Another Perspective on Season Date Changes

[trkykilr]

Good luck and have fun. In many places, nature has just about reached a balance despite man's efforts, but SC is not yet one of those and we seem to be trying harder than most to beat Mother Nature into submission.

SC may not be one of those places where it is so drastic, but SC is one of those places where the birds still have the ability to regulate themselves to an extent. Their bodies know when we need a better hatch and their bodies make a better hatch happen, assuming the weather cooperates.

[Stripa Swipa]

Again: When PPH falls to the 1.5 range, population is affected and we CAN see that in the current harvest data in SC and most other places. In some, they have hovered around that static level, but others have seen declines triggered. One of the factors that is detrimental to reproduction IS hunting during the peak breeding period. WTF would we go out of our way to do that in the context of the overall decline in Reproduction?

So this is what this discussion should boil down to. I agree that the conservative "management" approach that we should support is reduce hunting's impact on contribution. The data says most breeding happens before April 1. The data says most birds are killed 'opening week'. The data says that reducing the folks that killed five to three won't have much of an impact. While I agree, Tuffy, that the data that exists is enough that reasonable people with the resource's best interest in mind should be open to this approach, I'll disagree with the thought that more and better data wouldn't set us up for better management in the future. Complex systems with high causal density can always be better understood with more and better data. Since I have to fill out this kind of information for other states, I guess I'm struggling to buy into the skepticism about how it would be so invaluable but I do get reminded every time I come here this is still SC. When I hunted Alaska two seasons ago, I had to file an electronic hunt report by a certain date or forfeit the opportunity to buy a tag in the future. I'm headed back this fall.....hmmmmm.

Our scientific understanding of earthquakes is on par with hurricanes. However, we can manage the impact of one much better than the other. The difference is our level of visibility. A more strategic approach to data collection could go a long way towards helping us manage the resource appropriately and in this day and age at very minimal cost.

[Tuffy]

It's about 50/50 in the SE between those states that use a survey and those that use some form of checking to estimate harvest. Of those that use a survey, SC is probably the most complete for turkeys. We mail out (27,000) survey forms to about 1/2 of all of those with turkey tags. Many other states mail as few as 1/5 (5,000) as many and are mailing them to a selection from all hunters, not just those with turkey tags. In the states that do, or have, looked at both surveys and checking, the numbers from checking vary between 20% and 65% of the survey numbers. I believe that Alabama shot 300,000 deer, not the 60,000 that their current reporting would indicate and certainly not the 15,000 voluntary checking number that they show. With turkeys, it's much more likely that they shot the 30,000 from the survey than the 2,000 that were checked.

Still, it really doesn't matter very much at all. Of the three states that I graphed above (AR, MO, MS), two of those are, I believe, check numbers and one is a survey like SC. I might perceive that MO has a much more efficient check system than AR, but I can't see any difference in the ability of either to capture a trend in comparison to one another OR to the surveys in SC and MS. It's pretty much a waste of time to think that hard about the perceived quality of the data and it would be a waste of money (and increased inaccuracy) to implement checking to replace the survey. It would be much more reasonable to argue that we put TOO MUCH effort into it and don't have anything better than states that are doing much "lighter" sampling.

You're right, there is enough to indicate what we should, and should not, do with our regulations. Let's not weaken that by doubting the data.

[joshua2]

I have to ask tho. Of the 27,000 surveys that are mailed out in SC, how do you know that they are in the hands of turkey hunters? Just from the folks I know, I'd say 95% get tags because they are free and may go 1-2 times a season if that. These are not the folks you want filling out the surveys. These people would almost assuredly be canceled out if some form of $ was put on the tags. Are we saying that this method is as good as we can get as far as the #s being killed? For this single reason alone, I don't believe the validity of the surveys. Like I said before you will never know and have never known the exact #s being killed, so how can anyone come up with whats best for the state if the numbers are off.

[Tuffy]

As I've said before, we couldn't care much less what the exact number that are killed might be. Multiply what we have by 10 or divide it by 10; it makes no difference at all. We don't know how many there are out there or how many the land can hold, so that number is not important. What is important is how it changes from year-to-year-to-year. If you KNEW beyond any doubt from some new magic method that exactly 20,000 turkeys were killed this year, it would be worthless knowledge until we had determined it that same way for a number of years.... Or adjust past survey numbers to estimate it after a few years of doing both. Then, we would be debating magic with even less faith in it.

The very last thing that we would want to do is to take a sample of only those that killed birds. We would never know that your 95% is the right number and we would never have any idea how many tried to any extent at all and were unsuccessful. We do want to know how much they tried and how much effort it took by those that were successful. That info is ONE of the things that lets us evaluate how the situation is changing over time. In your example, I'm fairly certain that darned close to 5% of the surveys ARE in the hands of those that were killing birds in your example. I want it as close to that as possible because that is the real number and I want to know it. HALF of the population is actually a ridiculously huge sample.

[Bigtimber2]

Tuffy excellent and informative explanation. I don't you will ever gain much ground explaining why surveys work well for they are intended to do. You would be better to figure why some do not accept surveys. My guess is reduction in the population could mean more restriction and many hunters aren't the resource first types.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Stripa Swipa]

I agree with Tuffy that the data is sufficient to show us trends. We could have more explanatory variables as part of the data set and we could get it in a timelier fashion.

Question for the master....why does Williamsburg County have the highest bird per hunter harvest over the last ten years?

[Tuffy]

I agree with Tuffy that the data is sufficient to show us trends. We could have more explanatory variables as part of the data set and we could get it in a timelier fashion.

Question for the master....why does Williamsburg County have the highest bird per hunter harvest over the last ten years?

Williamsburg County is the personification of what turned out to be the best possible habitat for wild turkey populations and hunting that population. It will be the last one to go, but .....

[LabLuvR]

I was just reading a study on the population decline, not only in the SE, but other states as well. There seems to mounting evidence that the raccoon is a greater threat than once thought. There is also growing concern about the early opening season dates. I guess studies and time will tell.

[Tuffy]

We've done too many studies over too long a time. SCDNR and NWTF explained to us long ago about how seasons should be set. They just forgot what they said, it seems.

[LabLuvR]

No they didn't, the politicians overruled them apparently.

[Tuffy]

I have a name at both DNR and NWTF that deserve a pass, but there were more than the politicians involved in that cluster. The politicians did what they are supposed to do. Others did not.