2016 Wild Turkey Summer Survey

[Tuffy]

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/turke...oodSurvey.html

[Tuffy]

Note the total number of Hens and Poults that have been observed over the years. only 2003/04 were lower. Factor in the number of gobblers calculated from the G/H ratio and this was the lowest total observations over the last 16 years. The last two years have seen, by far, the lowest Gobbler/Hen ratios of the last 16 years. Mother Nature seems to have made some effort to compensate for the declining numbers, but it still leaves us with the 3rd lowest number of observed poults over that time.

%#^%^%$&$%*

[BRR]

These results are peculiar. I have seen more poults this year than in the last 10 years. Have seen more turkeys this fall deer hunting than anytime in the last 10 years.
These are just my observations. I work all over the state, so it's not just localized.

[Tuffy]

I suspect that the Summer Survey is prone to some oddities of observations. It was designed to spot hens and poults in open areas. Current populations (and areas) may not lend themselves to the same methods, but the decline in the long-term method results till concerns me.

My own observations in a diverse region, but probably a lot less than yours, would be more consistent with the pessimistic view. Thus, the population IS up in some of the "newer" areas and down in some of the areas that have long held large populations. The net effect is not good, though, IMO.

[aquaman]

Tuffy who do you work for?

[BRR]

The poults I have seen this year were always near thick cover, never in the wide open.

[Tuffy]

Tuffy who do you work for?

Nobody in the outdoor field. I'm just into turkeys in particular and numbers in general.

[Tuffy]

[Strick9]

I can't argue that one little bit.. Text me with those updates

[Tuffy]

It's possible that the lower observations were, to some degree at least, caused by significantly lower numbers of observers this year.

[surfcock]

Why don't they adjust for the number of people participating Tuffy? Is there a way to adjust for total acreage observed year by year to get more of a population density in the areas studied?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Tuffy]

Well, despite my concerns about the number of birds observed, it probably doesn't matter for the real purposes of this survey. What they are really doing is taking a sample of the population to capture things like G/H ratio, % hens with/without poults, average brood size, and a resulting "recruitment" measure of reproduction.

I can accept that the sample is large enough and, thus, the planned measurements are probably valid estimates. There may, or may not be, some questions of areas surveyed to make sure it is not a statistically "biased" estimate. Obviously, some standardized effort would be better and allow more information on population and other things.

For now, population is probably best estimated from the harvest data and only as an index at that. We very much complicated that with the season length/limit changes this past year. For me, my own perceptions and concerns lead me to focus on the increased Man-Days per Harvest in many areas and the lower numbers of turkeys observed. Given a different set of concerns or optimism, those might all seem different in cause and meaning. I worry about the risks to the population; others might just see more hunting opportunity for more people.

Guess if there were ZERO wild turkeys in South Carolina, we could have a 12 month season with no limits and have plenty of hunting opportunity for everyone.

[flockbuster]

Tuffy you are one of the few on here whose opinions I value when it comes to this stuff. If you were king of the world, what would you recommend as far as limits and season lengths, etc. Not trying to stir up shit, just looking for opinions from well informed folks instead of the "we have always done it this way, why fix something that ain't broke crowd."

[surfcock]

For now, population is probably best estimated from the harvest data and only as an index at that. We very much complicated that with the season length/limit changes this past year. For me, my own perceptions and concerns lead me to focus on the increased Man-Days per Harvest in many areas and the lower numbers of turkeys observed. Given a different set of concerns or optimism, those might all seem different in cause and meaning. I worry about the risks to the population; others might just see more hunting opportunity for more people.

While I would love it if we had a better method for assessing population, I agree completely. I feel like the average man days per harvest is an intriguing method of assessment. I think it is something that can shift depending on a lot of factors, but like you think it may be one of our more important pieces of information gathered by the state currently. I would think we might see any trend shifts from the new seasons equalize after about 5 years, but with the ever increasing coyote population and other factors, that is a long time from now.

[Tuffy]

IF y'all would have written-me-in on Election Day, I would be king. If that would have happened, then having no answer would be my problem. As it is, I can bounce around this as much as the next fellow. So ..... IMO:

What is really needed is an inventory and classification system for turkey habitat of different general types across the state. Along with that, we need to come up with some Habitat Suitability Index for each of the 6-8 types that we might come up with. The goal would be to identify the carrying capacity of different areas. Of course, we'd then have to come up with some population estimate, perhaps as simple as % of capacity. Then, I think we would see that some areas with significant possibilities have a real population problem and action is needed. Other areas may turn out to be in good shape, but the trends would require monitoring. The bottom line would be that we would have to accept the necessity of managing different ways in different areas, notably in terms of season length and bag limits.

Some of this exists in one place or another, but the habitat-targeted (localized) management is something that we have allowed to be taken off the table without much debate. In the political world that we have, I'm afraid that we would end up being able to manage ONLY public land to any effect. That is exactly what we are doing now in a sense, but the public land is probably so far out-of-control that it's hard to see the benefits in the near future.

We can almost "see" some of those habitat types in different parts of the state, but they are intermingled and we have neither the HSI or levels of population estimates that are needed. Other states have done work to develop HSI types, but not much on the population that does the job. Until we do, my royal decree would be to identify those county groups in which the effort required to harvest a gobbler really appears to be headed in the wrong direction. Then, I'd anger both the "paradise island" owners in those areas and the weekend campers by sharply reducing both seasons and limits in a number of places.

Having said that: There IS some hint of good news in the recruitment. It sucks, but Mother Nature showed signs of life, anyway.

[flockbuster]

I'll vote for you in 2020. I'm sure people will be getting tired of P. T. Barnum by then so you should have a hell of a chance.

[Beauregard]

Interesting to me that the article quotes Jay Cantrell using almost exactly the same words as old quotes from Charles Ruth. Not much original writing going into the explanation of results.