With some states this year decreasing the bag limit, like for instance Tennessee from a 3 limit last year to 2 limit this year. In a way this is holding back the residence people who hunt and live in Tennessee. BUT they didn't do anything to limit the out of state people who travel to different states in killing gobblers. I've seen more people and videos of people traveling from state to state in the quest to kill more gobblers to fill a void because of states decreasing bag limits. SO my question is if a state / Tennessee decreases bag limits in support of saving more gobblers shouldn't it decrease the SALE Of OUT STATES LICENSE or completely do away with out of states sale for couple of YEARS? I'm not against people who travel, but decreasing the limit is all about saving and improving the overall number of gobblers for the future right...?? WHAT"S your opinion including what your state is doing in limiting sales of licenses or bag limits... IS IT ALL ABOUT THE MONEY OR REVENUE AND NOT REALLY ABOUT THE TURKEYS ALL TOGETHER .... I do know regardless of the sales of licenses you still have to be successful ... IMO ...
Revenue from OOS'ers is important to the states who receive much of it. State wildlife depts realize this. It's a factor in that decision making process. Like it or not.
I agree that if changes are made it should hit the NRs first. I don't think we're too far off from the majority of states going to a NR draw/quota for turkeys. As more states change people just shift where they're going. When KS went to one bird in all but two units the quality of hunting tanked in those two bird units. Why? Because every single person coming to KS wants the opportunity to shoot two. Now next year it will likely be one bird statewide with a NR draw by unit. I've seen some decent pockets of jakes but most won't make it. They'll end up in some guys freezer down south so he can tell his buddies he got his public land Rio. The most enjoyable hunts I have are in one bird or limited quota areas. They manage for a level of success based off of harvest results from the prior year as well as flock counts. The come one come all level of turkey management isn't working anymore.
TFT.... This is something you need to get involved with and some answers... IMO
Loose lips sink ships
Quote from: AndyN on April 25, 2023, 10:55:12 AM
I agree that if changes are made it should hit the NRs first. I don't think we're too far off from the majority of states going to a NR draw/quota for turkeys. As more states change people just shift where they're going. When KS went to one bird in all but two units the quality of hunting tanked in those two bird units. Why? Because every single person coming to KS wants the opportunity to shoot two. Now next year it will likely be one bird statewide with a NR draw by unit. I've seen some decent pockets of jakes but most won't make it. They'll end up in some guys freezer down south so he can tell his buddies he got his public land Rio. The most enjoyable hunts I have are in one bird or limited quota areas. They manage for a level of success based off of harvest results from the prior year as well as flock counts. The come one come all level of turkey management isn't working anymore.
The only gripe I have about NR quotas is that some people like myself belong to hunting clubs is 2 states. Quotas here would possibly limit a non resident that pays to hunt land in that state. Quotas on public land I can see, but private would be tough. Just my thoughts....
I would rather see a tightening of the regs regarding legal means of harvest than a decrease in bag limit. Make it harder to kill them = more turkeys.
I travel a lot and I mostly just shoot one per state...except Missouri which is less than 20 miles from my house.
Now the other question is for instance said state has only 4% public land like Oklahoma. The wildlife department reduces limits and they effectively affect the nonresident hunting on 4% of the state. Private land hunting remains near the same.
Couple of thoughts.
The FL/GA battle over hunting and fishing is well known by Northern and Central Floridians. GA is better at charging for their resources and FL should do the same. Don't be more restrictive, be more expensive. We are one of the few states that does not charge for the privilege of OOS hunters to come here and kill an Osceola. I would even like to see a special OOS Osceola tag that is priced accordingly. And then the money used for habitat.
GA hunters pay about 200 to hunt FL for turkey (for 10 days public land), FL hunters pay 325 to hunt GA for turkey. I agree with GA, not Florida. No where else you can kill an Osceola and we should charge for it.
I go to my local ramp (salt) and there will be 50% plus GA residents. I don't mind them being here, but they should pay more than residents, by a lot. Not as a penalty, but as a way to pay for the privilege to fish here.
In a few more years, I don't think it will matter. Turkeys are going the way of the quail soon. Mostly there already where I hunt.
Quote from: g8rvet on April 25, 2023, 12:36:33 PM
Couple of thoughts.
The FL/GA battle over hunting and fishing is well known by Northern and Central Floridians. GA is better at charging for their resources and FL should do the same. Don't be more restrictive, be more expensive. We are one of the few states that does not charge for the privilege of OOS hunters to come here and kill an Osceola. I would even like to see a special OOS Osceola tag that is priced accordingly. And then the money used for habitat.
GA hunters pay about 200 to hunt FL for turkey (for 10 days public land), FL hunters pay 325 to hunt GA for turkey. I agree with GA, not Florida. No where else you can kill an Osceola and we should charge for it.
I go to my local ramp (salt) and there will be 50% plus GA residents. I don't mind them being here, but they should pay more than residents, by a lot. Not as a penalty, but as a way to pay for the privilege to fish here.
Ga offer a limited license for non residents where they can buy one day and add additional days there after. Not sure what the cost is. The regs are confusing.
Quote from: Paulmyr on April 25, 2023, 01:33:38 PM
Quote from: g8rvet on April 25, 2023, 12:36:33 PM
Couple of thoughts.
The FL/GA battle over hunting and fishing is well known by Northern and Central Floridians. GA is better at charging for their resources and FL should do the same. Don't be more restrictive, be more expensive. We are one of the few states that does not charge for the privilege of OOS hunters to come here and kill an Osceola. I would even like to see a special OOS Osceola tag that is priced accordingly. And then the money used for habitat.
GA hunters pay about 200 to hunt FL for turkey (for 10 days public land), FL hunters pay 325 to hunt GA for turkey. I agree with GA, not Florida. No where else you can kill an Osceola and we should charge for it.
I go to my local ramp (salt) and there will be 50% plus GA residents. I don't mind them being here, but they should pay more than residents, by a lot. Not as a penalty, but as a way to pay for the privilege to fish here.
Ga offer a limited license for non residents where they can buy one day and add additional days there after. Not sure what the cost is. The regs are confusing.
Right, someone misquoted me the cost (like you needed license and big game - i think big game used to be an add on and now is a separate license). It still stands they are more expensive for a bird that can be killed in North Florida (eastern). My point about out west hunting where you need to go for a pronghorn and such, many of the states charge accordingly. So should Florida. Not crazy, but enough to put money in the state.
EDIT: I just looked too and it looks like you need Hunting and Big Game, but I think that is no longer the case.
