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

[j-bird]

I want to be 100% clear....I have NO intention of semi-domesticating or training deer. I want them to fear me and all people, they are to remain wild and free, that is where their true beauty lies. The day when wildlife looses it's fear of man.....typically spells the beginning of the end for those animals! We care for the deer, we hunt the deer, we want them to remain as wild as possible.

 

[Tap]

I want to be 100% clear....I have NO intention of semi-domesticating or training deer. I want them to fear me and all people, they are to remain wild and free, that is where their true beauty lies. The day when wildlife looses it's fear of man.....typically spells the beginning of the end for those animals! We care for the deer, we hunt the deer, we want them to remain as wild as possible.

Well said. I wish I never artificially fed deer and turkeys. The deer have reverted back to being wary, but the turkey just aren't the same. Live and learn and share those lessons with others.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Christ, I can't even get my flock of chickens to feed out of my hand.

And yes....ditto was TAP said. I think the OP is way off base on the motivations of most of the hunters and habitat managers on this site. I DO NOT feed deer or turkeys precisely because I think it does way more harm than good.

 

[Tap]

Is the OP a troll or just ignorant to the passions and goals of us habitat enthusiasts?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Tap,
The animals do not need us to determine what is best for them. We don't have to manage them. They would do just fine without us. They don't need you to hunt them and they don't need me to feed them and make them do unnatural things for my benefit. We do these things because we want to do them and because it gives us enjoyment. If anything, the hunters have the "excuse" that they are dong so for the meat i.e. food i.e. survival. They spend more money on equipment than if they simply bought the meat. It is fine to hunt and it is fine to feed wildlife - to a limit, for both - BUT it is not fine to deceive ourselves and say we are doing these things for reasons other than what is the case. You like the challenge of the hunt and when that challenge was gone - because you corrupted and tamed the animals - it was not the same for you. You are "using" the animals and so am I. The fact that you (and I, also) care about wildlife and the land does not mean what I said is any less true. If we all evaporated one day leaving only the animals, they would do just fine without us. The herd does not need you and the turkeys don't need me. If we had butt out of everything, the herd would have natural predators like wolves and pumas and so would the turkeys. Things would run just fine - if not better - without us. You like the thrill of the hunt and I like manipulating the animals for my own amusement. The animals, however, don't need either of us and they don't need any of our comrades i.e. other humans. Hunters often dislike "wildlife lovers" and wild life advocates often dislike hunters. Each feels they are helping the animals but the reality is that the animals don't need any of us. They don't need our "help."

 

[ruskbucks]

Yes I don't think he knows the dedication and passion of what most of us do on here. I believe most of us on here care more about the habitat and wildlife more than any other group of people including the anti-hunters. It is us that are preserving our lands and keeping them natural that is such a benefit. I think I can speak for most of us that all the work we do isn't just to shoot a big buck. Although that can be a good indicator of how well we are doing, there is so much more to it. It was awesome to see turkeys using my land for the first after a lot of habitat work, wood ducks using the pond I dug, and deer and grouse numbers after doing TSI. Although we may harvest a deer or two off our properties, the benefit we provide is way more. I don't think Lois tried to offend any of us, I just don't think he knows what we are about. I think it is selfish that he only talks about what he does "only for his own benefit" and then lump us into the same boat as someone throwing some corn out next to our window. I don't think any of us would get much of a thrill from a monster buck in a cage in our back yard, seeing one free and in its natural setting on our land, now that's a different story. I suggest leaving the wildlife alone and wild. If you want to train some birds how you want, get some chickens or pet turkeys. Natty says it can be a challenge, I have to agree with him somewhat cause only a few of chickens will eat right out of ours and we have forty. Want a real challenge? Get a guinea hen nobody has ever domesticated one of them I guess.

 

[bigbendmarine]

Think lots of folks may be making assumptions... Lois is often a female name. And not exactly like the OP is hiding their identity, nor even profession (Family Nurse Practitioner). Hope the post can stay relatively civil as don't suspect Lois posted with any ill intent (though being honest I've been too busy today to keep up with the thread).

 

[Telemark]

Ya I realize that, I was just giving a example. I could tell you probably a hundred negative examples about the effects of feeding wild animals and bringing them close to residences. Usually never benefits the wildlife. My neighbor up north decided to "help out" our deer herd a few years ago by feeding them hay in the middle of winter. The result was 6 deer that starved to death with belly's full of hay because they couldn't adjust to braking it down. Three of them were nice bucks. I don't care if it is turkeys,deer, or bear most of the time you are do more damage to the animal by feeding them and conditioning them to come around humans and their houses.

