Watickslinger.....you said...
"There must be enough birds to allow us to shoot two a day?"
There may or may not be....that is the question.
It is an ethical question as well as a harvest one. Washington ranks right near the top of states with harvest opportunity, especially with the recent passage of additional hen harvest in the northeast last weekend in Pasco by the Commission. I believe that will potentially allow up to five (5) birds a year if I interpret it correctly.
I for one would ask if these liberalizations of our turkey season is based on "best science", the current director's favorite term, or rather wildlife management's problem of having to deal with turkeys in general, as many didn't particularly want them to begin with.
Lets look at how things have progressed. We won't go back all the way, but begin with......
1.One (1) tag for each subspecies...Eastern, Merriams, and Rio.......then
2.Three (3) tags....two (2) east either one of each or two of same.. Merriams or Rio, one(1) westside..eastern
3.Fall season...one(1) either sex in various units
4.Two birds same day in various areas
5.Expand fall season and potential harvest of hens
Mixed in as we progressed were free tags..... Remember the free-tags
....they sure changed the image of the turkey hunting landscape. Instead of responsible camoed guys and gals hitting the woods, the free tags brought us......"drive bys" executed by opportunists in blue jeans and t-shirts. It sure changed landowner attitudes when they encountered these guys.
Fall seasons...Something to think about. Increasing the fall harvest on hen turkeys could have an impact down the road.....particularly if a good percentage of those hens are from elite category of successful nesters. Been shown to have an impact back east years ago. The department makes a feeble mention of the study in the Turkey Management Plan. You know there used to be fall seasons way back when...believe the first one was 1970. Birds in Stevens had in spite of way fewer birds being release than in the 80' and 90's, did relatively well. Very little pressure as what few turkey we had then generally went to Klickitat as it got the hype.
That fall season up there ended up causing landowner hate, closing of property to hunters and loss of hen turkeys. Seems it coincided with deer season. Wonder how many roosting turkeys in the light of the early a.m. were used for target practice...I know some were. Anyway couple that with a lack on new blood over 20+ years and you have isolated populations going down hill. Genetically in trouble. That's why Klickitat numbers declined....you can't rely on an initial release of 13-20 birds to go the distance. These things lead to the general concensus in the late 70's and early 80's that turkeys were just not going to make it in any large numbers in Washington, outside of where there already were.
Along comes an aggressive turkey introduction program in the mid 80' and 90's
, in spite of in house "turkey wars".....good guys won by the way, but it came at a price. Washington could have had so much more...particularly in regards to the eastern subspecies. Birds were available and basically free through agreements between agencies. Just enough bureaucratic BS to slow things down before things changed and the agency brought the overall introduction program to a halt in 2001 or 2002. This same BS was at the same time applied to in state trap and transfer with Rio's and Merriam's and kept birds from going to appropriate areas.....Rio's didn't fair well for whatever reason in the Yakima region so things came to a halt...gee guess no options huh? Could it be possible that merriams might fair well with sufficient release in the Yakima region and provide additional opportunity? They as a subspecies occur above...all the way from Stevens across the north central portion of the state and turning south into Kittitas county....as well as below...Klickitat county. Probably bad odds huh? Not.....the agency/regional folks don't want them there, period.
The birds that resulted from all the introductions 10-15 years ago were not the nuisance problems as we have today...oh excuse me....they were, but a Dept. program which had 21 staff took care of them immediately when they arose. The Dept has since essentially killed that approach as only 9 folks remain in the old program with a ton of other duties. So....now the problem is paramount and created by these same people who really dislike these birds being here in the first place. That's the first step....see, we told you they would be a problem. Next step...convince everyone we have a problem and should shoot the piss out of em, and in the interim train turkey hunters to fit the good ol' Joe six-pack image. Starting to get my drift.
Forgot to mention.....and I alluded to it above, before that program got dismantled...the ones who kept it from being a problem, in all fairness before that happened, there were some problems. Birds being trapped on nuisance sites in Stevens were blocked by Regional and Headquarter staff from being released in Klickitat county.
Imagine that....why would anyone in their right mind want to take Merriam's from Stevens where a landowner wants 60-70% removed (not all as he likes em...just too many), and release them in Klickitat county, the birth place of the Washington turkey Program...i.e Merriam's, and where folks, landowners, timber owners, hunter, non-hunters are excited about getting them. Guess they didn't fit the guidelines, habitat type, or the powers to be in the Department weren't sure they could make it. Whatever excuse they could come up with to make a timely release impossible. People pissed big time at the receiving end.......lousy PR all the way around.
New proposal for increase hen harvest....The Department sure picked an appropriate time to run this by the Commission.....3 days before the general spring turkey opener. I'm sure any turkey hunter who would be interested in opposing this nonsense, probably would not even see it in the paper or have a chance to be there if he or she did......gee wonder what they might be doing instead....packing up, heading out to camp, meeting up with old friends, scouting etc. Another sneaky move in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying in the short term we are going to decimate turkey populations in the NE. I also realize fall turkey hunting is different than spring hunting, and that there are pros and cons. I know all that.
I'm speaking in reference to an overall perception of where we are heading ethically in this state as it relates to turkey hunting. I have not recently researched the regulations as such from most of the midwestern or eastern states, but I'll bet you when they have booms in populations that result in some nuisance problems they (their agency's) are not rushing to reduce numbers by allowing up to five birds a year, three of them beardless. Too much money and effort went into reestablishing those birds into native ranges to do that.
Now granted....they (Pa., Iowa, etc.) have alot more turkey hunters than we do, and could do more damage to flocks under this scenario, but we've grown also.....30,000 + tags and will continue to grow. I guess you have to look at the options. Personally, I think the small expenditure necessary to trap and move a suitable portions of these nuisance flocks (like the agency used to do), is far cheaper, dollar wise in the long run. It's target specific and addresses the problem at a specific site. Everyone is happy....landowner got help, birds got a new location...problem over. But of course that's not going to happen. Fall hunting increases directed at beardless birds is not going to alleviate specific problems, as folks will be hunting all over the county, and taking birds from flocks that are not a nuisance.
So unless you can get these new tags targeted directly on nusianse sites, you really won't solve the perceived problem and the landowner is still left holding the bag.....and in doing so we run the risk of changing the image of turkeys and turkey hunters socially in the eyes of others.
Futhermore....I feel the nuisance problem is being blown out of proportion by the agency as more than it really is to serve their own purposes....not yours. If we were to superimpose the reasoning behind the increase in beardless tags to that elk population, we would start increasing tag numbers to get rid of any problems those elk may cause. Not going to do that as they have a perceived value. It's worth the problem and the feeding to retain them as such. They are elk and an important symbol of Washington. To approach elk problems by turning the hoards loose on them changes that image...they become nuisance animals.
What I am suggesting is that by approaching turkeys the way the agency proposes it will continue to degrade their status in the long run and provide ammo for all the "Eco" types to make their case regarding introduced species and impact future management issues regarding turkey as such. We all have something special in this state with all three(3) subspecies and the ability to harvest them in the spring....we need to guard it and keep it close.
So to go back to your original question....I would suggest the answer is no to both...... ethically this regulation as well as others could eventually degrade the overall turkey hunter image. The agency sells licenses and tags and in doing so they inherit the responsible for setting regulations that promotes the correct image. As I pointed out above there are mixed feelings about turkeys, so for those in the agency who don't like em, do you think hunter image is a concern. Just adds one more thing to the list of undesirables. As far as population numbers are concerned it is unwarranted as it's not based on real science, but rather vodoo wishes!