MN DNR changes zones!!

First I want to go on the record and say two things. This will mark the beginning of the end of our local flocks, and this will make for a dangerous hunt in our area. Our area has been pounded over the past 5 years and the flocks have already suffered greatly. I have seen drastic number losses in this period not only in my wintering flock, but it is also apparent in the successful hunters percentage as published by the DNR. Last season we saw the greatest number of hunters ever. This area had a 60 tag per period limit, yet we saw over 624 tags issued for our area, plus the OTC archery in the area has seen sizable increase.

The worst part about this is our close proximity to the Metro. With over 1200 permits per period available lots of guys are going to be jumping off the freeway and hunting this area, rather than driving 4 hours away to the northern boundary of this zone. Couple that with the last 24 days of the season being OTC archery and we should see a catastrophic end to the local flocks here in short time.

Don’t get me wrong a change was needed, but I think they needed to break it up a more. The change from the last two to the last four periods for OTC archery will see a size able spike in hunters going that route in my opinion. I would have rather seen them go with an early (before shotgun) archery option rather than extending it at the end.

I’ll jump off the soap box now and start planning what state we’ll be in instead of hunting around home this year.

Chris:

I’m disappointed myself as well. While I don’t share feelings as strong as yours, I think that the push for opportunity may come at the expense of quality. Quality hunting experiences have always been a goal of the MN turkey hunt, evidenced by their reluctance to move away from the 5-day seasons that they take pride in offering to spread the hunters out both geographically and time-wise. That said, the definite losers in this game will be zones like you speak of. Just like re-districting for political purposes, not all will benefit, and some will see big issues. The goal of course is so the whole is somehow bettered.

I see this as purely a cost-driven model. Avoiding confusion was listed as a reason, but I call red-herring. True, other states have moved towards this model, and it does drastically create greater ease in terms of understanding regulations and enforcement of those regulations. However, the true benefit is in terms of management, esp. on the enforcement end of things. It’s my hope that a smaller sample size in terms of survey information isn’t used now that they’re managing a bigger zone, but it seems somewhat inevitable.

Speaking of states that “enjoy” this method of management, you get “pockets” of birds. It’s frustrating. Perfectly good habitat, with good food, can be utterly devoid of birds because of disease, overhunting, and more importantly, the inability of resource mangers to detect, analyze, and implement changes. Why not the deer herd? Because of this very real variation within and amongst Minnesota’s landscape, it’s people/pressures, food availability, winter severity…..the list is long. Why would we dumb-down the management scheme, averaging out these local effects?

I’m more satisfied with DNR’s management of our game than most people. I understand they have to keep all sorts of folks happy, not just hunters. I also understand that budget, not lofty moral goals drive management more than we’d like to believe. I’m also happy in the fact that they do their best to employ science and a blend of historical experience/tradition to manage the resource. At the same time, I wish they leaned on their customers as they do for the turkey surveys from the MN gun-hunters. Many of us spend far more time in the woods, in different locales of the state, during multiple seasons than their collective experiences will ever take them. Discounting ALL anecdotal evidence, seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am on zone boundaries, which I’ll now share with counties that typically have very robust populations, and counties that do not. All will be grouped as one, and my prediction, just as Chris mentioned, is that pressure will follow population centers, not new imaginary redistricting. Those nearest those population centers will do all they can to affect bird populations locally, and will create extreme tension in doing so as the cities grow outward. The better they make it, the more tension there will be.

I hate to be too doom and gloom, but besides making it “easier to understand”, I want to know how this actually betters our hunt, our resource, and our experience.

Joel

I simply don’t know enough about the landscape of Mn turkeys to have an intelligent opinion. However, as a weekend warrior, the new regulations do certainly “dumb” it down a bunch for guys who aren’t in touch with Turkeys like you two.

I hope you are both wrong and the populations continue to explode in Mn. We need a mild winter to start.

I havent read the new zoning changes, but here is a little different perspective from what Im hearing. I love it. Seeing as I only archery hunt for them. This will space out the time that I can go out, rather than having to take days off of work to get out there. Pretty darn good idea if you ask me!!!

Here is a link to the DNR’s site.

2012 Wild Turkey Regs

Some great viewpoints from Joel and Chris above. I’m not sure how I feel about this – I see some pros (mainly for personal reasons) and potential cons (local population and long term management).

Here are my questions…

Since only 11% of MN land is open to public hunting and the majority of that land is in the NE part of the state where there’s not a turkey population, how big of an effect will these zone changes really have and will they have the same impact on private land? I realize it’s a case by case situation and it depends on how many hunters the landowners allow on their land but will it really be a long term negative impact on the turkey population? Do you think the harvest percentage rate will increase because hunters have more options thus impacting the population?

Quote:

---

Here are my questions…

Since only 11% of MN land is open to public hunting and the majority of that land is in the NE part of the state where there’s not a turkey population, how big of an effect will these zone changes really have and will they have the same impact on private land? I realize it’s a case by case situation and it depends on how many hunters the landowners allow on their land but will it really be a long term negative impact on the turkey population? Do you think the harvest percentage rate will increase because hunters have more options thus impacting the population?

---

These are all great questions, most of which I don’t think anyone really has the answers to. My concern with increase in harvest has less to do with total increase, or even increase within zone, but more to do with increase in specific locales (i.e. the “old zones”) over others. It comes from hunting other states with prime turkey habitat that have very few birds for miles, then a pile of them in small specific areas that perhaps overwinter birds, disallow hunting, etc.

That goes hand in hand with averaging out the effects of a larger population in good habitat, connected to poorer habitat now within the same zone. Management decisions (like the amount of permits to offer) will now be made on broader averages. I think the temptation might be to sample less in terms of surveys to characterize the larger area, where it will still remain important to sample as much as possible to get an accurate idea of the w/in-zone variation.

Regarding private land, you’re right on. That’s by far most of what exists in MN for turkey hunters. At the same time, pressure is pressure, and more people knocking is more people hunting in my mind.

Will it devastate turkey hunting in MN? I’m sure not. Turkeys will adapt over time, and it does make things easier to both understand and operate within in terms of opportunity. Just like we manage vulnerable lakes with species-specific regulations, deer in small zones that are further regulated amongst groups of zones, I think the resource does best when managers can fine-tune numbers according to recent survey data sampled from numerous points within a small spatial area.

Joel