Bird Numbers Down/ Decrees The Limit ?

[Spurs]

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.

[Blackduck]

So much complaining.   

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.