My point is that feeding bears is inherently different to feeding turkeys. Feeding wild animals is not in and of itself inherently bad. There are good ways to feed animals and bad ways to feed animals.

 

[Tap]

Think lots of folks may be making assumptions... Lois is often a female name. And not exactly like the OP is hiding their identity, nor even profession (Family Nurse Practitioner). Hope the post can stay relatively civil as don't suspect Lois posted with any ill intent (though being honest I've been too busy today to keep up with the thread).

I use the term "ignorant" not as an insult but as a description of lack of understanding.
I truly believe Los is ignorant of what we do and I will happily and with civility try to explain my position on habitat and why I do what I do when it comes to wildlife.
But, it's been said before..."If I have to explain it, then you probably won't understand". But I'm willing to try. I'm sure Los isn't the only lurker on this site that doesn't "get" us. We need to promote, defend and educate others as to what we do.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Think lots of folks may be making assumptions... Lois is often a female name. And not exactly like the OP is hiding their identity, nor even profession (Family Nurse Practitioner). Hope the post can stay relatively civil as don't suspect Lois posted with any ill intent (though being honest I've been too busy today to keep up with the thread).

Good points bigbendmarine. I agree. I do not think the OP has posted with any ill intent.

 

[Telemark]

Lois is way off base with about everything she said. But you shouldn't let her opinions bother you.

I for one, spend nearly nothing on deer hunting equipment. Considering that deer tags are $24 in Ohio and that i prefer wild deer meat over farmed meat og any kind, it is well worth the modest investment.

Lois wants to watch the pretty animals in her back yard, so she chucks them a few buckets of corn. For some reason she equates that to what we do, and even erroneously concludes we all do the same thing with our land management practices. She's wrong. But don't let it bug you.

 

[yoderjac]

Tap,
The animals do not need us to determine what is best for them. We don't have to manage them. They would do just fine without us. They don't need you to hunt them and they don't need me to feed them and make them do unnatural things for my benefit. We do these things because we want to do them and because it gives us enjoyment. If anything, the hunters have the "excuse" that they are dong so for the meat i.e. food i.e. survival. They spend more money on equipment than if they simply bought the meat. It is fine to hunt and it is fine to feed wildlife - to a limit, for both - BUT it is not fine to deceive ourselves and say we are doing these things for reasons other than what is the case. You like the challenge of the hunt and when that challenge was gone - because you corrupted and tamed the animals - it was not the same for you. You are "using" the animals and so am I. The fact that you (and I, also) care about wildlife and the land does not mean what I said is any less true. If we all evaporated one day leaving only the animals, they would do just fine without us. The herd does not need you and the turkeys don't need me. If we had butt out of everything, the herd would have natural predators like wolves and pumas and so would the turkeys. Things would run just fine - if not better - without us. You like the thrill of the hunt and I like manipulating the animals for my own amusement. The animals, however, don't need either of us and they don't need any of our comrades i.e. other humans. Hunters often dislike "wildlife lovers" and wild life advocates often dislike hunters. Each feels they are helping the animals but the reality is that the animals don't need any of us. They don't need our "help."

I think there is a misunderstanding here surrounding the word "use". Use can have a negative connotation to some. However, with the basic meaning of the word "use" we hunters certainly do "use" wildlife. Everyone "uses" wildlife in that sense. Even vegans live in cities where human predators have been removed. They are benefitting from the fact that others have removed them.

The real question is "Do we use wildlife in an ethical and responsible way?". Sport hunters have a lot of challenges in this area. One is the ethic of fair chase. Another is giving back. Back when this country was being established, market hunters harvesting very high numbers of wildlife for commercial purposes put many species at risk. It was sport hunters that saw an important resource they use diminishing and at risk. They were instrumental in establishing the first game agencies and game laws to protect the resource.

Many on this site hunt for a multiplicity of reasons and you have named many. Regardless of why they hunt, most here are more interested in ensuring the local populations are healthy and stay in balance with the habitat. You are correct, wildlife in general do fine without management as long as many does not intrude. Nature is a cruel master and wildlife will boom and bust. Predation and disease can be much more brutal than a bullet or arrow. However, humans exist in the same space and we use the entire environment. When we talk about "managing wildlife", we are talking about compensating for human intervention, and keeping numbers in balance with the environment. For example, when large predators were largely removed (so you don't have to worry about your 2 year old being food for wolves or grizzly bears) deer number could rise. When deer numbers get too high, they can remove important habitat for birds and small mammals. If you have ever seen a browse line in an overpopulated area, it can be impressive. When populations get too high, disease can cause populations to bust. Yes, nature will take care of it, but it can be ugly.

