With all the various research that has taken place over many years and showing that the poult livability or success rates have dropped and in some cases substantially. Did the research also note if eggs per hen or clutch were the same as in the past or were those numbers down as well? From my limited experience here with grouse, pheasants, waterfowl etc. when predation is occuring on nesting sites the whole clutch is lost. Also if there are fewer toms breeding hens then are there more unfertilized eggs?

Bryce

With all the various research that has taken place over many years and showing that the poult livability or success rates have dropped and in some cases substantially. Did the research also note if eggs per hen or clutch were the same as in the past or were those numbers down as well? From my limited experience here with grouse, pheasants, waterfowl etc. when predation is occuring on nesting sites the whole clutch is lost. Also if there are fewer toms breeding hens then are there more unfertilized eggs?

Bryce

My theory is that many of these states - like Missouri - had such a glut of turkeys that they lived off the excess for years - and as poult rates dropped, they have finally run out of turkeys in the bank. Back in the good days, hunters were killing 60,000 turkeys a year - which would roughly have equated to a population of 600,000 turkeys with maybe 200,000 gobblers and 400,000 hens. There were turkeys everywhere when I used to hunt there. Those 400,000 hens were producing 2 poults per hen - or more. 800,000 new turkeys added to the population each year. As habitat destruction accumulated and fur prices dropped, fewer predators were removed from the habitat, and poult recruitment declined.

But, it was like a guy who has banked a lot of cash and he retires and his annual income drops, but he is doing fine because he is dipping into the bank. Move ahead ten years and the bank is dry and he is having to live off his annual income and things arent nearly as rosy. Fifteen years ago, Missouri had a lot of turkeys in the bank - as did many states. Poult recruitment started dropping - but with all those hens in the bank producing, even though poult per hen numbers were dropping, the banked turkeys still provided good hunting. The bank account is finally running dry - and Missouri is having to live off their annual income instead of banked turkeys - as are many other states.

I lobbied our own G&F for many years to allow year round predator hunting and trapping in an effort to be able to trap during nesting season. They finally came around - but it doesnt result in wholesale changes because not enough people get involved. I went five or six years without hearing a gobbler at my place. Since I have been spring trapping for the past six or seven years, I now have two or three gobblers on my place. Yes, anecdotal evidence, but it happened, none the less. Habitat improvement is the same way - it doesnt happen at scale.

Tall Timbers Plantation has shown it takes very little improvement in nest success to greatly increase production. They have developed a Predator Survey Index using scent stations to determine what is the breaking point for quail production in their area. A little higher percentage or a little lower percentage makes a big difference either way. Predator numbers may only have to be reduced 10% to make a difference. If I apply that to my own ground - say I have four hens, and all eggs or poults are destroyed results in poult recruitment of zero poults per hen. Now, lets say I do some nesting season trapping and removed 25 coons, possums, and skunks - and one of my four hens produces eight poults and the other three hens produce none. Now, my poult recruitment of two poults per hen indicates a stable or increasing population. One successful nest took the local population from a precipitous decline to stable or increasing.

My local turkey population is living off annual production with nothing in the bank to rely on. I have proved this theory with my deer herd. Our G&F was really pushing to balance the deer herd by shooting more does. We bought in and started killing some does. We killed our does down to a one buck to 1.5 doe ratio and our deer herd started declining. Fawn production from the lowered doe population could not keep up with natural mortality. We then stopped killing all does. I can promise - it takes a lot longer to build them back than shoot them down. After seven years of no doe shooting, we got back to a one buck to 2.5 does. Our fawn recruitment is on the low side here - about .45 per doe. You can realistically increase fawn numbers in one of three ways - reduce predation to allow more fawns to live, enhance habitat to decrease fawn detection by predators, or increase doe numbers to increase total number of fawns birthed.

I do all of this, but the thing that works best for me is maintaining a high doe population. I have 350 acres. 20 does at .4 fawns per does produce 8 fawns - not enough to replace annual mortality. 40 does produce 16 fawns at the same fawn recruitment number of .4 - which is considered a poor fawn recruitment number. But, 16 fawns more than replaces all natural mortality and allows us the luxury of killing a couple of does each year. With forty does in the bank, we arent just living off annual fawn production each year.

But, deer management is “easy”. In most cases, you can stop killing deer and the population will respond. Gamebirds dont necessarily respond the same way. I used to know dozens of bird hunters. Now I know none - and the quail have not come back. The two biggest problems found in almost all turkey research is not disease, lack of breeding, infertile eggs, lack of insects, chicken litter - it is lack of nest success and poor chick/poult production.

