Wild Turkey Question(s) i.e. crazy idea I hatched.

[bigbendmarine]

Been largely sitting on the sidelines and probably for the best... was crazy enough to major in philosophy as an undergrad, so when I see talk turning to "I plant, therefore I am" I appreciate things are getting deep!

Joking somewhat aside, I said before I thought assumptions were dangerous with this thread, and as kindly as possible I'll say I think that goes for the OP as well.

Lois, you mentioned your father wasn't the typical Marine, and I would say that for my Dad... heck I'd say it for me for dang sure (I enlisted in the reserves at the cutoff of age 28 after already gaining a college degree and about 5 years in to a fairly successful manufacturing management career). For that matter, I'd say that my own boot camp platoon was full of variation on temperaments and motivations -- some young kids joined for lack of vision, some intercity guys joined to get away from gang environments, others joining from rural areas to broaden their horizons (can't help but think of FMJ's famous line "I wanted to meet interesting, stimulating people of a rich, ancient culture and kill them!"), while others joined with fitness as a primary motivation... and I could go on and on with varying motivations. I'm relatively conservative (especially fiscally so) but just had a boot camp platoon mate sadly die from cancer who was as liberal of a journalist as you'd find. Guess what I'm getting at is, "typical" is often an unfair box to try and force upon others and I sense quite a few comments lumping "hunters" into a generically molded box that just doesn't fit.

From a rural area of the south, I was raised side by side with some kids who absolutely hunted (and fished) to help their families save on grocery bills, to the point that laws weren't always respected due to perceived need. A few of those friends killed deer with hand me down .22lr rifles (i'm sure not advocating it) to minimize cost and would have probably used sling shots if they had to do so. At the same time, I have some friends who will drop multiple grand to go on distant trophy hunts without losing a seconds sleep to the cost. Huge spectrum of difference between those groups, but yet they along with all shades in between would be labeled hunters (at least by many).

Don't have time to address issue by issue, but will just say this about the predator note. I've got multiple coyotes that cruise by my place, multiple bobcat, and multiple bear and I've never touched a single one. At the same time, I've harvested 4 deer the last 2 seasons. Does my not targeting predators strip me of my generic "hunter" label? Surely not, just one who doesn't see them greatly impacting his herd though that might be due to an abundance of squirrels, field rats, and other smaller furry game. Bet if you polled the forum members I wouldn't be alone in not having harvested predators aggressively as some, but at the same time while it might strike you as contradictory at best / stupid at worst, I totally respect those who do target predators. A believer in a Higher power here, I see man as close to the top of the food chain though I think that comes with a great deal of responsibility... but if I were to lean towards Nihilst atheism I would be even more a believer in killing all other predators, as what ultimate moral grounds should prevent me from such?

All my blather above aside, I've found the forum audience to be QUITE a diverse one yet at the same time one that blessedly has been respectful (and a huge thanks goes to the moderators for helping ensure so). Here's hoping it stays that way. Said it before, and will say it again... trust and feel your intentions have not been negative. Just think that appreciating you're speaking to quite a diverse group of folks might make for a bit less stereotyping, even if done innocently so. Off my soapbox and back to work (also in the medical field now by the way, so kindred spirits in that regard!).

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

I think the bottom line is that we, the landowners, manage the land as we fit and normally, "as we see fit" translates to what serves us best. Now if one is a deer hunter, it is going to be management practices which favor deer. That person is going to want to eliminate any competing predators e.g. coyote, fox, wolf, etc. and plant flora which serves his purpose best. To me, a faun is no more valuable - nor less valuable - than a coyote. They have equal value to me so I don't mind that the coyote will take some faun. So be. I want my land to be as natural as possible. Deer interfere with my efforts in that they eat all the natural and native trees I plant causing me to have to spend huge amounts of money to buy fencing for each tree, fencing for the garden, tractors (very expensive) and equipment to maintain them. The deer otherwise eat everything and my trees get gobbled up within days of planting them or the garden. Even with that said, I still won't kill them because killing is distasteful to me. Even with all of that which they do I like them. My husband owns numerous guns and rifles. He could easily kill the deer, the rabbits whatever but such is not our preference. Our preference is to let the animals work it all out among themselves and that includes allowing predators to live on our land. Honestly speaking, as I read through the threads here, it sounds like you guys micromanage the deer - worrying about every little thing and trying to do what you can (cameras, food plots, monitoring, etcl) - fretting over them......and then all to (in the end) kill them. It does not make a lot of sense to me. If I put that much effort into taking care of something, the last thing I would want to do is kill it. I can't be bothered with all of that. Who ever is native to the land and is not bothering me can live here on my property and do whatever they want. I want the land to be as natural as possible and I spend a whole lot of money trying to improve it so that the wildlife will live here. I try not to referee who eats who. I suspect they can all run their lives better than I can so I let everyone do their thing and I watch it. We have a large pond on the property - filled with tons of wildlife - and we have bird houses all over the place. I get to see lots of animals on my land and that makes me happy. i don't want anyone coming on my land and shooting "my" animals but if they eat one another, that is OK. I love my wood ducks. The last thing I would want is for someone to come in and kill them. No thank you. Same with all of "my" animals who live here. I don't want people trapsing around my property killing "my" stuff. Who ever pays taxes on the land gets to call the shots, no? On the otherhand, I don't become involved with what hunters want to do on their land. They pay those taxes and if they want to kill animals on their land, it is none of my business. They do their thing; I do my thing. How much anyone can "improve" the land and return it to a natural state boils down to how much money you have. Most of my money goes into the land. Sounds like you guys here do the same. We only differ in what are our goals once we get the land to where we want it.

