Originally Posted by oldbowhunter
Originally Posted by poorcountrypreacher


I noticed some guy asked him this question on Twitter:

>>> How much higher is the poult recruitment rate on unhunted land vs similar land that is hunted? I think that is the number you need to publicize.<<<

And this was his response:

>>>We are just beginning a large-scale study on a nonhunted population, and can hopefully answer that question.<<<

So the guy asked a follow-up question:

>>>I would have thought that had been studied long ago. The SC study had lots of info about their nonhunted area, but I couldn't find any mention of the poult recruitment rate on it. I was surprised by that<<<

And this was the reply:

>>>Yes, we've been doing gobbling work there for several years, but only recently secured enough funding to do the reproductive work.<<<

So let me translate that for you: There is still no evidence that legal Spring hunting of gobblers has any effect on poult production. All we have is a theory that has been repeated enough that it is now regarded as The Truth.


If all hunting is stopped and no one is allowed to ever enter any property we would have more turkeys.

Maybe a brief season from July 4th-July 10th.


Even if all hunting were stopped, they don't have any proof that it would lead to any more turkeys other than the 9000 or so that are legally killed each spring. The state biologists tell us that we have over 500,000 in AL, so that legal harvest number seems pretty insignificant.

This map was put out by the Southeastern study group:

[Linked Image]

This map was produced by some of the same people who are saying that we need to change the harvest, yet are we to believe that nobody ever compared the recruitment rate in the nonhunted areas vs hunted areas? You gotta admit, that seems unlikely. I think it far more likely that the comparisons have been made, and they found no difference, so they don't mention it.

All the labor of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.