Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 8:11:13 GMT -5
the male bird is not needed to continue the flock. h.h. Really? That goes against everything I thought I knew about the birds and the bees! This topic is getting more and more confusing... |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 22, 2012 8:14:57 GMT -5
Turkeys are parthenogenesis so the male bird is not needed to continue the flock. h.h. Happens rarely .... and all offspring are males. Kind of shoots holes in the "continue the flock" thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 8:16:10 GMT -5
By golly, hornharvester, you taught me something. I looked it up and found what you are talking about. I never had heard such a thing.
However, I also found that this only happens in something less than 40% of hens. So, that kind of rate would not necessarily grow the flock.
Interesting none the less. Thanks for the knowledge!
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 22, 2012 10:49:16 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 If that hunter who had to pass a jake does not kill another bird then the flock would not go down a bird, would it? Some of you guys act like if that hunter doesn't kill that jake he wont kill another bird, ever.. How many on here voluntarily pass jakes and later kill 2 year olds and up? Most, I'd say... Also, as far as trophy birds some will say that a 2 year old is not a "trophy bird". Where does this trophy madness end? |
|
|
|
Post by speckle on May 22, 2012 11:19:39 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 If that hunter who had to pass a jake does not kill another bird then the flock would not go down a bird, would it? Finally you did the math correctly. True some people pass jakes including me but they are the easiest to kill in my book. Shouldn't we let the turkey biologist handle this situation because he should know whats best for the flock. |
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on May 22, 2012 11:28:29 GMT -5
Shouldn't we let the turkey biologist handle this situation because he should know whats best for the flock. That is what most people on here are saying. h.h. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 22, 2012 12:48:45 GMT -5
If that hunter who had to pass a jake does not kill another bird then the flock would not go down a bird, would it? Finally you did the math correctly. True some people pass jakes including me but they are the easiest to kill in my book. Shouldn't we let the turkey biologist handle this situation because he should know whats best for the flock. I see it buzzed right over your head.. Yes, let Steve Backs handle it as long as we don't get into a "social issue" of "let him (Jake) go, so he can grow" mandate. Passing jakes is for two reasons only - 1) they are too easy and 2)allow them to become longbeards. That is it. Nothing biological about it. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 22, 2012 13:22:41 GMT -5
Finally you did the math correctly. True some people pass jakes including me but they are the easiest to kill in my book. Shouldn't we let the turkey biologist handle this situation because he should know whats best for the flock. I see it buzzed right over your head.. Yes, let Steve Backs handle it as long as we don't get into a "social issue" of "let him (Jake) go, so he can grow" mandate. Passing jakes is for two reasons only - 1) they are too easy and 2)allow them to become longbeards. That is it. Nothing biological about it. A random thought about this "trophy hunting" turkey stuff ..... how many guys actually target a bird by age? Correct me if I am wrong but about the only visual indicator of age is spur length and most of the time a guy doesn't even lay an eye on them until the bird is on the ground. No doubt a jake is the easiest male bird to kill but a two year old isnt far behind. Most guys I hunt with mention beard length first when talking about their bird ..... Ive seen two year old birds with impressive beards and Ive seen 4 year old birds with lesser beards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 13:30:07 GMT -5
Good Point. 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 22, 2012 13:32:59 GMT -5
At least the Jakes would not be dead, lol If Jakes were Illegal to kill at least they could have a chance at living another year. Banning the Killing of Jakes would save several Thousand Jakes every Spring in Indiana. Many of those Jakes WOULD survive to become 2 year olds. After 5 years of this Rule, Indiana could save over 5,000 Jakes, many of those would become big Toms. That would grow the Indiana Turkey Population across the state. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 13:40:55 GMT -5
Passing Jakes, saves Jakes. This is needed in places like northern Indiana where seeing a Turkey is almost impossible sometimes.
By passing a Jake, it may survive and live to become a 2 year old bird.
Like I said, if Indiana Banned Jakes, then Indiana would have a few thousand extra Jakes roaming around every year. And each year many of those would live to become Toms.