Now, for my part, I want some of the land to do "my thing." My thing includes growing lots of orchards packed with tons of apple trees - I have now five orchards and a huge fenced in area of blueberries. I have a fenced in garden and some flower beds. We have planted large groves of evergreens and lots of native trees. I also want to hike around my land and enjoy the various groves we have put in. Much of my land is reverting back to the wild and I love it. We do mow a large meadow in the middle of the "reforestation" area and I love that too. All of these trees are very expensive to plant because we have to fence in each evergreen or the deer will chew them down. After a number of years we can remove the fences when the trees are old enough to make it on their own. Even, then, the deer rub the trees and maul them. The deer make it very difficult to do "my thing" but even then I don't kill them or micromanage them. I would prefer to let nature take it's course and spend money keeping them out. Even if I were inclined to kill them, I could never eradicate them - there are far too many of them. If I took five times the legal limit, there would still be plenty left over. It would be like trying to kill all the mice in your fields or your barn. It is not going to happen. There are simply too many of them. For that reason, wolves would be just fine with me but that is not going to happen either.

So the bottom line is that we all manage our lands as we see fit and as it most benefits our purpose i.e. what we want to do. As for hiking on public lands, I can't speak for other states but PA has tons of public parks and tons of game lands throughout the state. There is more than enough resources for hikers and for hunters. If anything, hikers have the edge because they can hike on gamelands also. I do it all the time. The bottom line is we all want what we want

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

bigbendmarine,

you wrote: . but if I were to lean towards Nihilst atheism I would be even more a believer in killing all other predators, as what ultimate moral grounds should prevent me from such?

This statement is a very interesting one, indeed. I am what is called a "secular humanist" That means I strive to do what is right for its own sake. I don't need or want a good to force me to do what is "right" by threatening with punishments if I don't or rewards if I do. I believe in doing what is right for its own sake - everyone is better off when we do the right thing and that is enough motivation - for me anyway - to do so. I have no issue with other people adhering to religion in the interest of becoming a better person. It is just not something I need. If the world would be better off if people did good and refrained from doing evil, that is sufficient motivation for me to comply. You mentioned that you were in the medical field. I don't know what you do but I am a primary care provider and sometimes I do contract work in AZ where we have another home. I worked for a boss, a physician who owed the practice, and he had a productivity bonus. The more you worked and the more money you brought in, the more he paid you. I told him that he need not bother with that sort of incentive with me. I am going to work to the absolute best of my ability no matter whether he paid a bonus or not because that is what I believed should be done. I did not need his "bonus" so as to work to the best of my ability nor to what was absolutely best for the patients. The driving force, for me, was the patient and serving them. His money meant little in comparison to that. Same thing with salary. Potential employers always ask "what are you looking for in terms of salary." My response is "you offer what you think is fair and I will decide whether I want to work for you." Bottom line: they always offer more than I would have been willing to accept if I were to have quoted a salary." I would have worked for them for less only they never knew that. In turn, I believe I owe the employer and, more importantly the patient, everything I have to give.

So, in the end, it is all about being fair in life. Is is fair to exterminate all of the preditors to further one's own end - in this case harvesting deer. I say no but since I am not in charge of the world, I can't call the shots. I can say that people who do so make it difficult for folks like me who want more balance on their lands. If farmers and hunters did not exterminate predators, I would not have to spend as much money doing so much labor intensive work, fencing in everything. It is almost impossible to get true hardwood forests these days because the deer are so numerous and they eat everything before it can become established. You all say wolves are bad but heck they would come in handy for folks who like hardwood forests and would like to establish them again. So we have ranchers who don't want them for obvious reasons. We have hunters who don't want them. Then we have naturalists like me who DO want them. You all say we are bleeding heart liberals but we are not. We just don't have enough money to buy enough fencing to manage our lands and have it revert back to the natural state we like. It is all about balance. It is all about being fair. It is about doing what is right for everyone as a whole not just what is best for us.

