that I don't understand. He emphasized (repeatedly) that this is a grad student's thesis paper, not a peer reviewed study, and he had serious doubts that the paper could ever withstand the peer review process. To be clear, I am not trying to disparage the kid who wrote the paper. I am certain that some of the academic papers I wrote in grad school could be thoroughly shredded by anyone with a strong understanding of the subject matter. But, that's part of my point. There is a big difference between a thesis paper written by someone trying to impress his professor (Harper in this case) and get his degree, versus a published, peer reviewed scientific paper.

Maybe I'm just simple minded, but until someone can explain to me how a 21.6% increase in nest success in the delayed counties, with a simultaneous decrease in nest success one county over, equals "no documented effect," I will remain skeptical. I hope he's right, but it seems to me that there is a disconnect between the data and the conclusions drawn.

That was a good read. My concern is about the 2nd attempt of nesting. From what I understand, those 2nd nests are much more likely to fail because of timing. If they attempt a 2nd nest 3-4 weeks after the first one fails, those poults are going to be born in hotter weather with fewer fresh sprouted browse to nibble on. Thus their survival rate is lower.

And that is one of many reasons why I hate growing season burns. It will absolutely scorch nests and I've been told it's ok because the hens will just make a 2nd nest. Maybe, but if those nests have a lower rate of success then that isn't a good thing.

 

[megalomaniac]

That was a good read. My concern is about the 2nd attempt of nesting. From what I understand, those 2nd nests are much more likely to fail because of timing. If they attempt a 2nd nest 3-4 weeks after the first one fails, those poults are going to be born in hotter weather with fewer fresh sprouted browse to nibble on. Thus their survival rate is lower.

And that is one of many reasons why I hate growing season burns. It will absolutely scorch nests and I've been told it's ok because the hens will just make a 2nd nest. Maybe, but if those nests have a lower rate of success then that isn't a good thing.

Not meaning to be nitpicky, but poults don't eat fresh sprouted browse. They survive and grow only by eating extremely high protein insects.

Now young and tender regrowth attracts bugs the poults feed on.

2nd or 3rd nesting attempts are less successful... but they do contribute to overall population. I saw one clutch late summer of 13 poults that weren't more than a few weeks old, obviously hatched early August.

 

[MidTennFisher]

Not meaning to be nitpicky, but poults don't eat fresh sprouted browse. They survive and grow only by eating extremely high protein insects.

Now young and tender regrowth attracts bugs the poults feed on.

2nd or 3rd nesting attempts are less successful... but they do contribute to overall population. I saw one clutch late summer of 13 poults that weren't more than a few weeks old, obviously hatched early August.

Oh ok I thought they did. Just reading up on it now and I guess I am wrong about that.

I know adult turkeys will as I usually check crops of the ones I kill and find all sorts of green stuff in there along with various insects.

 

[Iglow]

If the turkey downturn isn't hunting related and season timing and gobbler limits have no bearing on what's happening, if that is so you are living in the last days of the modern golden age of turkey hunting in the southeast. Just as with quail, if it's habitat/ predation/nesting success there is nothing the TWRA can do( or anybody else) on a large scale to reverse the downward trend. They can't alter widespread land use practices just as they couldn't for quail, there is no way enough nest robbers can be killed to offset the damage they cause, the clock can't be wound backwards to another time. Turkey hunting will still exist but in a very limited spotty and expensive form just as quail hunting for wild birds is now. The commercial empire of camo/ tss,lead super shells, decoy stuff, videos and specialized guns etc. will dry up and fade away. Turkeys will be a minor player in the hunting scene much the same way ducks did during the dry years and low limits/short seasons of the 80's and early 90's only the ducks had just to wait for the drought to end to make a comeback, turkeys won't have that option.

 

[megalomaniac]

Oh ok I thought they did. Just reading up on it now and I guess I am wrong about that.

I know adult turkeys will as I usually check crops of the ones I kill and find all sorts of green stuff in there along with various insects.

Adults are incredible... they can survive on almost anything! Which is also why their population models don't follow other wildlife like deer who are limited to surviving plant browse. Turkey population dynamics are population independent. It is virtually almost impossible for turkeys to overpopulate.