Nebraska limits out of state tags to 10K. That's tags, not hunters. You can buy two. Pretty smart system to limit the hordes seems to me. At least until PETA starts buying all those tags like the put in for the draw hunts in FL.
Bothers me too Joey that I have been a lifelong Florida hunter and once I turn 65 I get the same free license as someone that just moved here. Just does not seem right, but it is what it is. Florida has never been wise. Very happy with the Harvest Report starting and maybe they can learn the number of OOS harvests of Osceola and start charging. I have no problem with a tag system. Did it for years with doe permits, not a big deal.
I like the limit idea. Draws are already tough for Spring Quota with most of ours in the North going to South hunters that put us down as a lower option. We all part of the same state, so I don't see that changing.
I was traveling and killing turkeys long before limits were decreased!
Things will get worse in some places before they get better!
The influx of travelers is a small issue in the grand scheme of Turkey available to hunt!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regarding the OPs original question, I wonder what percent of the spring harvest in TN is filled by non-resident hunters?
Quote from: Borsy on April 26, 2023, 12:14:38 AM
Regarding the OPs original question, I wonder what percent of the spring harvest in TN is filled by non-resident hunters?
Good question, i wonder what that number is myself ...
Quote from: Happy on April 25, 2023, 12:13:59 PM
I would rather see a tightening of the regs regarding legal means of harvest than a decrease in bag limit. Make it harder to kill them = more turkeys.
I would agree with that... No decoys on public land, restricted decoy use on private... No electronic decoys (or electronic calls).
But... I have a suspicion that you could dramatically decrease the number of harvested birds, and we would still see a decline.
Pheasant populations plummeted here in California, and there is nobody hunting them anymore (primarily cause there are not enough to hunt). Populations are NOT increasing.
Habitat is the limiting factor... Improve the habitat, and turkey numbers will increase. Something similar to CRP but on a larger scale... Hunters and hunting organizations would have to fund such programs.
Decreasing limits does reduce the number of Out of state hunters when a neighnoring state stays at their original limit. I see it here in Ohio since we went to one bird. It was very common to see Out of State tags before and now it is rare. I know two leases that have OOS lease owners and both quit turkey hunting, because it's not worth it for them to travel in their minds. Does this make a difference in the flock, no not at all. The birds are just killed by locals anyway and your talking 2 birds per lease on average. I have hunted Ky for 38 years and the last two I have seen 2-3 times the number of ohio plates in Ky. I actually hunted more days in Ky than Ohio last year, mainly because of the limit here. I live an hour from the border. In the end it matters to hunters, but very little to the birds. I do not think liimit restrictions are a sound management strategy at all. Shorter seasons and regulating methods would do more. Ohio went to two gobblers way back when we had less birds than now and the flock still grew, why does it matter now? The short answer is it does not. Most limit reductions are just a way to appease the hunting community. we all scream, "do something" and changing limits is the fasttest and easiet way to say, "we hear you". Biologically it's a farse and false prohecy. Something else is reducing our flocks not an extra gobbler harvested here and there. Research shows in our state only 40% of hunters actually fill a second tag.
But... I have a suspicion that you could dramatically decrease the number of harvested birds, and we would still see a decline.
I agree somewhat, Marc. However,when you take a lot of areas in the midwest or any large agricultural areas for that matter and factor in how most of the turkeys in those settings are killed. I bet you would be shocked. I am not saying nest and predator control isn't a factor. But more people are hunting turkeys, and more people are killing turkeys due to new advanced equipment and high-odds methods. Private landowners loading up on corn and hunting it isn't helping.
The above posts by Marc and Eggshell are spot-on, IMO. Human hunters in most areas are not the biggest problem causing populations to be down. I think Florida might be an exception.
I used to hunt one state almost exclusively because the 3 bird limit was enough to keep me happily hunting all season. Since that state dropped their limit to 1 bird, I now travel more and hunt a neighboring state, that I probably never would have hunted otherwise.
And when it comes to decreasing bag limits, be careful what you wish for. Once opportunity is taken away, it won't be given back.
I dont think any one state is 100% right. There are pieces that make sense in my state but not in others. Most of the birds shot here are during the youth season and the first week. You can shoot 2 in a day if you register the first bird, then a second bird is legal. Jakes are legal targets here too. Personally, I would like to see a 1 jake limit per season and only 1 bird during the youth hunt and first week of the season. These are just the ramblings inside my head, lol. But seriously, turkey hunting is my passion and I want to see more positive efforts to protect the resource. I understand there is a monetary side to this problem. Limits and seasons are the same here for everyone. If you are paying triple for a license, you should not be penalized again. Z
All States should confer with each other and say- OK- No Decoy Use on Public in 2024.
New York has half the birds it use to but seems also half the turkey hunters. Last year they shortened the fall season and went to a 1 bird limit. DEC kept spring season the same. Strange deal deer hunting we see trucks constantly from out of state at some of the areas we hunt. My son was having a cow over this and I had to tell him calm down. He said dad you don`t understand I put in a lot of pre season work to get some good spots for you as your older then these guys show up. Well son our state does not limit out of state licenses. They are legal to hunt as we are. Let`s just move on. At my age im happy to be in God`s great outdoors. But it really does not sit well with him. It`s all about the money in this state. Good day.
I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW... It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT? SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people. Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....
I came here specifically to mention the Nebraska thing. I see it was just brought up. Everyone seems okay with it fit now. They found a number they could live with and cut down the total amount of non residents able to kill turkeys there. 10,000 was their magic number. They were for sale for longer than I envisioned before selling out.
Quote from: Paulmyr on April 25, 2023, 01:33:38 PM
Quote from: g8rvet on April 25, 2023, 12:36:33 PM
Couple of thoughts.
The FL/GA battle over hunting and fishing is well known by Northern and Central Floridians. GA is better at charging for their resources and FL should do the same. Don't be more restrictive, be more expensive. We are one of the few states that does not charge for the privilege of OOS hunters to come here and kill an Osceola. I would even like to see a special OOS Osceola tag that is priced accordingly. And then the money used for habitat.
GA hunters pay about 200 to hunt FL for turkey (for 10 days public land), FL hunters pay 325 to hunt GA for turkey. I agree with GA, not Florida. No where else you can kill an Osceola and we should charge for it.
I go to my local ramp (salt) and there will be 50% plus GA residents. I don't mind them being here, but they should pay more than residents, by a lot. Not as a penalty, but as a way to pay for the privilege to fish here.