One poster here says the balance is shifting. He says the naturalists are now winning out over the hunters in terms of numbers. Well, is that really so bad? Was it really fair for hunters to stack the deck in their favor for so long? I say no. We all have to strike a balance and do what is right for everyone not just what serves us. I am not so sure it was "fair" to exterminate all the predators so that now I have to spend all this money to fence out the deer which over run my and others properties. Without the predators there is not enough money in the world to buy enough fencing to control these deer. They are everywhere and now way too numerous; they eat EVERYTHING. My husband calls them "mammalian weeds." Hunters and ranchers/farmers are what caused this problem, in the first place by exterminating all of our predators. So if we naturalists and "bleeding hearts" seem a bit adverse to hunters maybe you can gain some insight as to why. You all have cost us one heck of a lot of money and labor in terms of creating the natural and native environments we want. If you guys had not exterminated all of our natural predators, we might not be fighting such a losing battle. It is an ever uphill battle in terms of these deer. They eat as fast as I can plant. I must fence EVERYTHING. If I don't, the deer will eat my newly planted trees the very next day. So if the numbers are shifting in terms of hunters vs naturalists, I say that is not so terrible. Maybe someday we will get some of the big predators back - probably not in my lifetime or yours. For now the coyotes are all we've got.

 

[ruskbucks]

I think the bottom line is that we, the landowners, manage the land as we fit and normally, "as we see fit" translates to what serves us best. Now if one is a deer hunter, it is going to be management practices which favor deer. That person is going to want to eliminate any competing predators e.g. coyote, fox, wolf, etc. and plant flora which serves his purpose best. To me, a faun is no more valuable - nor less valuable - than a coyote. They have equal value to me so I don't mind that the coyote will take some faun. So be. I want my land to be as natural as possible. Deer interfere with my efforts in that they eat all the natural and native trees I plant causing me to have to spend huge amounts of money to buy fencing for each tree, fencing for the garden, tractors (very expensive) and equipment to maintain them. The deer otherwise eat everything and my trees get gobbled up within days of planting them or the garden. Even with that said, I still won't kill them because killing is distasteful to me. Even with all of that which they do I like them. My husband owns numerous guns and rifles. He could easily kill the deer, the rabbits whatever but such is not our preference. Our preference is to let the animals work it all out among themselves and that includes allowing predators to live on our land. Honestly speaking, as I read through the threads here, it sounds like you guys micromanage the deer - worrying about every little thing and trying to do what you can (cameras, food plots, monitoring, etcl) - fretting over them......and then all to (in the end) kill them. It does not make a lot of sense to me. If I put that much effort into taking care of something, the last thing I would want to do is kill it. I can't be bothered with all of that. Who ever is native to the land and is not bothering me can live here on my property and do whatever they want. I want the land to be as natural as possible and I spend a whole lot of money trying to improve it so that the wildlife will live here. I try not to referee who eats who. I suspect they can all run their lives better than I can so I let everyone do their thing and I watch it. We have a large pond on the property - filled with tons of wildlife - and we have bird houses all over the place. I get to see lots of animals on my land and that makes me happy. i don't want anyone coming on my land and shooting "my" animals but if they eat one another, that is OK. I love my wood ducks. The last thing I would want is for someone to come in and kill them. No thank you. Same with all of "my" animals who live here. I don't want people trapsing around my property killing "my" stuff. Who ever pays taxes on the land gets to call the shots, no? On the otherhand, I don't become involved with what hunters want to do on their land. They pay those taxes and if they want to kill animals on their land, it is none of my business. They do their thing; I do my thing. How much anyone can "improve" the land and return it to a natural state boils down to how much money you have. Most of my money goes into the land. Sounds like you guys here do the same. We only differ in what are our goals once we get the land to where we want it.