 

[Bgoodman30]

If the turkey downturn isn't hunting related and season timing and gobbler limits have no bearing on what's happening, if that is so you are living in the last days of the modern golden age of turkey hunting in the southeast. Just as with quail, if it's habitat/ predation/nesting success there is nothing the TWRA can do( or anybody else) on a large scale to reverse the downward trend. They can't alter widespread land use practices just as they couldn't for quail, there is no way enough nest robbers can be killed to offset the damage they cause, the clock can't be wound backwards to another time. Turkey hunting will still exist but in a very limited spotty and expensive form just as quail hunting for wild birds is now. The commercial empire of camo/ tss,lead super shells, decoy stuff, videos and specialized guns etc. will dry up and fade away. Turkeys will be a minor player in the hunting scene much the same way ducks did during the dry years and low limits/short seasons of the 80's and early 90's only the ducks had just to wait for the drought to end to make a comeback, turkeys won't have that option.

Different species but I hope don't have same demise and are able to adapt and overcome. There is huge amount of development and habitat loss happening in this state right now so I don't think its possible to sustain peak populations. Thankfully the hunting public is becoming more aware about the biology and what it will take to sustain the species. Unfortunately you're right and most don't have the time, land or resources to do what's necessary to improve habitat and trap predators.

 

[Setterman]

If the turkey downturn isn't hunting related and season timing and gobbler limits have no bearing on what's happening, if that is so you are living in the last days of the modern golden age of turkey hunting in the southeast. Just as with quail, if it's habitat/ predation/nesting success there is nothing the TWRA can do( or anybody else) on a large scale to reverse the downward trend. They can't alter widespread land use practices just as they couldn't for quail, there is no way enough nest robbers can be killed to offset the damage they cause, the clock can't be wound backwards to another time. Turkey hunting will still exist but in a very limited spotty and expensive form just as quail hunting for wild birds is now. The commercial empire of camo/ tss,lead super shells, decoy stuff, videos and specialized guns etc. will dry up and fade away. Turkeys will be a minor player in the hunting scene much the same way ducks did during the dry years and low limits/short seasons of the 80's and early 90's only the ducks had just to wait for the drought to end to make a comeback, turkeys won't have that option.

I have watched our grouse population dwindle to basically zero. It assuredly had nothing to do with habitat or hunting. No one knows why they disappeared in just a few years.

 

[Setterman]

Different species but I hope don't have same demise and are able to adapt and overcome. There is huge amount of development and habitat loss happening in this state right now so I don't think it's possible to sustain peak populations. Thankfully the hunting public is becoming more aware about the biology and what it will take to sustain the species. Unfortunately you're right and most don't have the time, land or resources to do what's necessary to improve habitat and trap predators.

The vast majority of hunters just want a picture for Facebook, they don't give a dam about anything else

 

[TheLBLman]

And forgive my skepticism, but this student's thesis paper reads as though the study sought to disprove the early start date theory, rather than just evaluating it.

x 2

Maybe I'm just simple minded, but until someone can explain to me how a 21.6% increase in nest success in the delayed counties, with a simultaneous decrease in nest success one county over, equals "no documented effect," I will remain skeptical. . . . . . . it seems to me that there is a disconnect between the data and the conclusions drawn.

Guess I am also just simple minded x 2

 

[Flintlocksforme]

Season limits don't kill birds, season length does.
What I want to see is a decline in numbers killed, and a decline in turkey hunter numbers.
I think chopping off the front of the season was the right thing to do.

Exactly and they showed the graphs that show how few turkey hunters will tag themselves out. Any other state have a season this long?

 

[TheLBLman]

For those comparing the near extinction of bobwhite quail to the decline of turkey populations, the comparison indeed does have validity. But there are many differences.

It's fair to compare quail populations to turkey populations. As ground-nesting ground "birds" they may be more similar than different.

But what about some of the differences?
In a nutshell, quail populations are simply much more fragile than turkey populations.

And almost everything that matters to help turkey populations thrive,
matters even much more with quail populations.

But as to some of those differences, wild quail have a natural lifespan of approximately 1/3 that of wild turkey. Quail simply don't have but a fraction the time to make a comeback when the population declines.

Quail seem to be more dependent on more specific habitat than turkey, and quail also may need much larger acreages of contingent great habitat to thrive.

Quail nests are also more susceptible to being broken up (by predators) than turkey nests. A hen turkey may ward off a common housecat, while a hen bobwhite will simply be eaten by that housecat. Then there's more variety of predators (especially raptor predators) capable of killing adult quail than adult turkeys.

My understanding is the Cooper's hawk may be the #1 killer of quail in TN; and the #1 killer of young turkey poults; but it would rarely go for an adult turkey.

But as to human hunters, we had little to do with the decline of bobwhite quail;
but we've had a lot more to do with the decline of wild turkeys, particularly in those areas that had had thriving turkey populations for more than a decade.

What am saying is that hunting regs actually matter quite a bit with turkeys,
but didn't appear to have as much to do with the decline of quail.