Ga offer a limited license for non residents where they can buy one day and add additional days there after. Not sure what the cost is. The regs are confusing.
Unless it has changed in the last year or so, it is 150 dollars for day one, and 14 dollars for each additional day you hunt.
Quote from: Greg Massey on April 26, 2023, 09:49:22 AM
I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW... It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT? SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of out of OOS people. Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....
I agree and or at the very least shorten the season for OOS on public lands and limit it to later in the season. In FL for example give first 2 weeks to residents.
Quote from: mountainhunter1 on April 26, 2023, 11:13:23 AM
America is still a free country for the most part and that is much of what I love about where we live.
But still, if the turkey is in trouble, does anyone need to be killing 10-20 or more turkeys a year at this point?
I cannot speak to everyone doing this... But those who I know that really travel to turkey hunt, are also the ones making the largest donations towards conservation... Kinda' a double edged sword here
Also, most of the people I know that can afford such travel (in time and money) are generally hunting far more private lands which of course are better managed for turkey hunting, and have higher success rates... And the hunting of these areas are likely not affecting the over-all turkey populations of the state negatively (due to these land owners making money from managing turkeys).
I would in fact argue, that to some degree out of state "pay-to-play" hunting will incentivise some land owners to improve turkey habitat as a means of alternative financial income. Which also sends turkey hunting down the road of being a bit elitist.
And... I still avidly maintain, that if the main way we address the turkey decline is to limit hunting, we will see it decline faster...
In California, we had tremendous numbers of pheasants even 20 years ago... It was not uncommon to kick up covies of hundreds of birds at the end of a ditch. Currently, it is uncommon to put up even one.
But the following have decimated pheasant populations in California, to a point that it is more likely than not that they will never recover from:
*Farmers selling land for development
*Farmers becoming (and needing to become) more efficient in land use to make an income (i.e. no fallow corners, no weeds in the orchards, etc.)
*Clear cutting ditches for better/more efficient water use.
*Drip irrigation and the efficiency of such only irrigating the particular crops has probably not helped.
*Mosquito spraying campaigns (largely due to West Nile) killing not only mosquitos but most of the other insects pheasant poults need for survival.
Frankly, I do not know enough of the agricultural and farming practices that are taking place outside of California, so I can only assume that similar issues are taking place.
If you want turkey numbers to rebound, much of that will rely upon farming... And in order for them to get on board with such practices, they will either have to financially benefit, or at the very least, not financially lose, to jump on board with such programs.
To me, addressing turkey decline by decreasing turkey harvest is like giving a dying patient morphine to die a more comfortable death... Ultimately, we would treat that patient for the pain short-term, and address the actual disease long-term to get the patient healthy, and off the pain control.
My take , again my opinion. States want to take hunting days away and decrease limits. Ok , let's take a look at fall hunting. Either sex is allowed. Let's look at youth season. A week before regular season. PLENTY gobblers killed during that time by many not so youth. Habitat is a mess. All about the mighty dollar. There are several factors at play that created the perfect storm. The season has all ways started the same date here in Mississippi for as long as I can remember. I saw the population explode and I've seen it sparse. Back in the day people trapped because fur bearing animals were worth something. When I was a kid , we hunted the same dates as everyone else. Timber was still being cut but not on the same level as it has been the last 20 years. Money drives this and I have no issue with timber companies making money. My issue is the aftermath of the cut. The cutovers are not maintained because it cost money , therefore it grows back up into a briar thicket with the replanted pines which in turn produces higher numbers of predators. Then corn feeding is legalized for deer hunters , many feed year around , helping nest predators such as coons to have population explosions. These are just some of my thoughts. Maybe they should just cancel out of state turkey hunting for the next 5 years. My money says that won't make one iota of a difference. Over and out.
This thread makes it easy to decipher who enjoys traveling around and hunting and who hunts a handful of days locally.
Don't wish for loss of opportunity! You'll likely never get it back.
Everyone wants draw this, limit this, etc etc until they end up having to sit home dreaming about hunting vs going to hunt! It is at that point they realize they would be glad to just have the opportunity to go hunt.
There's problems that need addressing population wise etc etc, but there's got to be better ways then limiting opportunity. And remember everyone is only a resident in 1 state!!!
And until there is legit tags where the system can't be cheated, we won't ever know what the harvest really is. Start there
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
If you could put someone in charge that actually cares about turkeys and not money that would be a huge start. I'm lucky enough not to have to hunt public land here in Mississippi but I feel for those that do. With money the driving force it's not going to change anytime soon.
Quote from: sasquatch1 on April 26, 2023, 01:07:46 PM
Don't wish for loss of opportunity! You'll likely never get it back.
That is debateable.
We would like to think that harvest limits are created solely based on science and conservation... They are not.
Even in the most liberal state of the Union (i.e. California), deer tags, and duck seasons and limits are often kept at high levels due to $$$$.
If anti-hunting groups can generate more financial income than hunting can, hunting will be in deep doo-doo.
But if money is lost with decreased harvest limits and season lengths, as soon as numbers rebound, those harvest numbers and season lengths will reflect that. License/tag sales, ammunition sales, hotels, food, etc... Are all monies that the state wants. More hunting tags sold means more money.
The good and bad of California, is that taxes and license sales from hunting go to the general state fund... Not to the Fish & Wildlife, or back to conservation...
The good being, that the state is incentivised to keep hunting/fishing around by MONEY for non-conservation related funding... The downside of course is that NONE of the money generated goes into improving the hunting/fishing/conservation of the state.
"Soylent Green is PEOPLE".
More regs coming. More loss of opportunity on the horizon for the public land hunter. Remember this when you tune into your favorite "channel" for entertainment . Loose lips sink ships
Loose lips started sinking the ship the Covid lock down year.... That was where most of the statistics of decreasing the season all started... People turkey hunting for the first time and telling our Local TWRA that they didn't hear or see any turkeys... Not every place holds turkeys... This forum with people voicing or sharing opinions has very little effect on changes or opportunity... If it did we would have a lot more of these officials on the forum...
If you feel there should be a decrease in tags then you should personally adhere to the limit you think it should be in principle and not take advantage of what the actual limit is.
What I'm seeing in a lot of these posts is the same old thing. I don't want other people shooting anything so I can have more to shoot! No one here is volunteering to buy a tag and burn it so one less bird gets killed. No one is volunteering to hunt a few less days to lessen their possible impact on nesting hens.