Now, for my part, I want some of the land to do "my thing." My thing includes growing lots of orchards packed with tons of apple trees - I have now five orchards and a huge fenced in area of blueberries. I have a fenced in garden and some flower beds. We have planted large groves of evergreens and lots of native trees. I also want to hike around my land and enjoy the various groves we have put in. Much of my land is reverting back to the wild and I love it. We do mow a large meadow in the middle of the "reforestation" area and I love that too. All of these trees are very expensive to plant because we have to fence in each evergreen or the deer will chew them down. After a number of years we can remove the fences when the trees are old enough to make it on their own. Even, then, the deer rub the trees and maul them. The deer make it very difficult to do "my thing" but even then I don't kill them or micromanage them. I would prefer to let nature take it's course and spend money keeping them out. Even if I were inclined to kill them, I could never eradicate them - there are far too many of them. If I took five times the legal limit, there would still be plenty left over. It would be like trying to kill all the mice in your fields or your barn. It is not going to happen. There are simply too many of them. For that reason, wolves would be just fine with me but that is not going to happen either.

So the bottom line is that we all manage our lands as we see fit and as it most benefits our purpose i.e. what we want to do. As for hiking on public lands, I can't speak for other states but PA has tons of public parks and tons of game lands throughout the state. There is more than enough resources for hikers and for hunters. If anything, hikers have the edge because they can hike on gamelands also. I do it all the time. The bottom line is we all want what we want

Lois, I have to say I think a lot of what you are doing on your land is great, reverting it back to the wild. I will also say you are one of the most selfish and naïve persons that I personally have seen on this site and many others. What you really need to start is doing some more research on habitat and wildlife.Wolves are known for their "thrill killing". Look it up.They kill surplus animals all the time and just let them lay there. I bet they don't show that in the Disney movies where I think you get some of you facts. I would start with your state DNR, these people are scientist and are a neutral party that is a voice for the wildlife and ALL people that enjoy the great outdoors. Start with what they say about feeding and baiting in your state and the problems that occur. Hmmm lets see don't feed bears, don't feed elk,no feeding on game lands,no feeding in CWD areas, no feeding or hunting 30 days prior to a hunting season. Why do they have these laws, simple IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA AND CAUSES ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS.This is where your are selfish, I can tell by your post that you don't really care. You will do it anyway just and only for YOUR self gratification.
You seem to not care one bit that domesticating wild turkeys makes them vulnerable and stupid and more likely to die. The comments make it clear what kind of person you are. ME ME ME, MINE MINE MINE. " I don't want "MY" animals shot on my land. You know what Lois. Those aren't YOUR animals because they are on your land, they are everybody in your states. You think that just cause someone owns land and pays taxes that allows them to do what ever they want? Naïve, SO WRONG. You go hiking on state land, but don't think people should be allowed to hunt there because YOU use it for hiking. WOW! You are just so far out of reality on your comments. You talk about the beloved coyotes and you think they are a natural part of the food chain. Do you know that they are a non native evasive species? Look it up, they were not even east of the Mississippi River till the 1960s. Do you see a lot of red fox anymore, coyotes are killing them bigtime. I agree with you a lot that before humans the animals could take care of themselves, but to make a comment like that now days is ridiculous. So if we got rid of all the state DNR and federal agencies. We stopped fighting invasive species and everybody stopped hunting, trapping, managing their properties that everything would take care of themselves and it would work out just great for everybody.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Regrettably, I have to agree with ruskbucks. She did a good job of being diplomatic and maintaining at least an allusion of open mindedness throughout the first 4 pages. The OP revealed her true colors in that last post.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Rusbucks, I absolutely agree that the whole wolf thing needs more study before it is implemented. I am not advocating for it, just saying I wish I had some around to deal with all of these deer. Thrill killing? Maybe they do. I am not a wolf expert but hunters thrill kill also. Most of them do it for the thrill of the hunt. They limit the number they kill because the law makes them do so. I am not real big on feeding wild life - you all do so more than I do via food plots and the like. I "cheat" a bit, sure. I feed the wild birds, I corrupt some chipmunks I even give the deer a small amount of corn - perhaps a cup or so every few days just so I can watch them up close. You all feed deer much more than I do and I never ever ever feed bears! Yes absolutely I feed some animals - small amounts of food - for my own gratification. You shoot deer and other animals for your own gratification - same difference. Pot calling the kettle black. I am not planning on "domesticating" the wild turkey. Just planning on feeding them a bit of corn here and there so I can watch them up close. You are not planning on wiping out all of the animals - just killing a few here and there for your own gratification. Same difference. That is why I do not judge other people including hunters. They do the very same things I do only it takes a different form. Of course, I know they are not my animals. Why do you think I put the term in quotes. That being said, it is not necessary for me to allow people to come onto my land to kill them any more than I should prevent you from doing what you want on your land. Neither did I ever say people should not be allowed to hunt on public lands. I specifically said there should be lands dedicated to BOTH groups of people and that is exactly what we have here in PA. I have plenty of places to hike in this state and hunters have plenty of places to hunt. It is not an either/or deal. Both groups of people pay taxes and both groups of people are entitled to use the land.