That said, the actual season length and the actual bag limits, likely take the back seat to all the other combined factors effecting ongoing turkey populations. It's just that seasons & bag limits are among the few items we can actually exercise control, unlike the weather, when the rain floods, etc.

From a statewide "regulatory" standpoint, there may not be much that can be done (practically speaking) beyond season length & bag limits. IMO, it was a mistake when the statewide turkey limit went from 2 to 3; it was a much bigger mistake when it went to 4. Ditto for fall turkey seasons, even though it could be argued half the birds human hunters killed were going to die anyway from some other cause. It could also be argued more might survive to nest in spring without fall human hunting.

As good conservationists & sportsmen, we can do things like habitat improvements and trapping of nest-raiding predators. That could help more than shorter seasons & lower bag limits. But we may NEED all and everything else we can do, to help turkey populations thrive.

But I don't see most non-resident hunters being in a position to help us trap predators & improve habitat. The 4-bird limit and early season really was attracting a lot of non-resident hunters, many of whom were turkey killing machines. No way that didn't contribute significantly to statewide turkey declines.

So from my perspective, few things have had so much potential to help TN statewide turkeys thrive as opening the season a couple weeks later, and going back to a 2-bird limit.

We've just been simultaneously "lucky" we had above average nesting success the past 2 years. But "luck" is not a plan, and going back to higher limits, and an earlier opening date could be the recipe for bad luck, bringing us right back to where we were with statewide populations 3 years ago.

 

[Iglow]

For those comparing the near extinction of bobwhite quail to the decline of turkey populations, the comparison indeed does have validity. But there are many differences.

It's fair to compare quail populations to turkey populations. As ground-nesting ground "birds" they may be more similar than different.

But what about some of the differences?
In a nutshell, quail populations are simply much more fragile than turkey populations.

And almost everything that matters to help turkey populations thrive,
matters even much more with quail populations.

But as to some of those differences, wild quail have a natural lifespan of approximately 1/3 that of wild turkey. Quail simply don't have but a fraction the time to make a comeback when the population declines.

Quail seem to be more dependent on more specific habitat than turkey, and quail also may need much larger acreages of contingent great habitat to thrive.

Quail nests are also more susceptible to being broken up (by predators) than turkey nests. A hen turkey may ward off a common housecat, while a hen bobwhite will simply be eaten by that housecat. Then there's more variety of predators (especially raptor predators) capable of killing adult quail than adult turkeys.

My understanding is the Cooper's hawk may be the #1 killer of quail in TN; and the #1 killer of young turkey poults; but it would rarely go for an adult turkey.

But as to human hunters, we had little to do with the decline of bobwhite quail;
but we've had a lot more to do with the decline of wild turkeys, particularly in those areas that had had thriving turkey populations for more than a decade.

What am saying is that hunting regs actually matter quite a bit with turkeys,
but didn't appear to have as much to do with the decline of quail.

That said, the actual season length and the actual bag limits, likely take the back seat to all the other combined factors effecting ongoing turkey populations. It's just that seasons & bag limits are among the few items we can actually exercise control, unlike the weather, when the rain floods, etc.

From a statewide "regulatory" standpoint, there may not be much that can be done (practically speaking) beyond season length & bag limits. IMO, it was a mistake when the statewide turkey limit went from 2 to 3; it was a much bigger mistake when it went to 4. Ditto for fall turkey seasons, even though it could be argued half the birds human hunters killed were going to die anyway from some other cause. It could also be argued more might survive to nest in spring without fall human hunting.

As good conservationists & sportsmen, we can do things like habitat improvements and trapping of nest-raiding predators. That could help more than shorter seasons & lower bag limits. But we may NEED all and everything else we can do, to help turkey populations thrive.

But I don't see most non-resident hunters being in a position to help us trap predators & improve habitat. The 4-bird limit and early season really was attracting a lot of non-resident hunters, many of whom were turkey killing machines. No way that didn't contribute significantly to statewide turkey declines.

So from my perspective, few things have had so much potential to help TN statewide turkeys thrive as opening the season a couple weeks later, and going back to a 2-bird limit.

We've just been simultaneously "lucky" we had above average nesting success the past 2 years. But "luck" is not a plan, and going back to higher limits, and an earlier opening date could be the recipe for bad luck, bringing us right back to where we were with statewide populations 3 years ago.

