|
Post by Woody Williams on May 21, 2012 7:35:40 GMT -5
Why is it that there are some that are never satisfied with what they have or the progress that is being made? I remember somebody pushing for crossbows. shouldn't you have been happy with what you had? We are discussing turkey and deer biology, not methods. Thanks..
|
|
|
Post by speckle on May 21, 2012 7:47:41 GMT -5
I remember somebody pushing for crossbows. shouldn't you have been happy with what you had? We are discussing turkey and deer biology, not methods. Thanks.. Ok please explain then why are people never satisfied with what they have?
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 21, 2012 7:54:57 GMT -5
We are discussing turkey and deer biology, not methods. Thanks.. Ok please explain then why are people never satisfied with what they have? Boy, You've got me. Since you seem to be one that is not satisifed why dont you tell us?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 12:35:59 GMT -5
bill, answer this question please. would you like to see this rule go in effect for your home state of ky. no internet answers on this. just your opinion please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 13:57:38 GMT -5
Arkansas has nearly 17 million acres of forest. Indiana has around 4 million. So this rule would be even more important for a state like Indiana. Wildlife Biologist have created the NO Jake rule for a reason in several states, the reason is it adds more turkeys to states, and grows the population.If Arkansas wants to improve their turkey population then why haven't they reduced the bag limit from 2 birds to 1. Or.........reduce their legal shooting time to sunset and don't allow the shooting of bearded hens. Just watched a hunting show the other day where they killed a large turkey by weight and spurs but only had a small jake sized beard, would this bird have been illegal in Arkansas? In my opinion what will increase a turkey population is: (1) habitat (2) no hen bag limit (3) season length and the timing of the opening and/or closing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 13:59:25 GMT -5
Yes, I would love this rule here in Kentucky. Here in Kentucky it would save over 3,000 Jakes every Spring. That means over 15,000 Jakes would be saved every 5 years here in Kentucky. This would be great imo. bill, answer this question please. would you like to see this rule go in effect for your home state of ky. no internet answers on this. just your opinion please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 14:04:39 GMT -5
Those states also have much more habitat than Indiana. Mississippi has one of the highest Turkey populations and harvest in America, it has a NO Jake Rule. www.mdwfp.com/media/7311/hunting_seasons.pdfHere in Kentucky we have a harvest over over 30,000 Turkeys each Spring. But KY also has over 12 million acres of forest, and a lot of other quality habitat. Missouri has 14 million acres of forest. Look at the top harvest states, they all have tons of wilderness, and habitat. Indiana would benefit much more from a NO Jake Rule, becauase IN has less habitat, especially in northern Indiana. In areas of northern Indiana, that have very few Turkeys, and very little habitat, what is the point in shooting Jakes ?You need to add HELL NO to your poll. Several states allow the harvest of Jakes and they have a much higher kill every year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 14:09:15 GMT -5
Why do Wildlife Biologist in several states support this Rule ?
Why did Biologist make this Rule in certain States ?
There is a good reason. It grows the Turkey population. By not Killing thousands of Jakes every Spring, those jakes get to live another year, or perhaps several years.
Parts of Indiana that have very low Turkey numbers would benifit from having more Turkeys.
If you let them go when they are Jakes it just gives you more hard gobbling 2 year olds next year to enjoy.
This Rule would also be great during years following poor Hatches.
IMO, it's not about Trophy Turkey hunting, it's simply about having more Turkeys around.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 21, 2012 14:26:25 GMT -5
Why do Wildlife Biologist in several states support this Rule ?
Why did Biologist make this Rule in certain States ? There is a good reason. It grows the Turkey population. By not Killing thousands of Jakes every Spring, those jakes get to live another year, or perhaps several years. Parts of Indiana that have very low Turkey numbers would benifit from having more Turkeys. IMO, it's not about Trophy Turkey hunting, it's simply about having more Turkeys around. Like all wildlife rules, this is a social issue and not just an animal issue. Indiana has much more farm land than Kentucky and Turkeys do a lot of crop damage each year. The population here has grown steadily since turkeys were introduced and have grown to high enough levels to open a fall either sex season in certain areas. We need no additional "tricks" to make turkey hunting harder and "save" a few thousand birds each year.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on May 21, 2012 14:31:06 GMT -5
Current regulations work for me. Indiana's turkey population is growing and in good health. No reason to change. h.h.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 14:55:18 GMT -5
We can kill 2 Turkeys per Spring in Kentucky. KY has over 250,000 Turkeys across the state. But even with that said, there are still certain counties that have somewhat low Turkey numbers, that could benefit from this rule. It's the same with Indiana. Southern Indiana has a pretty good Turkey population. But there are dozens and dozens of counties in northern Indiana with very low Turkey populations. There are many farms in northern IN that do not have Turkeys. Even in central IN in places like shelby and Rush counties, there are many areas with little or no Turkeys. IN could easily save a few thousand Jakes each year with this Rule. Parts of Central and Northern Indiana could benefit from this. Why do Wildlife Biologist in several states support this Rule ?
