Game Zones Harvests

[2thDoc]

There are too many non-numerical factors to prove what you think you are saying.

How do you factor in hunting pressure from yahoos with strutter decoys? (edited to add) How do call that "pressure" when its just some rubberhead sitting in a blind in the middle of the road? (sorry jason). hehe

[Tuffy]

You're absolutely right, but I think I'm a little closer to facts and a little further from just my personal experience and bias by using the numbers. They are the closest we could ever come to "proving" anything about the resource and how it should be managed. The population IS down from previous levels, but our view of it IS clouded by phased populations across different parts of the state and changing hunter methods. None of that changes the bottom line as indicated by the data, though.

If the population was fixed and we added hunters/effort AND increased the effectiveness of hunting with the strutters, we would have seen increases greater than the increased effort. That didn't happen. Among other things, that makes the strutters the least of our concerns.

[Tuffy]

This is our L-T view. Reproduction (PPH) has been declining for a long time, but Harvest only since 2002 when it peaked and PPH reached the levels to start to decline the population (on the state level).

[Tuffy]

S.C. is not unique. This is Arkansas:

[Tuffy]

Most of the SE states look very similar with L-T declining PPH numbers and Harvest declines from the early 2000s. Some states (maybe SC?) have been able to stabilize at a lower level than their peaks, but THAT may be a function of improved hunter efficiency as PPH hasn't really improved anywhere.

http://web.ftc-i.net/~tuffye/turkeystates

[joshua2]

You will never and I mean never truly know how many birds are killed a year using any method. Believe it or not there are still people in this world that don't have a www account or even know what a facebook is.

[Tuffy]

We never, ever NEED to know how many. We just need to know if more or less were killed from year-to-year. We know.

[joshua2]

Thats all fine if the #s you are using are correct. People don't tell everything they do. Do you actually think someone would say on a harvest report or tell anyone that matters, "hey, I killed 20 gobblers last year"
I will never believe the #s are close to what is truly killed each year.

[2thDoc]

but how do you "set" the population you are after? Or is it just "more birds than last year?"

how you factor in the INCREASE in "reportability"? My word for the opposite of what joshua is saying. how much better (or worse) were the numbers when we had to check in birds?

[joshua2]

With the known increase of hunters enjoying this wonderful sport, one can only imagine that the number of outlaw hunters have increased as well. Once again, the #s could be way off.

2th, I believe the days of check stations were some of the best as far as a true understanding of the #s being killed.

[Tuffy]

Now, I REALLY agree with you there. THE problem in managing the resource is that we haven't figured out how many birds we have the capacity to have or the amount of harvest that can be sustained at those levels. We may very well have exceeded the carrying capacity of our habitat as we restocked and restored populations. The L-T carrying capacity may well be at something more like current levels. Still, at that level, we would have less margin-for-error in our management and could easily tip the population into further declines below CC if we haven't already. Further, likely continued decreases in available habitat would be expected to steadily lower CC over time. All of that is what makes me really have problems with increasingly liberal regulations.

Both DNR and NWTF are aware of the need to evaluate the amount and quality of habitat and try to come up with current and possible populations... and subsequent harvest that could be sustained. It has NOT happened and I'm not confident when it will. In the meantime, we make every effort to harvest more and more and it becomes increasingly more difficult by some measures. We also continue to study the same factors of population with the same results that we have been getting for 40 years even as those outside of resource management implement more liberal regulations.

The Harvest Reports do/did include comparison numbers between the old check-station and the new survey that were run together for a number of years. Actually, I think that the old numbers have been "adjusted" to make them comparable to the more recent survey values. How we count that really is NOT a problem. Debating the precision of it distracts from the real questions of habitat, population, and regulation changes. No matter how it was done, the conclusions wouldn't change and having those doubts only weakens the resource management position and leaves the population NOT managed.

[Tuffy]

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/turke...keyHarvest.pdf

Figure 3 ; Page 16

[Tuffy]

Well? Does that help the confidence in the Survey? It pretty much tracks the Check Station values perfectly and implies that the checking was missing at least some percentage of the birds. If we worry about missing some, doesn't this say that the Survey is better?

[JBtflo]

I promise you there were people not going to check stations once the bird was in the truck...

[Tuffy]

Exactly. After the season, more birds are reported on the Survey than were actually checked. That makes sense to me.

[joshua2]

Well, there are people who get surveys that throw them in the trash as soon they get em in hand. How accurate are those I wonder.

I completely agree with what has been said here. By using the charts listed, then by all means make the season 4-1 to 5-15 or something along those lines. My main concern would be the ones in charge that are making these decisions. Anybody with half a brain can see that opening the season longer for much of the state while in a decline would not benefit the resource. I didn't include the limit reduction, because from what I'm seeing there are more birds being killed now then when the limit was 5.

[trkykilr]

I have hunted a lot of states and one Canadian province. If I think of the places that could get the best harvest count from their tagging system, Ontario would stand out. WHen you kill a bird you have to call their government and are issued a number before you transport the bird. You are also done shooting birds for the day and if you have killed, your gun must be in a case.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it had me pretty scared

[LabLuvR]

I promise you there were people not going to check stations once the bird was in the truck...

Hell, what check stations??

[Tuffy]