Yes, we all use wildlife. The question is do we use it wisely. Conservation is the wise use of natural resources and most on this site would consider themselves as conservationists.

Best of luck with your endeavor. Just like we, as hunters, ask ourselves a lot of ethical questions, you should consider doing the same if you haven't. As long as what you are doing is within the law and you are informed about the possible consequences, and you are comfortable with the ethics, just enjoy it!

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Tap,
The animals do not need us to determine what is best for them. We don't have to manage them. They would do just fine without us. They don't need you to hunt them and they don't need me to feed them and make them do unnatural things for my benefit. We do these things because we want to do them and because it gives us enjoyment. If anything, the hunters have the "excuse" that they are dong so for the meat i.e. food i.e. survival. They spend more money on equipment than if they simply bought the meat. It is fine to hunt and it is fine to feed wildlife - to a limit, for both - BUT it is not fine to deceive ourselves and say we are doing these things for reasons other than what is the case. You like the challenge of the hunt and when that challenge was gone - because you corrupted and tamed the animals - it was not the same for you. You are "using" the animals and so am I. The fact that you (and I, also) care about wildlife and the land does not mean what I said is any less true. If we all evaporated one day leaving only the animals, they would do just fine without us. The herd does not need you and the turkeys don't need me. If we had butt out of everything, the herd would have natural predators like wolves and pumas and so would the turkeys. Things would run just fine - if not better - without us. You like the thrill of the hunt and I like manipulating the animals for my own amusement. The animals, however, don't need either of us and they don't need any of our comrades i.e. other humans. Hunters often dislike "wildlife lovers" and wild life advocates often dislike hunters. Each feels they are helping the animals but the reality is that the animals don't need any of us. They don't need our "help."

Lois, I really don't disagree with your basic premise. There is one big difference. The bird watcher or corn thrower or 5 gallon bucket shaker who enjoys feeding and watching and interacting with wildlife...who "uses" wildlife...doesn't give back in any way. It's passive, and dare I say maybe even "selfish." Most of the hunters and habitat managers on this forum feel a deep sense of stewardship for not just the animals, but for the habitat those animals depend on for survival. We take a more "proactive" role in our interactions with the wildlife and the land. We spend countless dollars planting hundreds of oak and chestnut trees that will not drop a single acorn or nut until well after we have departed this Earth. We labor year round to create all kinds of cover for does that will drop fawns in the dead of the night miles from our homes site unseen. We create sanctuaries where deer can bed in security safe from predators and then never set foot in them again. We spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment to create food plots that feed deer year round...for fat bucks, and healthy lactating does, and vigorous fawns. And yes, we hunt deer. We take, but we give back in spades. We don't need the meat. But when we take it our actions and our labor ensures that it is a sustainable harvest....true stewardship. I think we all hope that our management practices leave our little pieces of heaven a little better than we found them, for the wildlife, for our kids and grandkids, and for posterity.