What they did here in Tennessee is move the season back to the 15 of April, it always opened the first of April. Now in them moving it back to the 15 of April, they added the 15 days back to the end of season, which puts hunters in the woods as hens are nesting and the disturbing of the new born poults. I do hope in the future they rethink what impact this could have also.... IMO
I propose a mandatory dance off at every gate winner takes all.
Quote from: Greg Massey on April 26, 2023, 04:31:52 PM
Loose lips started sinking the ship the Covid lock down year.... That was where most of the statistics of decreasing the season all started... People turkey hunting for the first time and telling our Local TWRA that they didn't hear or see any turkeys... Not every place holds turkeys... This forum or people voicing or sharing opinions has very little effect on changes or opportunity... If it did we would have a lot more of these officials on the forum...
I agree... What happened during COVID was a perfect strom of events.
*Technology available that allows users to know every piece of legal hunting areas with the topography, access roads, etc. (i.e. OnX or Gaia)
*Social media popularizing turkey hunting (and spot burning)
*COVID allowing people time and incentive to get out of the house and go hunting.
I see hardly anyone wanting to fund more, which is what really should happen!!
To buy more lands, manage lands better etc etc
I think hunting licenses and wma permits are far too cheap some places
Example here in south LA, there's several thousand acres of marsh lands that the local govt owns. It was always open to hunting (ducks)
Then they decided to sell permits to hunt it (like $50 per year)
Everyone complained like crazy!!! The same idiot that would totally lose the opportunity to even hunt the place if the state decided to lease it out!!! Then they'd WISH they could just pay $50 as then they'd be sitting home without a place to hunt!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: davisd9 on April 26, 2023, 05:02:20 PM
If you feel there should be a decrease in tags then you should personally adhere to the limit you think it should be in principle and not take advantage of what the actual limit is.
Some are already doing just that. I for the past three years have on purpose not filled my last tag in my state and have not traveled - again on purpose.
Quote from: Greg Massey on April 26, 2023, 09:49:22 AM
I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW... It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT? SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people. Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....
I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.
I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.
This
Quote from: Paulmyr on April 26, 2023, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Greg Massey on April 26, 2023, 09:49:22 AM
I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW... It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT? SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people. Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....
I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.
One might use this reasoning to justify the position that the wildlife on Federal lands belongs to all of us. However, that is an erroneous position based on current wildlife law. Non-migratory wildlife within a state's boundaries is "held in trust" for the people of that state according to Federal wildlife law. That applies whether that wildlife is found on Federal lands, private lands, or otherwise.
Bottom line is that the individual states make the rules for wildlife management within their borders on all lands, with the exception being that of migratory wildlife such as waterfowl, which is managed by the Feds. I am not sure if there are exceptions to this general policy on places like Federally-managed wildlife refuges, but on the vast majority of Federal lands, management authority falls to the individual states.
Quote from: GobbleNut on April 26, 2023, 11:09:33 PM
Quote from: Paulmyr on April 26, 2023, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Greg Massey on April 26, 2023, 09:49:22 AM
I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW... It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT? SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people. Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....
I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.
One might use this reasoning to justify the position that the wildlife on Federal lands belongs to all of us. However, that is an erroneous position based on current wildlife law. Non-migratory wildlife within a state's boundaries is "held in trust" for the people of that state according to Federal wildlife law. That applies whether that wildlife is found on Federal lands, private lands, or otherwise.
Bottom line is that the individual states make the rules for wildlife management within their borders on all lands, with the exception being that of migratory wildlife such as waterfowl, which is managed by the Feds. I am not sure if there are exceptions to this general policy on places like Federally-managed wildlife refuges, but on the vast majority of Federal lands, management authority falls to the individual states.
100 percent true, good post GobbleNut.... Individual States ....
I totally understand that something had to be done in the case of Homochitto NATIONAL Forest located in South Mississippi. But I don't understand how "they" being the State of Mississippi can make non-residents have to "draw" to hunt federal land? Why not everyone? Both residents and non-residents. Very well could turn into a court case, rightfully so. There is no way this is "Fair."
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
Quote from: GobbleNut on April 26, 2023, 11:09:33 PM
Quote from: Paulmyr on April 26, 2023, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Greg Massey on April 26, 2023, 09:49:22 AM
I feel if they decrease the bag limits to the residence people of that state to save turkey population, then i feel they should do away with OOS people traveling to that state for couple of years or have a limited number of tags, as everyone has said we have more and more people turkey hunting NOW... It's all about the future of saving the turkeys RIGHT? SOMETIMES man can be the predator or worst enemy to the future of the turkeys... IMO.... lots of good posts... Let's take Public land as a resident tax payer WHY should i have to pull up to a public piece of land and see 5 out of state vehicles and not one local vehicle. I mean we have it posted on the forum all the time about the numbers of out of state people camping out at gates and the number of OOS people. Again if you decrease the turkey limit you should decrease the overall number of OOS travels... IMO....
I would tend agree with you Greg if the land in question belonged to the state. If we're talking Federal land/ national forest than that land belongs to 333 million people who's tax money manages those lands and every one of them has the right to be there whether the residents like it or not.
One might use this reasoning to justify the position that the wildlife on Federal lands belongs to all of us. However, that is an erroneous position based on current wildlife law. Non-migratory wildlife within a state's boundaries is "held in trust" for the people of that state according to Federal wildlife law. That applies whether that wildlife is found on Federal lands, private lands, or otherwise.
Bottom line is that the individual states make the rules for wildlife management within their borders on all lands, with the exception being that of migratory wildlife such as waterfowl, which is managed by the Feds. I am not sure if there are exceptions to this general policy on places like Federally-managed wildlife refuges, but on the vast majority of Federal lands, management authority falls to the individual states.
Yup your right. But I still have the right to be there. I think it's a slippery slope when states start to manage wildlife on federal lands for benefit of their residents. It would not be very difficult to see a move by the federal govt to take over the management of wildlife on federal land if the right buttons are pushed. Not that I'm In favor of more govt control but I could see a federal agency being implemented if the gov't felt it could make some money off the sale of special federal land hunting permits especially if states try regulate these lands differently for residents compared to non residents.
I know there are states doing this already but if enough pressure is applied, I don't see it being to much of a stretch especially if the law makers think they can add a few million to their coffers.
On another note. At this point in time the wildlife in the state belong to everybody in the state not just the hunters. State agencies are obligated to manage wildlife for benefit of everyone who has an interest in seeing non resident permits being sold and not just in the interest of the resident hunters.