Wolves were indeed native to my state of PA before they were exterminated so it is appropriate to say they are part of the natural environment of this habitat. Coyotes are thought to be a wolf-dog hybrid which extended its range. Again, I am not advocating for wolf reintroduction. It is something I believe needs further study. I have plenty of red fox (I see lots of them) and grey fox (I see even more of these) on my land and I let them work out their differences with the coyotes. I do not micromanage the animals. The balance has shifted and the large predators have been exterminated so we are currently overrun with deer. That is a fact. The overpopulation of deer has many negative sequella and that is also a fact. You can try but you can't talk your way around that fact. There are too many deer because humans have exterminated most of their natural predators and they did so in pursuit of their own interests. The deer are causing a whole lot of havoc to the environment in the places - like my area of the country - where they are overpopulated. On one job where I worked, I would come home around dusk every night and I had to drive very slowly because HUGE massive herds of deer would be crossing the roads everywhere. If we had more predators around we would not have such massive herds of deer - eating everything in sight. This site is about habitat and deer have a huge impact on the habitat.

One thing I would request of you is that you not engage in character assassinations when speaking with others including me. This website is called habitat-talk and habitat is an issue for ALL people who are interested in it - not just hunters. You do not have a monopoly on issues pertaining to the habitat and you need not go around insulting persons who simply have a different view than you do. Casting insults at me, as you are doing, is very inappropriate. We are adults and we need to have civilized discussions with one another. We need not start ad-hominem attacks. I do not engage in this sort of behavior as it pertains to you and I would very much appreciate if you would refrain from doing so with me.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Natty, My "true colors" are that I am a naturalist and I want more balance. This site is a habitat-talk site and that means ALL people who have view on the habitat are welcome. I have every right to present my perspective and "true colors." You do not own the habitat. I do not own the habitat. It is for all of us and it is perfectly appropriate for us to discuss how we feel it should be best managed. "True colors" indeed. What are your "true colors?" What is with all of this ad-hominem? Do you think only hunters should have any say in the habitat? What about the rest of us? We live here and pay taxes also. Do we get any say or are we just people who get in your way?

 

[Tap]

I stand by my earlier observation...Is the OP a troll or just ignorant to the passions and goals of the knowledgable habitat enthusiasts on this forum? I believe she's a troll.
And she is full of crap when she says she does not judge others. "That is why I do not judge other people including hunters". Just read the words of her posts...thorough crap or completely ignorant.

"I have plenty of places to hike in this state and hunters have plenty of places to hunt. It is not an either/or deal. Both groups of people pay taxes and both groups of people are entitled to use the land." I read it with my own eyes...She said that hunting should not be allowed on the public land where she likes to hike without the risk of being shot by bullet or arrow... I paraphrase.

More disingenuous crap from her...
"I want my land to be as natural as possible". Is that why you plant non-native apple trees?

"killing a few here and there for your own gratification". How dare you? I kill not for my own "gratification" unless you define gratification as providing for myself. Do you chastise the hawk for killing the rabbit? Probably not, but you consider that I fill my freezer as "gratification".
You are deluded and completely removed from how nature works.

"There are too many deer because humans have exterminated most of their natural predators and they did so in pursuit of their own interests". Your original statement was edited. I read your original wording that said "you guys" exterminated the natural predators. "You guys"?? It was the market hunters during the days before regulated hunting (which we hunters support) that "exterminated" predators. Modern wildlife regulations preserve the wildlife in which you have no as to clue how it lives.

I stand by my assertion. Lois is either a troll and a baiter or she's an ignorant anti-hunter that has no interest in really learning about out stance on habitat management.