Quail were doomed by changes in their environment, fescue, bushhogs, forest regeneration clean farming and bigger farming operations etc. It happened gradually over about a 40 year period, you're right , turkeys can manage things quail couldn't but times are still changing, forests are still growing up and old, land is bushhogged at an increasing rates. A lot of the woods in this country are growing old and not that much cutting overall is happening. A lot can change in 10 to 15 years on a landscape.

 

[Hridge]

I was just looking at the thread in the deer hunting form about the TWRA meeting that they had on the 22nd. And I just realized that on the initial post, the OP said three bird limit, and when somebody questioned the three bird limit, they posted a picture of a map of Tennessee, and basically everything from the west side of the state all the way to the middle of the state had a three bird limit.

I know the commission has to approve all that and nothing is set in stone, but it appears they're proposing to raise the limit back to three birds in the middle and West Tennessee.

You want more turkey, kill nest robbers and create better nesting habitat….Period..end of story. I trapped skunks, raccoons, possums, armadillos…etc and it was mind blowing how many we got. Our woods are infested with them. I keep my traps out all the time and they keep coming. If anyone on this thread is upset and not doing their part, then I feel like you don't have the right to be upset. Nest robbers and bush hogging nesting habitat kill more turkeys that we ever will. We have been trapping for 3 years now and we are 100% seeing the benefits. We have more turkeys than we can say grace over.

 

[gobbler32]

Twra is going to do whatever they want to do anyway

 

[Iglow]

When you have thriving population of any game animal/ wild animal it has to occur naturally with the environment that exists imo. I don't think you can keep them going by a constant never ending suppression of anything that would be detrimental to them. It has to be just what is normal and they have to be able to do it on their own. It would be very expensive and ultimately exhausting to keep it up for very long.

 

[TheLBLman]

Quail were doomed by changes in their environment, fescue, bushhogs, forest regeneration clean farming and bigger farming operations etc. It happened gradually over about a 40 year period . . . . . .

Just to add a bit to this, for those who might be interested . . . . . . .

In different areas, such as much of West TN compared to much of Middle TN, the more primary factors have been different, one area to the next.

In vast areas of West TN, I believe "clean" (and bigger field) farming could be the #1 factor. But this is a broad statement. Along with it, we assume "clean" also means no insects for baby quail to eat, and no cover for them to hide from predators. Pesticides & herbicides kill the insects & the weeds.

In many instances in West TN, quail nesting success has been good, but then only for the baby quail to die of starvation and/or be quickly picked off by hawks, owls, foxes, coyotes, and housecats.

Move over to much of Middle TN, different dynamics. Here, the #1 factor for declining quail populations may have been the introduction of fescue hay replacing native grasses. I can show you thousands of contiguous acres lacking "clean" farming, but having seen the native grasses replaced with fescue. The quail are mostly gone here, too.

Then we saw native grasses restored to some of those same thousands of contiguous acres, no herbicides, no insecticides, great quail habitat, and the remnant population of quail began increasing, for a few years.

Then the hawk & owl population exploded. I've gone 2 years now on much of this acreage without hearing or seeing a bobwhite. Five years ago, I could verify one to two coveys per square mile. That's relatively few compared to this same area up until the 1960's, but now, inside less than 5 years, gone from a fair existence to near extinction, despite habitat being perhaps better than over 50 years ago. In this particular locale, I believe the #1 factor has become raptor predation.

 

[Creek bottoms]

You want more turkey, kill nest robbers and create better nesting habitat….Period..end of story. I trapped skunks, raccoons, possums, armadillos…etc and it was mind blowing how many we got. Our woods are infested with them. I keep my traps out all the time and they keep coming. If anyone on this thread is upset and not doing their part, then I feel like you don't have the right to be upset. Nest robbers and bush hogging nesting habitat kill more turkeys that we ever will. We have been trapping for 3 years now and we are 100% seeing the benefits. We have more turkeys than we can say grace over.

Agree with this 110%. Manage your place, if you know what I mean. TWRA ain't gonna do it for you.

 

[MidTennFisher]

There is a study being done here on what's called the SRS (Savannah River Site) on turkey breeding. In that area there is no hunting allowed and there hasn't been for a few years. There is also no burning, no trapping, and no habitat improvement on any sort. The only variable missing from there is hunting pressure.

The numbers are certainly better than the numbers from other Southeastern sites that allow hunting but only a 32% successful hatch rate still is pretty low.

So that makes me think hunting isn't having near the effect on breeding as we're being told as a reason to move season dates around. At least the ones that are hatching seem to be surviving longer.

For those who know better than me, what is a realistic target to aim for with successful nest hatches and poults surviving the 28 day gauntlet that would equate to successful management? Obviously we all want 100% but that's not realistic.