In a word, Yes! Which is why I don't think succumbing to public pressure is a good idea from the educated and experienced Biologists at the State agency that makes hunting regulations. They have dedicated both their education dollars and their career choices and lives to natural resource and wildlife management - something VERY FEW hunters or other public participants have done! Most also read every research paper on their subject of interest every chance they get, also something most public resource users rarely do.

We burned around 700 acres of this place last Thu and Fri. Private hunting land that is on a 3-4 year burn rotation and has had MOST burns in the last 10 years being April and May burns. Their turkey population has skyrocketed based on these recommendations. I would rather turkey hunt this place than pretty much every other place in Alabama that I know of.

How many turkey nests did we burn up? I don't know but quite a few I am sure!

[img]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p261/gobbler06/th_IMG_0755_zpsxcvcdqxu.mp4[/img]

Go read Chamberlains Effects of Variable Spring Harvest Regimes on Annual Survival and Recovery Rates of Male Wild Turkeys in Southeast Louisiana, 2012.

I would assume because most hens would be bred again and nest again.........and surviving poults having a better habitat for nutritional needs their first several months.

I would assume because most hens would be bred again and nest again.........and surviving poults having a better habitat for nutritional needs their first several months.

An educated man

Sacrificing a little in the short-term for the benefit of the long-term.

Matt, thanks for all the info and for taking time to post on aldeer. I do appreciate it, and don't forget that I asked you to be my Commissioner when I get elected governor.

I guess this coulda been directed at somebody else, but I seem to be the most likely suspect:

>>>Another observation of mine is the ones who seem to have the biggest problem with change are the ones happily killing their limit each season, not experiencing a decline, and are determined to do it their way regardless of what the research indicates, and with no regard for the resource. <<<

I will plead guilty to trying to kill my limit, and we haven't had a decline on my properties. But I am certainly not against change when research indicates we need it. I had heard of some of the studies you mentioned, but as gobbler said, it looks like a change in the starting date of the season would address those issues, not a change in the limit. I can remember when the season was March 20-April 25 every year, and they still had a 5 bird limit. As they gradually increased the season, it didn't seem to impact the population.

IF research could somehow prove that a reduction in the limit was truly needed to protect the population, then I would certainly be for it. But if we are going to even have a discussion on reducing the limit for a research based reason, it appears to me that the first thing we all need to know is how many limits are killed. The fact that the state won't release that figure is concerning to me, and I think you can see why. They sure didn't mind publicizing the number of hunters that were killing more than 3 bucks when we had that debate. I don't remember the numbers used, but they were quoted often on this site.

But the part about having "no regard for the resource" bothers me indeed. I have been a strong advocate for the wild turkey all of my adult life. I have vigorously opposed the killing of hens, and was willing to support the protection on jakes before gobbler convinced me it was a bad idea. I've opposed doing away with daily limits because I think it leads to massacres of bachelor flocks in the early season. All of this was just talk, and probably worthless as far as protecting any turkeys.

But I can claim to have done a lot of habitat improvement to actually produce more turkeys. That does benefit me, but it also benefits all my neighbors. I doubt there are many amateur turkey managers who spend as large a % of their time and money to benefit turkeys. And I've always tried to share what I've learned with others so they can do the same. I don't think the "no regard for the resource" is deserved.

I'm not against change when it's needed. I just think it oughta be change that actually accomplishes something. I hope the committee will make sure that any changes they propose are truly needed and proven to work.

A good evening to all! I am in Cheyenne, OK; hoping to go out tomorrow and rape and pillage their resources.

so.... you are saying that hens being bred again would have the same success as they would have before the initial destruction? Because the habitat can be created before most of the nesting takes place.....

Gobbler, I'm not saying you are wrong, obviously you are much more studied on the scientific end of things than I am. But...I am a very logical person, so I'm inviting you to use a logical argument or present facts that disprove me.

I would say this. Would it be better, in most cases, to get your burning done before April? ... yes, in most cases. Growing season burns have different effects on the habitat and woody vegetation as well as insect populations. Sometimes burning in the growing season is what the doctor ordered and sacrificing a few turkey nests does little damage in the grand scheme of things. I would guess that one or 2 raccoons and a coopers hawk on this property destroyed more turkey nests and poults on the place than our 700 acre burn. However 2 raccoons and a coopers hawk didn't make any better habitat, less dense vegetation, more growing, lush vegetation or more insects to help turkey poults or keep the nesting habitat in good order for next year!

One of our problems is we can't burn all our properties in the winter either and we have learned the benefits of growing season burns. Read this:
http://www.talltimbers.org/images/pubs/FireBreedingBirdsBooklet-small.pdf

The ability of hens to re-nest has been proven time after time. I would rather do a habitat improvement regardless of the time of year it gets done. Destroying a few nests will be negated by the amount of birds you'll draw from surrounding areas. Sometimes a warm season fire is needed to knockout the undesired hardwoods in your timber stand. We have a 40 acre stand of thinned pines that used to hold birds but the sweetgums are so thick now that the birds have moved elsewhere. I wish they'd light it up now. The February burn they did 2 years ago only made them come back thicker.

The ability of hens to re-nest has been proven time after time. I would rather do a habitat improvement regardless of the time of year it gets done. Destroying a few nests will be negated by the amount of birds you'll draw from surrounding areas. Sometimes a warm season fire is needed to knockout the undesired hardwoods in your timber stand. We have a 40 acre stand of thinned pines that used to hold birds but the sweetgums are so thick now that the birds have moved elsewhere. I wish they'd light it up now. The February burn they did 2 years ago only made them come back thicker.

An aerial application of Arsenal would do the trick, as well.

As I said, in my example, it was a beautiful piece of habitat prior to the most recent burning. Select cut mixed woods with 1' tall green vegetation through it. If the habitat really needed it, I could see making it happen regardless, but as it stood, it struck me as a big screwup

Not anywhere close. It would kill the gum (and every big oak on the property), but would do nothing for the habitat, thin the vegetation, stimulate forb, grass, and legume production, scarify seeds lying dormant in the soil, expose mineral soil, create good brood habitat, encourage insect production, make the vegetation open enough for poults to walk, remove dead thatch, etc........ Plus it would cost as much as 5 of our burns, maybe 15-20 years worth.

I am in Cheyenne, OK; hoping to go out tomorrow and rape and pillage their resources.