It's obvious this would grow the Turkey population in many areas of Indiana.
Biologist in some states like Arkansas, have implemented a NO Jake Rule after years of bad hatches. The Biologist said Banning Jakes after bad hatch years will help grow the Turkey population.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 22, 2012 13:52:17 GMT -5
Passing Jakes, saves Jakes. This is needed in places like northern Indiana where seeing a Turkey is almost impossible sometimes. By passing a Jake, it may survive and live to become a 2 year old bird. Like I said, if Indiana Banned Jakes, then Indiana would have a few thousand extra Jakes roaming around every year. And each year many of those would live to become Toms. It's obvious this would grow the Turkey population in many areas of Indiana. Biologist in some states like Arkansas, have implemented a NO Jake Rule after years of bad hatches. The Biologist said Banning Jakes after bad hatch years will help grow the Turkey population.Indiana could do away with killing turkeys all together and certain areas of the state would still not have a decent turkey population, or a population at all. What exactly is your point? If the turkey were in such dire need of expansion we wouldn't be allowed to hunt them in those areas, and we certainly wouldn't have a fall either sex season for them.... Wait a minute. That is EXACTLY where we were just a few short years ago! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 13:53:01 GMT -5
Although I wouldn't ban Jakes, I do think you have a point about certain areas of Indiana having low turkey numbers.
I think it is kind of ridiculous that turkey hunting is open in as many counties as it is. There are quite a few counties open for turkey hunting that simply don't have huntable populations in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 13:58:18 GMT -5
If you want to see the pros and cons I'd this idea, you can look for Bills same poll on Kyhunting.com There is also two biologist that comment there that says this rule is not needed to grow a turkey flock.
Why some of you are having a hard time with this, other than the two that are just stirring, is that even with a very high gobblers harvest in the Spring, every single hen capable of breeding will be bred. 3000 jakes on a statwide basis is a drop in the bucket. Once poults are hatch a bad rain will kill more than that.
Hens will lay 10 to 14 eggs, and might raise 3 on average. Less than that, you'll have a poor hunt in future years, more than that the herd will go. Jakes have nothing at all to do with it, overall. Statwide, you'll have 100,000 plus turkeys....how would you know if there was 3,000 more tons a year later?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 14:12:19 GMT -5
Of course the INDNR allows Grouse hunting in Indiana, even though the Grouse Population has fallen by over 75% in the last 25 years, I have never understood that rule either. Passing Jakes, saves Jakes. This is needed in places like northern Indiana where seeing a Turkey is almost impossible sometimes. By passing a Jake, it may survive and live to become a 2 year old bird. Like I said, if Indiana Banned Jakes, then Indiana would have a few thousand extra Jakes roaming around every year. And each year many of those would live to become Toms. It's obvious this would grow the Turkey population in many areas of Indiana. Biologist in some states like Arkansas, have implemented a NO Jake Rule after years of bad hatches. The Biologist said Banning Jakes after bad hatch years will help grow the Turkey population.Indiana could do away with killing turkeys all together and certain areas of the state would still not have a decent turkey population, or a population at all. What exactly is your point? If the turkey were in such dire need of expansion we wouldn't be allowed to hunt them in those areas, and we certainly wouldn't have a fall either sex season for them.... Wait a minute. That is EXACTLY where we were just a few short years ago! |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 22, 2012 14:51:26 GMT -5
KL,
Do you realize that you are saying them very same thing in almost every post? It is almost a copy and paste...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 15:13:05 GMT -5
That is because nobody seems to be listening to my points, LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 22, 2012 15:31:55 GMT -5
That is because nobody seems to be listening to my points, LOL What does that tell you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 16:33:53 GMT -5
I think they know I am right, but they simply don't want to sacrifice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 16:39:52 GMT -5
Lol....good one Woody. Spot on too.
Now its grouse. Hunter mortality is not the reason they are in decline, its avian predators and habitat.
Proves that Bill is posting crap that is not backed by science and has no backing by ant biologists
|
|