Why did Biologist make this Rule in certain States ? There is a good reason. It grows the Turkey population. By not Killing thousands of Jakes every Spring, those jakes get to live another year, or perhaps several years. Parts of Indiana that have very low Turkey numbers would benifit from having more Turkeys. IMO, it's not about Trophy Turkey hunting, it's simply about having more Turkeys around. Like all wildlife rules, this is a social issue and not just an animal issue. Indiana has much more farm land than Kentucky and Turkeys do a lot of crop damage each year. The population here has grown steadily since turkeys were introduced and have grown to high enough levels to open a fall either sex season in certain areas. We need no additional "tricks" to make turkey hunting harder and "save" a few thousand birds each year.
|
|
|
Post by windingwinds on May 21, 2012 15:13:05 GMT -5
Rules like limits on rack size and jakes vs. toms harms the amateur and youth hunters. I would never be able to measure a beard of a Turkey before I shot it. And I don't care how many points a rack has. So say you suffer from beard shrinkage after you shot the turkey and then what, do you turn yourself in for shooting a "jake"? You lose either way. Habitat destruction, predators, and the rapant feral cat and dog problem are much more responsible for any turkey population decline than hunters. And nope I haven't shot ONE turkey yet but it would be nice that if and when I get the chance I don't have to think about trophies while I am hunting. I want to focus on a good shot.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 21, 2012 16:31:27 GMT -5
Bill,
Jakes do not lay eggs so therefore they can not help increase the number in a flock.
There is no doubt the "no jake" rules are in answer to trophy turkey hunters lobbying the DNRs to make it so. It ain't biological for sure...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 17:27:30 GMT -5
Bill is misinformed badly about how to grow a turkey flock. Kentucky's flock was established by reknowned biologist George Wright, who studied turkeys in multiple states and who wrote all or parts of most of the southern regions state restoration plans. He went on to manage Kentucky's growth years, from the first turkey season until the turkey flock reahed carrying capcity of the land in all of Kentuckys 120 counties.
During all of this time, he never saw the need to limit the harvest of jake toms.
Even by Bill's estimate of SAVING 3,000 turkeys per year, that many can die in one rain storm soon after the hatch. Saving one turkey one day, can never be a means of growing a turkey flock, unless that turkey is a hen. You can kill nearly all of the gobblers in a given spring season and the turkey flock will still be the same the following year assuming there is a normal hatch.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 21, 2012 18:33:46 GMT -5
To grow flocks and herds the females are protected, not the males no matter what age. To require hunters to pass immature males is for one purpose only - to increase the number of trophies. We've got enough of that stuff in deer hunting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 19:28:00 GMT -5
I'm not in favor of banning jake harvests. However, this debate has me scratching my head a bit...
I need clarification. Are some saying that if several thousand jakes were not killed one year, there would NOT be several thousand more turkeys in the flock the next year? Am I missing something here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 19:36:49 GMT -5
That is correct. There would likely be a few additional gobblers after the hunt, but it's unknown if they would all survive to be 2 year olds into the next spring. Turkey natural mortality is very high, and it would surely not be the same number not shot by hunters.
Also, if a hunter doesn't tag out on a jake when he can, there is no way to know if he would eventually tag out on an adult bird. Again, changing the number of turkeys "saved" as Bill calls it.
Third, there are a precentage of hens killed by mistake by hunters every Spring. If a hunter tags out and leaves the woods, then the number of potential mistakes goes somewhat lower. Related to hunters tagging out and staying out of the woods is hens bumped from their nests and leaving them to predators. Those two combine effect future populations more so than a few thousand jakes shot every year.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 22, 2012 7:39:19 GMT -5
I'm not in favor of banning jake harvests. However, this debate has me scratching my head a bit... I need clarification. Are some saying that if several thousand jakes were not killed one year, there would NOT be several thousand more turkeys in the flock the next year? Am I missing something here? Like you, I am not in favor of a "jake restriction" .... but I have seen the fuzzy math arguments around here before. A reduction in harvest of "several thousand" each year would no doubt grow the overall size of the flock ..... but I believe that any such rule would not be for the expansion of the flock. It would be solely for the purpose of having more hunt-able mature birds.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on May 22, 2012 7:53:01 GMT -5
Turkeys are parthenogenesis so the male bird is not needed to continue the flock. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by speckle on May 22, 2012 7:57:20 GMT -5
what happens when you shoot a Jake? Thats correct the flock goes down by one. Im not in favor of a jake restrition but some people like to spin things around
|
|