My theory is that many of these states - like Missouri - had such a glut of turkeys that they lived off the excess for years - and as poult rates dropped, they have finally run out of turkeys in the bank. Back in the good days, hunters were killing 60,000 turkeys a year - which would roughly have equated to a population of 600,000 turkeys with maybe 200,000 gobblers and 400,000 hens. There were turkeys everywhere when I used to hunt there. Those 400,000 hens were producing 2 poults per hen - or more. 800,000 new turkeys added to the population each year. As habitat destruction accumulated and fur prices dropped, fewer predators were removed from the habitat, and poult recruitment declined.

But, it was like a guy who has banked a lot of cash and he retires and his annual income drops, but he is doing fine because he is dipping into the bank. Move ahead ten years and the bank is dry and he is having to live off his annual income and things arent nearly as rosy. Fifteen years ago, Missouri had a lot of turkeys in the bank - as did many states. Poult recruitment started dropping - but with all those hens in the bank producing, even though poult per hen numbers were dropping, the banked turkeys still provided good hunting. The bank account is finally running dry - and Missouri is having to live off their annual income instead of banked turkeys - as are many other states.

I lobbied our own G&F for many years to allow year round predator hunting and trapping in an effort to be able to trap during nesting season. They finally came around - but it doesnt result in wholesale changes because not enough people get involved. I went five or six years without hearing a gobbler at my place. Since I have been spring trapping for the past six or seven years, I now have two or three gobblers on my place. Yes, anecdotal evidence, but it happened, none the less. Habitat improvement is the same way - it doesnt happen at scale.

Tall Timbers Plantation has shown it takes very little improvement in nest success to greatly increase production. They have developed a Predator Survey Index using scent stations to determine what is the breaking point for quail production in their area. A little higher percentage or a little lower percentage makes a big difference either way. Predator numbers may only have to be reduced 10% to make a difference. If I apply that to my own ground - say I have four hens, and all eggs or poults are destroyed results in poult recruitment of zero poults per hen. Now, lets say I do some nesting season trapping and removed 25 coons, possums, and skunks - and one of my four hens produces eight poults and the other three hens produce none. Now, my poult recruitment of two poults per hen indicates a stable or increasing population. One successful nest took the local population from a precipitous decline to stable or increasing.

My local turkey population is living off annual production with nothing in the bank to rely on. I have proved this theory with my deer herd. Our G&F was really pushing to balance the deer herd by shooting more does. We bought in and started killing some does. We killed our does down to a one buck to 1.5 doe ratio and our deer herd started declining. Fawn production from the lowered doe population could not keep up with natural mortality. We then stopped killing all does. I can promise - it takes a lot longer to build them back than shoot them down. After seven years of no doe shooting, we got back to a one buck to 2.5 does. Our fawn recruitment is on the low side here - about .45 per doe. You can realistically increase fawn numbers in one of three ways - reduce predation to allow more fawns to live, enhance habitat to decrease fawn detection by predators, or increase doe numbers to increase total number of fawns birthed.

I do all of this, but the thing that works best for me is maintaining a high doe population. I have 350 acres. 20 does at .4 fawns per does produce 8 fawns - not enough to replace annual mortality. 40 does produce 16 fawns at the same fawn recruitment number of .4 - which is considered a poor fawn recruitment number. But, 16 fawns more than replaces all natural mortality and allows us the luxury of killing a couple of does each year. With forty does in the bank, we arent just living off annual fawn production each year.

But, deer management is “easy”. In most cases, you can stop killing deer and the population will respond. Gamebirds dont necessarily respond the same way. I used to know dozens of bird hunters. Now I know none - and the quail have not come back. The two biggest problems found in almost all turkey research is not disease, lack of breeding, infertile eggs, lack of insects, chicken litter - it is lack of nest success and poor chick/poult production.

My theory is that many of these states - like Missouri - had such a glut of turkeys that they lived off the excess for years - and as poult rates dropped, they have finally run out of turkeys in the bank. Back in the good days, hunters were killing 60,000 turkeys a year - which would roughly have equated to a population of 600,000 turkeys with maybe 200,000 gobblers and 400,000 hens. There were turkeys everywhere when I used to hunt there. Those 400,000 hens were producing 2 poults per hen - or more. 800,000 new turkeys added to the population each year. As habitat destruction accumulated and fur prices dropped, fewer predators were removed from the habitat, and poult recruitment declined.

