Bird Numbers Down/ Decrees The Limit ?

[GobbleNut]

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. 

[Greg Massey]

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 ....

[runngun]

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

[Paulmyr]

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.

[sasquatch1]

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

[runngun]

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

[zelmo1]

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

[TauntoHawk]

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

[GobbleNut]

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!   

[turkey stew]

"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.

[Paulmyr]

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.

[sasquatch1]

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

[TauntoHawk]

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

[Paulmyr]

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.

[TauntoHawk]

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