Either way, I'm done wasting my time trying to converse with her. This has been one of the most ridiculous threads I've been sucked into. And BTW, what educated person spells "fawn" f-a-u-n? TROLL.
Bill, you should lock it.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Tap,
Since you cannot debate the substance of my arguments, you resort to ad-hominems. Your comment about fawns is correct. That WAS pretty ignorant. I believe it is you who have no interest in learning about other points of view. I have spent time reading through threads on this site so as to learn. I have told you repeatedly, yet you cannot comprehend, that I am not opposed to hunting. Show me WHERE I wrote that hunting should be outlawed? I am especially not opposed to doing so by people who like venison. As for hiking and hunting, I favor separate sites for each and apparently so does the Commonwealth of PA. Makes good sense. Do you WANT to hunt amidst hikers? Is that what you are telling me? I sure as heck do not want to hike in the same area where you are hunting. How can you possibly object to regulations which require that hunters shoot in designated areas which are not in the same vicinity as hikers and campers. What are you saying, then? Do you want to enter an area which is heavily populated with hikers and campers and hunt there? Similarly, do you want me walking around in front of your hunting stand making all kinds of noises as I chat with whoever I am hiking with, alerting your prey to human presence? Is that what you want? How about if I decide to stop for a picnic lunch 25 feet away from your bird blind and make all manner of noise in the process? The two activities need to be conducted in different places - they don't mix well. It is like saying you want to roller blade on an aircraft runway. It is NOT the place to do so but there are plenty of excellent other places to rollerblade.

Bill should NOT lock the thread because it is perfectly valid to have discussions wherein people express differing views on topics which are of common interest. Perhaps you don't want people with opposing views to post to this site. The problem is that you don't like a whole lot of the points I bring up and instead of debating them, you chose to insult me.

Now back to the topic at hand, the deer are out of control and it is BECAUSE there are no natural predators to take them down. You may not like that but it is true. If you like deer hunting, perhaps such may not be a problem for you but for the rest of us who like to do other things, it IS a problem. Accordingly, it is valid to talk about how the problem came about and what could be done about it. Try to remember that you are not the only person using the land and natural resources.

Now, why did I come here. It was for the exact reason I said. I wanted information on wild turkey and how to accomplish what I had in mind. I suspected - correctly, BTW - that you guys (sorry if you object to my choice of language) would have the answers I was looking for and I was correct. The folks here did and now I know how to go about doing what I want to do. Good information was passed along - thank you very much. I will be implementing it this summer. If I am successful, it will be thanks to the information provided to me here.

The rest of the stuff in our discussion just evolved naturally but it is a good thing that it did. Hunters and non-hunters need to hear one another out and exchange views. I now know more about the mindset of hunters and you (hopefully) know more about the mindset of non-hunters. Such is a good thing. I have learned a whole lot about how hunters think, both from this thread and reading other threads on the website. Your hostility is completely out of order and makes me wonder about you. Can you not handle discussions with people who have opposing views to your own? Must you hurl insults calling them ignorant, etc.? I may be a whole lot of things - some good and some bad. One thing I can assure you is that I am not ignorant and, also, I can hold a discussion with someone without resorting to character assasinations. Can you?

 

[Tap]

Lock it, Bill.
Color me "unsubscribed" to this waste of time.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[rocksnstumps]

Lois,
I'll let others worry about getting their fur rubbed the wrong way. I wanna see some updated pics of what B118 apples look like if you just leave the rootstocks go and when do they tend to drop. Thx

 

[yoderjac]

Whether Lois is a "troll", an anti-hunter, or honestly uninformed about the hunting community, we are judged by how we respond. Personally, I give her the benefit of the doubt, a person of good conscience with a different world view that willing to engage with folks different from herself. I'm happy to explain myself when asked whether the other party is up front or not. Most folks who read this forum will have some context of hunting. Any informed reader can easily read this thread and see our true colors....whatever they may be.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bszweda]

Lois you'd get better results attracting turkeys in April or May, if you got a turkey fan and you hid behind it and didn't move.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

rocknstumps,
I will absolutely take some photos of the B118 this spring and summer and post them. They are absolutely gorgeous when they bloom - lovely pink. The fruit is on the small side and it IS edible although not the best apple you will ever eat. You can eat them but they are really not all that good eating. It is technically considered a redflesh. It is an ideal choice of inexpensive tree for folks who want mast on their property. The trees are cheap, hardy, cold-hardy and very drought resistant. They really ARE good trees for the purpose of buying lots of reliable trees inexpensively. I would also like to introduce folks to two apples you may not have considered previously. These two are SO delicious and both are very disease resistant. They are also very hardy. These are the Melrose apple and the Bonnie Best apple. If you are in the mood to experiment with new apple cultivars, I cannot speak highly enough of these two apples. I don't recall exactly when the B118 drops but it is not esp early. It is more on the late side. It has been my experience that deer go for the best apples first then a the season progresses they will go for the less tasty ones. If it is mast you are after without regards to eating them, then I would also recommend you consider the Kerr - super cold hardy and lots of fruit...........and, believe it or not quite tasty. My husband really likes them.