I'm not saying this is what I'd like to see but money talks and bs walks when talking about how govt's manage their resources.
Quote from: runngun on April 26, 2023, 11:52:19 PM
I totally understand that something had to be done in the case of Homochitto NATIONAL Forest located in South Mississippi. But I don't understand how "they" being the State of Mississippi can make non-residents have to "draw" to hunt federal land? Why not everyone? Both residents and non-residents. Very well could turn into a court case, rightfully so. There is no way this is "Fair."
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
You don't have to draw to go hike.
The state owns the game, and they make the hunting regulations for that game.
I'm a lonnngggg time MS Nr hunter, do I like it? Not really but it is what it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah, me too as well, I live on the Stateline and reside in Louisiana. I hunt Mississippi as well. So apparently, the State of Mississippi owns the wildlife that lives in the national forest. The national forest is owned by the federal government. Just don't agree with the draw for non residents.
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
I know that $$$ is the center hub for all the issues with healthy game populations. But common sense tells us that if we dont protect the resource, it will go away. Then nobody gets to enjoy it. I think that all states should reciprocate with the state that a non resident is from. If one state reduces the bag limit and or hunting days, then the other state should as well. If a state does not allow or limits non resident hunters, then their resident hunters should be treated the same if they go out of state. Fair is fair. Non residents pay extra for their licenses, they shouldnt be penalized again. I usually only hunt locally and possibly my neighboring state that I work in. Just be fair to all, I know thats a pipe dream, but that seems more fair to me. :z-twocents: Z
Im careful what I wish for, it would be devastating to see turkey go the route of western big game where you are buying preference points for 7, 9, sometimes 15 years just to draw $1000 tag obviously that's extreme but piling this stuff on ourselves as hunters is not something we should be pursuing IMO.
I don't think we can bag limit our way into a better populations, when you talk about limiting the harvest of mature gobblers it's a massive case of treating a symptom and not the disease. So no I don't think states halfing the bag limit is the right answer. We need better poult production and survival, the turkey factories are the hens they need nesting and brooding habitat. We could also get into the fact we've made it so incredibly idiot proof to kill a gobbler with technology and tactics that might not be in the best interest of the sport.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Here's my take on the gist of what would happen if management of wildlife on Federally-owned lands was taken over by the Feds with the intention of making access to hunting equal to all U.S. citizens. The Feds would have absolutely no choice but to allow hunting on all those lands strictly through a limited-permit basis through drawings open to everybody. The result would be hundreds of thousands of people applying each year for opportunities to hunt lands where only a few thousand permits might be allotted.
Each of our odds of getting to hunt those Federal lands would plummet to almost zero. In addition, to administer the drawings and allotment of permits, the Feds would have no choice but to charge an "application fee" to get into the drawings (similar to what many/most state agencies do now). That/those fees could be applied as a single fee for all federal lands,...or they might be applied individually for each Federal property across the country.
If those fees were individually applied to every federal land, it would cost each of us a small fortune to apply for permits to hunt the hundreds/thousands of Federal properties across the country,...and still with very little chance of drawing a permit for any of them.
Conversely, if a single fee was charged for all Federal lands and everybody went into the same drawing "pot", someone that wanted to hunt a Federal property in Florida might find out they have drawn a permit for a National Forest in far northwest Washington! Wouldn't that be a hoot!
Of course, there are possible other scenarios on how to deal with the most-assured fiasco that would exist if the Feds took over, but there ain't none of them gonna be good for hunters!
Bottom line, fellers,...be careful what you wish for. It most certainly will not end up being the nirvana you think it would be! ::)
Quote from: silvestris on April 26, 2023, 03:45:40 PM
"Soylent Green is PEOPLE".
100% agreement! Look at all the ag land and woodlots that use to be around your state. They are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. We as humans are reaching our carrying capacity! The farmers that remain need to increase production. That causes them to farm land that use to be grasslands and woods. That cycle will continue until hunting will be nonexistent for lack of game.
Quote from: GobbleNut on April 27, 2023, 09:26:53 AM
Here's my take on the gist of what would happen if management of wildlife on Federally-owned lands was taken over by the Feds with the intention of making access to hunting equal to all U.S. citizens. The Feds would have absolutely no choice but to allow hunting on all those lands strictly through a limited-permit basis through drawings open to everybody. The result would be hundreds of thousands of people applying each year for opportunities to hunt lands where only a few thousand permits might be allotted.
Each of our odds of getting to hunt those Federal lands would plummet to almost zero. In addition, to administer the drawings and allotment of permits, the Feds would have no choice but to charge an "application fee" to get into the drawings (similar to what many/most state agencies do now). That/those fees could be applied as a single fee for all federal lands,...or they might be applied individually for each Federal property across the country.
If those fees were individually applied to every federal land, it would cost each of us a small fortune to apply for permits to hunt the hundreds/thousands of Federal properties across the country,...and still with very little chance of drawing a permit for any of them.
Conversely, if a single fee was charged for all Federal lands and everybody went into the same drawing "pot", someone that wanted to hunt a Federal property in Florida might find out they have drawn a permit for a National Forest in far northwest Washington! Wouldn't that be a hoot!
Of course, there are possible other scenarios on how to deal with the most-assured fiasco that would exist if the Feds took over, but there ain't none of them gonna be good for hunters!
Bottom line, fellers,...be careful what you wish for. It most certainly will not end up being the nirvana you think it would be! ::)
Here's another thought on the federal management of game on federal lands. If the greenies can shut down oil production on fed land to the detriment of the country what makes one think the anti's won't be able to do same with hunting.
Quote from: TauntoHawk on April 27, 2023, 09:05:29 AM
Im careful what I wish for, it would be devastating to see turkey go the route of western big game where you are buying preference points for 7, 9, sometimes 15 years just to draw $1000 tag obviously that's extreme but piling this stuff on ourselves as hunters is not something we should be pursuing IMO.
I don't think we can bag limit our way into a better populations, when you talk about limiting the harvest of mature gobblers it's a massive case of treating a symptom and not the disease. So no I don't think states halfing the bag limit is the right answer. We need better poult production and survival, the turkey factories are the hens they need nesting and brooding habitat. We could also get into the fact we've made it so incredibly idiot proof to kill a gobbler with technology and tactics that might not be in the best interest of the sport.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
This!!! 90% of these guys have no experience out west to get an understanding of just his bad things can be!
So they crying their way into losing rights as free Americans. Actually asking for it!
The system needs more funding, any state with good funding (think MO) has a lot more game and lands to hunt! But, IK most would also have a heart attack if license fees were raised.
