Do to some questions and inquires, below one will find answers to many questions and I hope more recommendations for improvement for the overall plan. I and other SAC members would appreciate any input and or direct feedback to the VDGIF.

The Plan will be signed off in January by the executive board.

Thanks again for any input.

Earl

The main Plan:
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/t ... t-plan.pdf

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/t ... g-process/

Thanks for posting that Earl. A lot of interesting numbers.

Thanks Earl!!!

Earl, do you think there's a chance that they're going to go with the proposal to increase the incidental turkey kills by deer hunters?

Yes, that strongly looks to happen. Although 3 of us voted against it and brought up the point on how it would be perceived by deer hunters if the fall turkey hunters were allowed to take 50% of the deer. Myself and the 2 others are staying on top of that and already got a number of folks looking at other was to allocate the number of fall birds killed.

Again, all that is in the management plan will need adjusting throughout the whole 10 year plan and the State knows and welcomes any new proposals for it.


Earl

interesting read for all turkey hunters---several state wildlife agencies in the southeast are trying to focus on a perceived(and probably actual) population drop in the overall number of birds in the region. Tennessee has had a very significant harvest/population drop in some south central counties which have historically been "top ten" harvest counties. Interestingly these were also some of the counties where hunters in recent years killed very large numbers of fall birds. Talk are about lowering limits and shortening seasons ...yet This spring apparently produced a large poult hatch in many counties in the appalachians...trying to implement a universal statewide season length and limits in areas as diverse in geography as Virginia, Tenn, NC ,SC ,Ga,Ky is IMO dartboard work at best. But it looks like the Va managers have tried to include many factors in their process. Would love to hear from some of you who participated in the focus groups about whether they felt the process was worthwhile and if their input was heard and considered? or whether they merely got polite attention but had iittle input in the plan in the end of the day? Complicated stuff.

I do know the focus group meetings were instrumental in the SAC meetings we had. We took all the FGM and consolidated them in our discussions and end result.

In fact if you look at the highlighted (bottom one) in the first post is The Focus Group Executive Summary that shows a guideline used from the FGM. I do have the copies of all the focus group meetings that I and others studied prior to the SAC meetings. Great input from all the FGM and guidelines were set from them and other outside sources for review during the meetings.

You are correct that it is dartboard project to start, but myself and others feel that as the years progress that goals will be achieved through hard work of all involved. The more involved the better and hopefully faster end results will be achieved.

The feedback we got from members of the Focus Group Meetings is that it was mixed so far as if they felt they were being heard and considered. Once we got putting something together more positive feedback was received as folks seen that what was brought up in the FGM was being discussed in the SAC meetings.

I and others on the board requested that once all is approved in January that copies be sent to all that were in the FGM and that hopefully more input and direction from those folks be received and considered.

Again this is a long process and being this is the first of its kind here in VA. a lot of improvements can be made in the coming years to develop a sound Wild Turkey Management program.

I personnelle believe that with sound solid input from the general hunting population and others that the State can implement a program that will give balance to the turkey population by region and even counties for all spring and fall hunters to come. It will take a lot of work and the dreaded word money to make it happen.

For those that want to see the other States and how they are managed is get copies of the Symposiums that are conducted every 5 years by many State wild turkey biologists ( great info). Usually they are put out by the NWTF. But I will tell you that unless one has a degree in that area and the charts, graphs and formulas that are used it can get very dry. But for the most part one can get a lot of turkey management ideas and direction and methods others use in other States.

In fact the last one 2 years ago was headed up by Gary Norman. If one was to contact his office they may be able to get you a copy.

Thanks again guys for your input.

Earl

Looks like a big step backwards to me.

There are 3 of us on the board that agrees with you in that Statement.

Earl

Yes... Agree on the "incidental kills". I told them in the focus group that making a turkey an opportunity target while deer hunting does not make a turkey hunter... they are a turkey killer. Big difference! The push for basically allowing people to shoot a turkey anytime they want while in the woods will look good on the fall numbers, but is bad for the overall health of the turkey population.

My recommendation was to allow people to buy a bonus fall turkey tag for turkey rich areas that could handle it... I would gladly pay $20 to shoot a fall turkey. Most other people that save all their tags for spring would gladly do the same. The VDGIF needs money, so raise some that way. Your regular license will still give you the 3 turkey tags... this would just be a bonus, fall only, tag for specific counties.

My 2 cents...

Agree 100%. I think this is a huge push in the wrong direction to make fall "turkey hunter" #'s increase but it is at the cost of the turkey population. I too would gladly pay $20 for fall only tags, and would probably stop deer hunting in the fall if DGIF did this. I really enjoy fall turkey hunting and am fortunate to hunt in turkey rich counties. I would say that by adding the fall only tags the DGIF would get a true number of the fall turkey hunters and not the turkey shooters that the backpedaling would achieve. My personal opinion!

Why does the DGIF feel there needs to be more fall hens killed anyway? Did I miss that in the plan somewhere?

That is one of the areas they are looking at for the fall, adding an extra tag in the more populated areas either as a lottery which one will pay for or as a separate purchase.

I and others seen where that was brought up and everyone on the committee agreed.

Freddy, I am sure when you brought up the incidental killing in the focus group you also had others object to it then as we 3 did in our meetings. The winery association rep wants kill permits issued to those wine makers that turkeys are destroying their crops. They want the permits issued in July and August since that is the only time of the year they are seen in the grapes. The State and others on the committee strongly oppose this but to keep things calm and on a lower level the State did tell the representative that they would look harder in that area with studies to verify the destruction. Hopefully that will pacify them till the State comes up with other alternatives, i.e. trapping, getting them to open their land for hunting, etc.

HL, its not so much more hens killed its that they want the total number of birds killed that they feel will still be within the matrix that they developed for fall and spring harvests. Its just that they want more fall turkey hunters (revenue) but to do that they feel that they need to allow the deer hunters to kill 50% of the allocation. If that makes sense. We 3 that objected to it are still scratching our heads.

Thanks again for the great input.


Earl

Yeah, that is definitely a head-scratcher.

If it's about revenue, deer hunters have already bought big game tags, so no additional revenue will be forthcoming. The only thing it will do is increase the pressure on the turkey flock with incidental kills. Makes no sense if managing the turkey flock well is the goal. Something else must be behind the proposal. Politics is my guess.

I don't want to start a debate and I can see that opinion on the board mostly runs in one direction. I have great respect for turkeys as a resource and for the turkey hunting experts who advocate for it. But as long as total harvest numbers are crafted to align with management goals, I fail to see anything intrinsically wrong with incidental kills by deer hunters. The health of the population is dictated by bottom line harvest totals, not by the particulars of what a hunter was wearing or shooting with or sitting on when he shot the turkey. I don't see people worrying about incidental bear kills by deer hunters, or incidental squirrel kills by turkey hunters (I've shot a lot of squirrels when the fall turkey hunt seems to be going nowhere), or the number of incidental doves, rabbits, or woodcock shot by squirrel hunters. I like the January segment that comes after deer season, but only because I don't have to wear orange or worry about getting shot by a deer hunter. During the deer season, and given that I have unfilled turkey tags, I don't see any reason why I should not be able to harvest a turkey if the opportunity presents itself. Especially since I expect to hit my bag limit of deer and switch fully to turkey hunting weeks before deer season ends. If the issue is that we don't want deer hunters vaporizing turkeys with their deer rifles as if they were shooting varmints, then I would rather see further restrictions on caliber/shot size for turkey hunting than carve up the turkey season to avoid overlap with deer season.

Ed