yoderjac, we only can resolve our differences in life by learning about one another's perspectives. We need not be hurling hostilities towards one another. I think I now know more about how hunters think now that I have read many threads on this site. One thing which hunters can learn from my posts is that there are lots and lots of naturalists who are very vested in the habitat but don't hunt. I think somehow hunters lose sight of that fact and erroneously conclude that they are the main group of people who are invested in the habitat. That is why you mentioned the whole thing about attrition and numbers shifting. It is not true, however, that hunters are the only vested group. There are HUGE numbers of people who are VERY vested in the whole habitat thing yet don't hunt. Years ago, maybe it was more true. If you were a big habitat person, probably you were also a hunter. That is less so today. Today we have more and more people who are VERY vested in the habitat. Many have become very educated about the natural habitat, as well. On some level, we are seeing some changes with respect to who is really "into" this stuff. We need to respect and get along with one another because neither group is going away any time soon.

 

[H20fwler]

I’m with Tap, this particular thread has more than run its course.

Button it up Bill

 

[yoderjac]

...

yoderjac, we only can resolve our differences in life by learning about one another's perspectives. We need not be hurling hostilities towards one another. I think I now know more about how hunters think now that I have read many threads on this site. One thing which hunters can learn from my posts is that there are lots and lots of naturalists who are very vested in the habitat but don't hunt. I think somehow hunters lose sight of that fact and erroneously conclude that they are the main group of people who are invested in the habitat. That is why you mentioned the whole thing about attrition and numbers shifting. It is not true, however. There are HUGE numbers of people who are VERY vested in the whole habitat thing and don't hunt. Years ago, maybe it was true. If you were a big habitat person, probably you were also a hunter. That is less so today. Today we have more and more people who are VERY vested in the habitat and, yet, don't hunt.

Lois,

I completely agree with the portion of your post that I quoted in bold. We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You are correct that there are many other folks you describe as naturalists that don't hunt that are very vested in habitat! On an individual basis as property owners I've seen many who are just as vested as those on this site. Our game department puts out a magazine that often highlights property owners who are managing habitat for endangered plant species, song birds, native plant species, vernal pools, wetlands, that are not hunters and have not interest in hunting.

However, no other group has contributed more to conservation than hunters. Beyond their individual contributions through managing their properties, each time they buy hunting equipment, and excise tax is collected. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly known as Pittman-Robertson) has been in effect since 1938 and has generated over 11 billion dollars for wildlife conservation. Add to this all the work done by interest groups like the restoration of the Wild Turkey by NWTF, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, etc. and it is clear hunters are by far the biggest contributor to conservation. This is not to poo poo the good work done by non-hunting conservation groups like the Audubon Society and the like.

The reason I mentioned the changing numbers in Hunters and Anti-hunters (which is only a percent or two shift) is simply to point out that most folks, the deciders, are in the middle like you. They don't hunt but don't have an issue with it if they believe it is done ethically, safely, and responsibly. You are absolutely correct that years ago most conservationists were also hunters. Today, many who don't hunt have become advocates for habitat management. Many non-hunters realize how important hunting is a tool for conservation. It is the more radical groups that object to hunting on "moral" grounds that think they can "preserve" nature. Nature is dynamic. You can conserve it and use it wisely but you can't preserve it.

I embrace folks who don't hunt. Many folks I've met who were skeptical about hunting became advocates after we invited them over for dinner. After asking where we got such great steak, my wife would tell them it is venison. Before you know it, they were asking when I was going hunting again and whether we could give them some venison. It is not the honest conservation groups or individual that don't hunt that hunters object to. It is the uninformed who take a position that hunting is "wrong" and do whatever they can to stop it that we object to.

It has been good to read your posts and see your perspective.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bill]

Nope not locking it. I get it if Lois gets under your skin, Just ignore the thread.

If she's a troll so what.
If she's for real and just doesn't get us I can live with that. So far if Lois and I agree with "you do what you want at your place and I'll do what I want at mine" I can accept being misunderstood. If I boot her I'll never know where this goes. If she sticks around long enough respectfully we may get a bow in her hands for some rabbit pot pie.

If it's dipper we'll figure it out

 

[yoderjac]

Nope not locking it. I get it if Lois gets under your skin, Just ignore the thread.

If she's a troll so what.
If she's for real and just doesn't get us I can live with that. So far if Lois and I agree with "you do what you want at your place and I'll do what I want at mine" I can accept being misunderstood. If I boot her I'll never know where this goes. If she sticks around long enough respectfully we may get a bow in her hands for some rabbit pot pie.