If you think it's cheap, buy your own 100 acres and manage it, then you'll get an understanding of what the state is trying to do on massive scale while collecting Pennies.
Certain states could start selling tags and not licenses. That way there's no buying 3 and 4 day licenses. Again like MO, no, you buy your two tags and it don't matter if you hunting one day or all season. If not that just plain sell hunting licenses for the year to NR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
People complain about all the non residents license plates at the local wma but meanwhile the family farm hasn't had a stable population of birds in 5 years. Turning away non residents might lessen the pressure on what public land birds are out there but it's going to do absolutely nothing to fix an entire state filled with private lands population woes.
The rise of the traveling turkey hunter is a pickle, I think more for the fact that it's gainly popularity as the population is dropping but I really don't see it as the primary cause otherwise everyone with private wouldn't be affected.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: sasquatch1 on April 27, 2023, 12:20:45 PM
Quote from: TauntoHawk on April 27, 2023, 09:05:29 AM
Im careful what I wish for, it would be devastating to see turkey go the route of western big game where you are buying preference points for 7, 9, sometimes 15 years just to draw $1000 tag obviously that's extreme but piling this stuff on ourselves as hunters is not something we should be pursuing IMO.
I don't think we can bag limit our way into a better populations, when you talk about limiting the harvest of mature gobblers it's a massive case of treating a symptom and not the disease. So no I don't think states halfing the bag limit is the right answer. We need better poult production and survival, the turkey factories are the hens they need nesting and brooding habitat. We could also get into the fact we've made it so incredibly idiot proof to kill a gobbler with technology and tactics that might not be in the best interest of the sport.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
This!!! 90% of these guys have no experience out west to get an understanding of just his bad things can be!
So they crying their way into losing rights as free Americans. Actually asking for it!
The system needs more funding, any state with good funding (think MO) has a lot more game and lands to hunt! But, IK most would also have a heart attack if license fees were raised.
If you think it's cheap, buy your own 100 acres and manage it, then you'll get an understanding of what the state is trying to do on massive scale while collecting Pennies.
Certain states could start selling tags and not licenses. That way there's no buying 3 and 4 day licenses. Again like MO, no, you buy your two tags and it don't matter if you hunting one day or all season. If not that just plain sell hunting licenses for the year to NR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I could see and would have no problem paying a public land fee if that money were used to buy/ lease more public land.
I know if one state where landowners get a tax break if they manage thier land a certain way and in return the public is allowed to hunt on it.
That's something we could talk about, more programs offering land owners assistance with habitat work, and more programs aimed at giving hunters access to private to evenly distribute pressure.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: joey46 on April 27, 2023, 12:03:18 PM
Why couldn't they do that now??
Because as Gobblenut stated the wildlife is in control of the state. Easier and less costly to ban hunting on the federal level than it is in each state individually. Only one swipe of the pen compared to 50.
I would be all for anyone who utilizes public land for any reason to be required to buy a permit for the year. A couple dollars per permit, and that money goes directly to the upkeep and improvement of that land. I would prefere hunters pay more than the average bird watcher or hiker. But I don't think a few dollars for a permit would hurt anyone
Quote from: davisd9 on April 26, 2023, 05:02:20 PM
If you feel there should be a decrease in tags then you should personally adhere to the limit you think it should be in principle and not take advantage of what the actual limit is.
I have not bought a tag to hunt my own land since 2020. The numbers do not support it. I still donate alot of habitat work and donate alot to turkey conservation.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
My opinion is if the states cared, then they would offer a bounty on nesting predators during trapping season. This would also help out the trappers since the fur market is not existent. I started a major habit improvement on my place several years and the last three years I have been removing all in season animals during trapping season. It is really working. When I bought the farm 10 years ago I never heard a Turkey in the spring. When I took my son last weekend, we counted seven Tom's gobbling on my place and the surrounding neighbors. I'm constantly getting pics of hens and Tom's and later in the summer I'll get pics of hens with her brood. I'm really impressed how it's turning out. I will keep up the pressure on the predators in the fall. I shave experienced the same outcome on my buddies farm that I hunt on. It was nothing to hear 15-20 different Tom's gobbling when he first purchased it 8 years ago. It started to dwindle down. I'm the only person allowed to hunt and most years I took one bird, some I'd take two. I started trapping it three years ago and I can see a big improvement in the turkeys this year. When you take 17 raccoon off of a 100 yard stretch of creek in a two week time, there is a problem. I would forget about the state coming in and doing anything because all they care about is your money and catering to the animal rights activists. Look at the vast majority of the chiefs of wildlife that the governors install. Most have never hunted a day in there life.
Solid point. What are the numbers of people who do this? I imagine some states publish it. They publish every durn thing else.
Quote from: Ohiowoodchuck on April 27, 2023, 10:07:37 PM
I would forget about the state coming in and doing anything because all they care about is your money and catering to the animal rights activists. Look at the vast majority of the chiefs of wildlife that the governors install. Most have never hunted a day in there life.
With all respect Ohiowoodchuck, I think you have been misinformed. I worked 30+ years for ODOW and every chief I ever knew hunted and fished and understood very well where their paycheck came from. I never once heard any DOW employee defend animal rights organizations.
I am not arguing just trying to kindly bring facts to the discussion.
Quote from: eggshell on April 28, 2023, 07:12:59 PM
Quote from: Ohiowoodchuck on April 27, 2023, 10:07:37 PM
I would forget about the state coming in and doing anything because all they care about is your money and catering to the animal rights activists. Look at the vast majority of the chiefs of wildlife that the governors install. Most have never hunted a day in there life.
With all respect Ohiowoodchuck, I think you have been misinformed. I worked 30+ years for ODOW and every chief I ever knew hunted and fished and understood very well where their paycheck came from. I never once heard any DOW employee defend animal rights organizations.
I am not arguing just trying to kindly bring facts to the discussion.
Maybe I'm wrong and if I am, I'll own it. The profile for the current chief in Ohio doesn't say anything about hunting in her profile. It says she camped and visited the state parks. Maybe she does hunt, but is she afraid to put that on her profile because of certain people? I was there in Athens when a lot of trappers and predator hunters wanted to open a bobcat season. We asked for anything limit of 1, we also said we would tag them in, take them to a station, buy a permit etc. they was getting ready to let us have it when the animal rights activist stood up and started crying and whining about the bobcat survey wasn't completed and we should wait till the survey is complete and then look at all the data before determining if we need a season. They decided with them over the ones who pay there bills. From then on I realized the fix was in on us sportsman. Also not arguing with you, just letting you know how I see it.