But, it was like a guy who has banked a lot of cash and he retires and his annual income drops, but he is doing fine because he is dipping into the bank. Move ahead ten years and the bank is dry and he is having to live off his annual income and things arent nearly as rosy. Fifteen years ago, Missouri had a lot of turkeys in the bank - as did many states. Poult recruitment started dropping - but with all those hens in the bank producing, even though poult per hen numbers were dropping, the banked turkeys still provided good hunting. The bank account is finally running dry - and Missouri is having to live off their annual income instead of banked turkeys - as are many other states.

I lobbied our own G&F for many years to allow year round predator hunting and trapping in an effort to be able to trap during nesting season. They finally came around - but it doesnt result in wholesale changes because not enough people get involved. I went five or six years without hearing a gobbler at my place. Since I have been spring trapping for the past six or seven years, I now have two or three gobblers on my place. Yes, anecdotal evidence, but it happened, none the less. Habitat improvement is the same way - it doesnt happen at scale.

Tall Timbers Plantation has shown it takes very little improvement in nest success to greatly increase production. They have developed a Predator Survey Index using scent stations to determine what is the breaking point for quail production in their area. A little higher percentage or a little lower percentage makes a big difference either way. Predator numbers may only have to be reduced 10% to make a difference. If I apply that to my own ground - say I have four hens, and all eggs or poults are destroyed results in poult recruitment of zero poults per hen. Now, lets say I do some nesting season trapping and removed 25 coons, possums, and skunks - and one of my four hens produces eight poults and the other three hens produce none. Now, my poult recruitment of two poults per hen indicates a stable or increasing population. One successful nest took the local population from a precipitous decline to stable or increasing.

My local turkey population is living off annual production with nothing in the bank to rely on. I have proved this theory with my deer herd. Our G&F was really pushing to balance the deer herd by shooting more does. We bought in and started killing some does. We killed our does down to a one buck to 1.5 doe ratio and our deer herd started declining. Fawn production from the lowered doe population could not keep up with natural mortality. We then stopped killing all does. I can promise - it takes a lot longer to build them back than shoot them down. After seven years of no doe shooting, we got back to a one buck to 2.5 does. Our fawn recruitment is on the low side here - about .45 per doe. You can realistically increase fawn numbers in one of three ways - reduce predation to allow more fawns to live, enhance habitat to decrease fawn detection by predators, or increase doe numbers to increase total number of fawns birthed.

I do all of this, but the thing that works best for me is maintaining a high doe population. I have 350 acres. 20 does at .4 fawns per does produce 8 fawns - not enough to replace annual mortality. 40 does produce 16 fawns at the same fawn recruitment number of .4 - which is considered a poor fawn recruitment number. But, 16 fawns more than replaces all natural mortality and allows us the luxury of killing a couple of does each year. With forty does in the bank, we arent just living off annual fawn production each year.

But, deer management is “easy”. In most cases, you can stop killing deer and the population will respond. Gamebirds dont necessarily respond the same way. I used to know dozens of bird hunters. Now I know none - and the quail have not come back. The two biggest problems found in almost all turkey research is not disease, lack of breeding, infertile eggs, lack of insects, chicken litter - it is lack of nest success and poor chick/poult production.

Great post. You described exactly the problem and the potential fix.

The only puzzling thing about your theory related to areas with a bank full of turkeys is how did those areas get a bank full of turkwy to start with?

Some areas did have good predator control when fur prices were higher, but not all (ie the deep South).

Many areas that have seen a turkey decline have not had much habitat destruction...so not sure about that, especially down here.

Georgia maintained 2 decades or so of high poult production/survival until the early 2000s...and hasn't been able to increase the numbers since.

The Georgia poult numbers come from annual DNR employee observations statewide that are compiled by our biologists...so there that is...lol.

Agree with claycreech. In the last little fur boom there was a lot of trapping, cable restraints, predator hunting around here and still a decrease in the turkey population. Wildlife lifespan in general is very short. A 3-5 year hard hit on the predators should have shown some results. Pheasants are tough and smart. We used to have a very hunt able population and now basically none. Quail are around which are dumber and not as tough come a hard winter. I can't explain that one. I have mulled over the disease thought which is possible just not sure. Lack of insects is very visible. Used to be in the summer going fishing to the pond was a constant bombardment of grasshoppers now usually none. Around here the thermal hunters hit the coyotes very hard and I believe are making a dent in the population. If they keep it up then a difference should be noticed.