If it's dipper we'll figure it out

Great choice! We have been harsher with her than she has with us. Maybe I'll learn something from her.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Thanks, Bill. I really DID (very much did) want to know how to attract wild turkey and these guys gave me some very valuable information - as I knew they would. Hunters DO know a lot about this kind of stuff. I predicted they would help me out and they did. It is not the first time I have come to hunters for info and it is not the first time I got what I was looking for. As for the rest of the stuff, well, that is just how things evolved. I believe in being honest and upfront with people. I am not going to pretend to be something I am not. I am not going to conceal who I am am and play diplomatic pretend just to "fit in." That is not me. What you see is what you get. I have always taken the view that if someone does not like me, it is their problem, not mine.

I understand more about hunters than I did previously and some of it has been for the better. They want one thing from the animals and the habitat and I want another but we are both very, very vested in the habitat. Habitat rules for all of us. That is why I am here. We are both using the animals to meet our own agenda and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think when we find someone absolutely infuriating, it is because there is a kernel of truth to what they are saying and it really bugs us. The times I get most hot in the collar about what someone has said is when part of what they are saying is true and it really bugs me that such is so. No matter who we are and in any aspect of life, it bugs us when someone is advocating something which is contrary to our own agenda. I get pissed off, too, when people advocate stuff I don't like or agree with. Cultures and mindsets of populations morph and evolve over time. Sometimes they do so in a way we like and sometimes they do so in a way we don't like. Trust me, I have my issues also when aspects of our society is morphing in a way which I think is absurd and even destructive. I get really pissed off too. Fact is that lots of hunters have information and skills I want or need. I get lots of info from them and lots of folks I do business with hunt. It is no big deal. You get what you want or need and you move on. I got the turkey info I wanted. I got enough info to do what I want at this point. As for what happened, what done is done as far as the deer and the predators go. It is hard to go back, now. We can't just bring in a whole bunch of wolves, at this point. It is more complicated than that. Deer overpopulation is like the Japanese beetles. They are both going to be around for a long time and there is now no easy solution, at this point. The time to fix both of these problems was before they were created in the first place. As for my push-button issues in life, well hunting is not at the top of the list by any means. We all have a lot of bigger fish to fry. This whole political correctness is driving me nuts. I don't know if we are even allowed to talk about politics and the like on this site (on most sites you are not allowed to do so) but believe me, I would have a whole lot to say on THAT subject. For the record, ARE we allowed to discuss politics, current affairs or religion on this site? We can have some REALLY good threads here, if we are. When it comes to stirring up the pot in those arenas, trust me, I know how to do it.

 

[OakSeeds]

This thread went from turkeys to predators - especially coyotes - in a hurry. When I got to post #83 (and I ain't reading any further) I decided to make a couple of observations, taking Lois' statements literally. Coyotes and feral cats are probably the two most efficient mammalian predators living in PA in reasonably large numbers throughout the state.
Excerpts from post #83 on this thread ... things for Lois to consider!

Since the coyote is the main predator discussed in this thread; recognize it is a non-native species to PA, (as it is in many other mid-western and eastern states) - thought to have migrated into PA during the 1930's. Google - coyote populations in PA - and you'll get plenty to read including the belief they have expanded in numbers to meet the carrying capacity of the state.

Lois says .... "I want my land to be as natural as possible." Our preference is to let the animals work it all out among themselves and that includes allowing predators to live on our land." " Who ever is native to the land and is not bothering me can live here on my property and do whatever they want." " I want the land to be as natural as possible and I spend a whole lot of money trying to improve it so that the wildlife will live here."

I (Oakseed) suspect deer-habitat junkies recognize that native - including avian and mammalian - and non-native species can crowd out / eliminate opportunities for native species (trees, shrubs and other plants and birds and animals) to thrive. It's a question of managing resources when an imbalance among populations occurs AND choosing to take actions that favor one species over another.

Lois likes bunnies and birds; she says ....
"He (husband) could easily kill the deer, the rabbits" ... "we have bird houses all over the place." "I get to see lots of animals on my land and that makes me happy." "I don't want anyone coming on my land and shooting "my" animals but if they eat one another, that is OK."

Oakseeds wonders what Lois would say if she discovered 2 or 3 large colonies of non-native feral cats living on her land (having come on her land from adjoining properties or dumped by cat owners who longer wanted to care for them). It's estimated feral cats kill upwards of 2.4 BILLION birds annually. Bunnies are easy targets and cats don't kill only for food. They can pump out 4-5 litters a year and be impregnated as early as 4-5 months of age. The ASPCA says there may be upwards of 10's of millions of feral cats; one estimate places the number above 83 million. And guess what, PA has feral cat problems, just like many other places in the U.S. Google ... feral cat populations in PA and read some interesting reports.