Couple hot takes:
-The funding argument could be solve QUICKLY if states would manage timber better. And I'm not talking TSI for money, but for habitat diversity.
-I travel a lot for work, so I get to turkey hunt abroad. Generally speaking, OOS hunters are by far the most respectful and ethical. 90% of my negative experience I've had from people turkey hunting has been residents.
-Want to see what mob rule and over restrictions can look like when it comes to over regulation? Come duck hunt AR for a full season. The OOS rule have created a vacuum that makes it nearly impossible to hunt state property for half the season.
-Anyone wishing to lower opportunities for other hunters is anti hunter...by definition. I promise I'm not trying to call anyone out, but read your wish list in the voice of a liberal soy bean baby and you'll understand. It's like music to their ears.
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 06:56:32 PM-The funding argument could be solve QUICKLY if states would manage timber better. And I'm not talking TSI for money, but for habitat diversity.
The prospect of the government spending money efficiently is about as likely as crossbreeding turkeys with elephants successfully...
My experience in watching government funding at work, is that accountability would be the first step towards improvement.
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 06:56:32 PM-I travel a lot for work, so I get to turkey hunt abroad.
Out of curiosity, what other countries are you hunting turkeys in? Mexico comes to mind? New Zeland?
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 06:56:32 PM-Anyone wishing to lower opportunities for other hunters is anti hunter...by definition.
I disagree... I have always been taught that hunters should be the biggest advocates for conservation, and the foremost stewards of the sport. Hunters first and foremost should be the entity that prevents over-hunting.
While I do not necessarily agree with many of the proposed ideas, I also do not have a dog in this fight... But I would certainly advocate for shorter season lengths, or decreased hunting if populations were hurting due to over hunting.
I believe that if habitat managment is to improve, that it will have to come from hunters, and hunting organizations.
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 06:56:32 PM
Couple hot takes:
-The funding argument could be solve QUICKLY if states would manage timber better. And I'm not talking TSI for money, but for habitat diversity.
-I travel a lot for work, so I get to turkey hunt abroad. Generally speaking, OOS hunters are by far the most respectful and ethical. 90% of my negative experience I've had from people turkey hunting has been residents.
-Want to see what mob rule and over restrictions can look like when it comes to over regulation? Come duck hunt AR for a full season. The OOS rule have created a vacuum that makes it nearly impossible to hunt state property for half the season.
-Anyone wishing to lower opportunities for other hunters is anti hunter...by definition. I promise I'm not trying to call anyone out, but read your wish list in the voice of a liberal soy bean baby and you'll understand. It's like music to their ears.
What is your proposal? We are hunting a resource like it is 2005 when populations are down 60%-90%. In other species from ducks to deer, to elk when the population craters they reduce the harvest. But for whatever reason turkey hunters are the most selfish bunch of hunters. So what are the options? The status quo of selling unlimited tags is not sustainable. Even colorado has figured this out with the cash cow that is otc elk permits and many of them are going to a draw.
Quote from: nativeks on April 29, 2023, 07:47:41 PM
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 06:56:32 PM
Couple hot takes:
-The funding argument could be solve QUICKLY if states would manage timber better. And I'm not talking TSI for money, but for habitat diversity.
-I travel a lot for work, so I get to turkey hunt abroad. Generally speaking, OOS hunters are by far the most respectful and ethical. 90% of my negative experience I've had from people turkey hunting has been residents.
-Want to see what mob rule and over restrictions can look like when it comes to over regulation? Come duck hunt AR for a full season. The OOS rule have created a vacuum that makes it nearly impossible to hunt state property for half the season.
-Anyone wishing to lower opportunities for other hunters is anti hunter...by definition. I promise I'm not trying to call anyone out, but read your wish list in the voice of a liberal soy bean baby and you'll understand. It's like music to their ears.
What is your proposal? We are hunting a resource like it is 2005 when populations are down 60%-90%. In other species from ducks to deer, to elk when the population craters they reduce the harvest. But for whatever reason turkey hunters are the most selfish bunch of hunters. So what are the options? The status quo of selling unlimited tags is not sustainable. Even colorado has figured this out with the cash cow that is otc elk permits and many of them are going to a draw.
I stated one of my proposals.
-Let the habitat managers do their thing on state property to create whole life habitat...unrestricted.
-Create a state requirement for all state land and corporate land owners who own more than 1,000 acres to leave SMZs.(this would be huge in my area with timber companies owning the largest percentage of property)
-Allow state forestry commissions to have a const sharing or free fire breaks. It's relatively cheap, but not viable for many land owners.
Some states are geared towards hunt satisfaction vs opportunity. If we all were like that, we'd be out of places to hunt overnight. Also, satisfaction to one person is different than the next. Opportunity is the same for everyone.
States would be best served with a universal prohibition on shooting jakes in the spring .. nation wide ... especially Florida , where I live and over pressure and poor management could make the Osceola the next "carrier pigeon"
Ask any serious long time Florida turkey hunter the situation down here and they will tell you the sky is literally falling on us , if no corrective action is taken soon ...we are doomed
To address Florida, with the most respect.
WV is a diverse state, in geography. WV could be served well with two or three different start times for a turkey season.
But, as in the case with Florida, it can't be done. We would have guys running for the Eastern panhandle for week one to the Southern zone for week two then the mountain zone for week three. Three opening days! It's not feasible, it's asinine! It sure would work better to catch turkeys in prime time hunting, but, detrimental to the turkey and to hunter pressure "Florida"!
This has been a great read. I would parrot the idea of all users of NF lands paying a fee. Not just hunters. Hunters use the lands for 4-5 months, hikers use the lands year round . Groups, organized groups, year round. They can pay too.
I think there are several people that should do as I, read ever post in this thread. It is eye raising on the train of thought of some of our brethren.
Wishing everyone a great remainder to your season.
My beef isn't with out of state hunters. We are all on this together and should stick together. I agree with decreasing the bag limit. Even agree with the above mentioned of not allowing the harvest of Jake's. I let 3 pass by this morning. The problem lies in the state. They have squandered the money that all outdoorsmen have paid to the state. When is the last time you heard of them buying a large chunk of land for public hunting etc. They had the prime opportunity to buy up a lot of the old mead paper ground and then implement proper habitat practices but they did nothing. The state gave mead a large tax reduction for keeping it public and they did, then they realized there was more money to be made by leasing and away it all went and the state didn't try to do anything to keep it public. I believe a bunch of anti hunters are leasing it because I never see anyone bunting them around here or parked at the gates.
