Are you saying you wouldn’t support it because it wont produce extra turkeys in virtually every county?.....It wont bring back “trapping” and get more people involved??.......It wont give all hunters a way to have more skin in the game???.........It wont increase hunter satisfaction??.......Because I see it having a net positive effect on all of those……. What are the potential negative impacts or risks for trying?? Pretty low arent they???
How many days do y’all think they would have to take off of the season and birds off of the bag limit for that approach to actually make a positive change to the population???.......I’m guessing it’s fairly significant……Realistically like a 2 bird limit or something……or better yet, how far do you think they’ll decrease it before they quit trying??
What other solutions are there??......Its not like we’re gonna suddenly discover new means of creating turkeys…….We’ll still be sitting here talking about habitat 10 years from now and barely enough will have changed to balance out the amount being lost…….Where is it y’all plan on doing anything to make a difference???
Whatever problem we MAY have with turkeys is NOT because of predators across the state. Therefore a bounty will not help. I don't see it having a net positive on any of those. I would be more inclined to pay a buck an acre for every acre burned. That might help.
I also don't think the dominant gobbler being killed in early season is the problem therefore lowering the limit and delaying season start date will not help either. Therefore limiting harvest or changing seasons will not help change the population as a whole.
These are the reasons I opposed the season changes in the first place. If we have a program or make a season or limit change we should damn well have some data to back it up. Something actually showing 1) we have a problem and 2) that the proposed solution will be impactful.