If I add up all of the money I have spent on rifles, bows, gear, tractors, implements, barns, seed, etc....I can't even think about it. That and the taxes I pay on all of my gear and bows and guns and ammo via Pittman-Robertson....probably adds up to a small fortune. If all I wanted to do is kill deer I would have been better off just buying a quality guided hunt every year. And if all I wanted was meat I'd have been better off buying meat. I have done neither.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Tap,
For the record, I am not opposed to your (or anyone else's) hunting as long as you don't do it on my land. I don't have any issue with it. I am trying to get you to understand that the two groups of people who point fingers at one another - wildlife advocates and hunters - are two sides of the same coin. Both are "using" animals for their own enjoyment and neither types of persons is actually necessary for the survival of the animals. The problem with the ungulates, mainly the deer, is that we have exterminated all of their natural predators. There are no more wolves and pumas in most places and coyotes are destroyed whenever people can find them. I, personally, like the coyotes on my land because they help keep the rabbits in check. I have lots of apple trees - all of which were labor intensive to plant and expensive to buy or create - and the rabbits reign havoc on them. They were literally destroying my land - eating anything and everything I tried to plant ....then one day along came a family of grey foxes. Within a season, there were no more problem rabbits. The rabbit population was under control. Deer overrun the place so the gobble up the garden almost as soon as I can plant it. Because we are smarter than deer and have more money than they do, I solved the problem by puttng up fences around the garden and blueberry orchard. Unfortunately, coyotes are too small to properly manage the herds of deer which are overrunning our lands. I love coyotes on my property but they can't do the job required to keep the deer under control. They are simply not big enough. I would love to see the return of the wolf but I doubt that will ever happen. Yes, I DO know that wolves and coyotes prey upon people's pets so, for that reason, I keep my cats indoors and my dogs under supervision at all times. I try to keep my land as wild as possible. The simple fact is that we do not have enough natural predators for the deer because we humans exterminated them all. If we had more wolves and pumas - in their natural territories which happens to include my (and probably your) land - we would not be overrun with deer. Thst being said, I still like to watch the deer nibble the corn on the bottom of my porch steps and I still want to go up and train the wild turkey to come to a whistle.......and you still will want to hunt. It's all fine with me. I don't have an issue with it. I am far less concerned with hunters than I am with the bear(s) figuring out where my supply of corn is. I don't want THEM on my back porch and I don't want them smashing my sliding glass doors (which they can do) so as to get at the storage bins of seed and corn which I keep inside. I am far more concerned about that than I am about any stray bullet from a hunter.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Natty, I do the same thing - I plant countless trees which effort is very labor intensive. I could have retired many times over for all the money I have spent on this land. I am an NP and we make good money - usually just above the 6 figure mark. The vast majority of that money has gone directly back into the land. I spend a fortune on this land and most of what we do here is very labor intensive. I live very simply - most of my money filters directly back into the land, doing the very things you mentioned. I am all with you on the concept of spending money to improve the land. I am now trying to learn now about food plots and how to plant them - any help on that count would be most appreciated. I have to fence in every single tree until it is big enough to withstand deer browse. That means a whole lot of money on fencing for trees and the equipment to put it in. Large machinery needed is very expensive to buy and maintain. Once my husband is no longer able to run the equipment, I will have to hire and pay someone to do it. I also have to fence the garden, the berries and anything else. Even with that, I lose a whole lot of trees to deer. It is a never ending battle. I have had this land for 12 years now and it is gradually going back to the wild thanks to such efforts. My trees are getting bigger and the parts of my land which I decided to return completely to the wild are getting there as well. I also maintain some fields and orchards.

Now here is where I DO differ with hunters. I want the predators back - the wolves, the puma, etc. Most hunters do not. If you were all that concerned, as you say, about the health of the herd, you would not oppose the return of major predators on the land. A pack of wolves patrolling this territory would do wonders for my trees, garden and everything else around here. I do realize they would eat my cats, and my dogs but I can keep them inside.

 

[H20fwler]

I like the shaking corn in a bucket idea, I think you would need to be very committed to it and get a daily routine going for years before they became conditioned to the bucket. Get a feeding area set up first that they can get used to using.
Turkeys are some of the wariest wildlife in the woods....that said at times they act like the dumbest, I have had them chase my truck in early spring strutting and hissing and gobble every time I blew the horn.

I would never want to see a pack of wolves reintroduced anywhere, if you had that you wouldn't have to worry about deer or turkeys on your place.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

H2Pfwler, About the wolves, why not? Hunters are always saying it is all about the health of the herd. Nothing is healthier than a pack of wolves.

 

[Tap]

The bird watcher or corn thrower or 5 gallon bucket shaker who enjoys feeding and watching and interacting with wildlife...who "uses" wildlife...doesn't give back in any way. It's passive, and dare I say maybe even "selfish."

I edited-down your post but I wanted to address this part.
In those days that I was the bucket shaker, I did indeed also contribute to the habitat and the herd. I spent a lot of labor, time, and money on my habitat. Hinge cutting, cover development, TSI, invasive control, tree planting, forum contributions (and learning), soil protection and improvement, and above all...learning. I think everyone on this site has made mistakes in our habitat practices. I know I have. And I hope that I will make few as the years pass and as I continue to learn.

 

[H20fwler]

H2Pfwler, About the wolves, why not? Hunters are always saying it is all about the health of the herd. Nothing is healthier than a pack of wolves.

It has been tried and failed miserably, the wolves will eat everything up. Just look at the problems it has caused out west, elk herds decimated, moose almost non existent where wolves are now, deer numbers dropping like a rock. A wolf pack will kill just to kill and leave the dead animal lay not eating any of it and they also prey on domestic livestock.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

I edited-down your post but I wanted to address this part.
In those days that I was the bucket shaker, I did indeed also contribute to the habitat and the herd. I spent a lot of labor, time, and money on my habitat. Hinge cutting, cover development, TSI, invasive control, tree planting, forum contributions (and learning), soil protection and improvement, and above all...learning. I think everyone on this site has made mistakes in our habitat practices. I know I have. And I hope that I will make few as the years pass and as I continue to learn.

Indeed TAP. You nailed it. I agree. It's all about the learning. Many, many years ago I tried feeding deer in late Feb. and March. I did it the right way like you. But even then, I learned that I didn't want to play that role.