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: nativeks on April 29, 2023, 07:47:41 PM
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 06:56:32 PM
Couple hot takes:
-The funding argument could be solve QUICKLY if states would manage timber better. And I'm not talking TSI for money, but for habitat diversity.
-I travel a lot for work, so I get to turkey hunt abroad. Generally speaking, OOS hunters are by far the most respectful and ethical. 90% of my negative experience I've had from people turkey hunting has been residents.
-Want to see what mob rule and over restrictions can look like when it comes to over regulation? Come duck hunt AR for a full season. The OOS rule have created a vacuum that makes it nearly impossible to hunt state property for half the season.
-Anyone wishing to lower opportunities for other hunters is anti hunter...by definition. I promise I'm not trying to call anyone out, but read your wish list in the voice of a liberal soy bean baby and you'll understand. It's like music to their ears.
What is your proposal? We are hunting a resource like it is 2005 when populations are down 60%-90%. In other species from ducks to deer, to elk when the population craters they reduce the harvest. But for whatever reason turkey hunters are the most selfish bunch of hunters. So what are the options? The status quo of selling unlimited tags is not sustainable. Even colorado has figured this out with the cash cow that is otc elk permits and many of them are going to a draw.
I stated one of my proposals.
-Let the habitat managers do their thing on state property to create whole life habitat...unrestricted.
-Create a state requirement for all state land and corporate land owners who own more than 1,000 acres to leave SMZs.(this would be huge in my area with timber companies owning the largest percentage of property)
-Allow state forestry commissions to have a const sharing or free fire breaks. It's relatively cheap, but not viable for many land owners.
Some states are geared towards hunt satisfaction vs opportunity. If we all were like that, we'd be out of places to hunt overnight. Also, satisfaction to one person is different than the next. Opportunity is the same for everyone.
The SMZ thing would be nice if it was ever legit. We have a rule down south for the logging companies and SMZs, I think the rule is 25 yds on each side the creek and Ik they cheat that. Anyway, you don't end up with anything really useful, that tiny strip will grow so thick it's hardly any different. The size limit should be double but then you talking money and we know how that goes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: sasquatch1 on April 30, 2023, 01:46:34 AM
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: nativeks on April 29, 2023, 07:47:41 PM
Quote from: Spurs on April 29, 2023, 06:56:32 PM
Couple hot takes:
-The funding argument could be solve QUICKLY if states would manage timber better. And I'm not talking TSI for money, but for habitat diversity.
-I travel a lot for work, so I get to turkey hunt abroad. Generally speaking, OOS hunters are by far the most respectful and ethical. 90% of my negative experience I've had from people turkey hunting has been residents.
-Want to see what mob rule and over restrictions can look like when it comes to over regulation? Come duck hunt AR for a full season. The OOS rule have created a vacuum that makes it nearly impossible to hunt state property for half the season.
-Anyone wishing to lower opportunities for other hunters is anti hunter...by definition. I promise I'm not trying to call anyone out, but read your wish list in the voice of a liberal soy bean baby and you'll understand. It's like music to their ears.
What is your proposal? We are hunting a resource like it is 2005 when populations are down 60%-90%. In other species from ducks to deer, to elk when the population craters they reduce the harvest. But for whatever reason turkey hunters are the most selfish bunch of hunters. So what are the options? The status quo of selling unlimited tags is not sustainable. Even colorado has figured this out with the cash cow that is otc elk permits and many of them are going to a draw.
I stated one of my proposals.
-Let the habitat managers do their thing on state property to create whole life habitat...unrestricted.
-Create a state requirement for all state land and corporate land owners who own more than 1,000 acres to leave SMZs.(this would be huge in my area with timber companies owning the largest percentage of property)
-Allow state forestry commissions to have a const sharing or free fire breaks. It's relatively cheap, but not viable for many land owners.
Some states are geared towards hunt satisfaction vs opportunity. If we all were like that, we'd be out of places to hunt overnight. Also, satisfaction to one person is different than the next. Opportunity is the same for everyone.
The SMZ thing would be nice if it was ever legit. We have a rule down south for the logging companies and SMZs, I think the rule is 25 yds on each side the creek and Ik they cheat that. Anyway, you don't end up with anything really useful, that tiny strip will grow so thick it's hardly any different. The size limit should be double but then you talking money and we know how that goes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I know exactly what you're talking about. If I could develop the law myself, it would be close to what LSU suggests...mine would just be mandatory for corporate owned properties or private holdings over 1,000 acres. The reason I say over 1,000 is because smaller property owners are logging for the money, so restricting those smaller tracts wouldn't have nearly the impact.
REQUIRED SMZ Widths:
Intermittent = 50 feet wide on each side
Perennial (less than 10 feet wide) = 100 feet wide on each side
Perennial (greater than 10 feet wide) = 200 feet wide on each side
Crossing of the SMZ can only happen in one location every 1/2 mile and rutting must be repaired.
Think of what this would look like for a smaller creek system. Thousands of acres of pine plantations with creeks snaking thru the landscape left untouched. Most times around my house, these SMZs are cherry picked and rutted up really bad.
So much complaining. :bike2:
Certainly different parts of the country are in different situations. I'm in the mid-east.
I don't want to see limits reduced. We have more turkeys than ever on my farms. We don't shoot hens or jakes, and we've got plenty. Public may suck, here and everywhere, but that isn't going to change because you restrict private. How about make a limit of one on public? Sounds good to me.
I'm out of state on one of my family farms. I've spent a lot of my life on that farm. I have more right to hunt there than some "resident" that just moved to town. Telling me that I get reduced tags because I'm a couple hours away over an invisible line wouldn't go over well in my family.
The "have nots" want the government to "create" turkeys and manage habitat for them. Not greatly different than welfare junkies wanting other handouts in my mind. Go buy land or rent land and manage the habitat yourself for turkeys and you won't have anything to complain about.
The days of abundant turkeys on public lands and low hunting pressure are over unless they go to quota draws, and then you aren't likely to get drawn for a chance to go.
If everyone started leaving poisoned meat out in the woods you would see a huge drop in predators and a large jump in all game species. Short of predator extirpation like when we settled the country the first time though, you won't see turkeys nationwide like they were 20 and 30 years ago. Now it's managing property by property, making good habitat, killing predators, and limiting pressure and disturbance. That is key to good turkey hunting.