ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION - STRATEGIC WILD TURKEY MANAGEMENT PLAN
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION
STRATEGIC
WILD TURKEY MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 2013
STRATEGIC
WILD TURKEY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared by
The Wild Turkey Team
Wildlife Management Division
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
Jason Honey, Chairman
Jeff Black
Brad Carner
Stacey Clark
Daniel Greenfield
Mark Hooks
Kevin Lynch
Gary Thornton
Brad Townsend
Ray Wiggs
Zack Yancey
Special thanks to those individuals who assisted in plan development: Dr. Brad Miller
and Mike Widner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents 3 Wild Turkey Management Plan Introduction &Purpose 4 History of the Eastern Wild Turkey in Arkansas 4 Recent Population Trends of the Eastern Wild Turkey in Arkansas 5 Accomplishments 6 Development of the Pan 7 Organization of the Plan 7 Statewide Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 8 Appendix I 13 Appendix II 16 Appendix III 21 Literature Cited 23
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this plan is to provide strategic, long-term guidance and direction for the
Commission’s wild turkey program. Operational planning based on priorities in this strategic plan will
occur annually, in conjunction with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s budget process and
biennially in conjunction with biennial personnel requests. This strategic plan is intended to guide the
wild turkey program and will be evaluated and formally updated on a five-year cycle. However,
dynamic changes to address specific problems may be necessary in the interim.
A team of AGFC professional biologists, most with years or decades of experience with wild
turkeys, developed this plan. Initial drafts of this plan were primarily habitat-based, but the plan has
been expanded to include more detail on population and societal goals. A thorough review of this plan
was made by agency staff prior to its adoption by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) was once abundant and widely
distributed across what is now Arkansas. The settling of Arkansas was followed by a number of
practices which led to greatly-reduced turkey populations. Market hunting (legal until 1915), poor
logging practices, slash-and-burn agriculture, free-ranging livestock, and indiscriminate year-round
subsistence hunting all led to a decline in turkey numbers. A. H. Howell, in “Birds of Arkansas”
(1911), reported turkeys had almost been eliminated from the Ozarks by the early 1900s, but they were
still fairly common in the heavily-timbered bottoms of eastern Arkansas.
Soon after the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission was created in 1915, the new agency
moved to protect wild turkeys. The Commission established the first closed seasons and bag limits.
However, enforcement personnel were few, and a general lack of scientific knowledge about wild
turkeys existed at the time.
Despite protection via hunting regulations, limited stocking of wild turkeys from other states,
unsuccessful release of pen-raised turkeys, and establishment of state game refuges, wild turkeys
reached their lowest point in Arkansas during the 1930s. Poaching was suspected as a major limiting
factor. In a county-by-county survey, less than 7,000 wild turkeys were estimated to remain in
Arkansas during the mid-1940s.
The single most important factor contributing to turkey restoration was the perfection of cannon
netting techniques around 1950. For the first time, wildlife managers had the ability to capture large
numbers of wild turkeys for restoration purposes. This allowed biologists to quickly restore wild turkey
populations to many areas with suitable habitat, but no turkeys.Historical Wild Turkey Stocking 1932-2013
Recent Population Trends:
Springtime estimates of turkey population levels are based on checked harvest in Arkansas.
These crude estimates result from the assumption that spring turkey hunting removes approximately
10% of the total population. Currently, the springtime turkey population is estimated at 90,000 birds.
The current population estimate represents a decline of over 100,000 turkeys (~65%) in recent years,
based on the 2003 spring harvest of 19,947.
Turkey season has seen many changes over the last decade. From 2001-04, season length
increased from 35 to 39 days, seasons started early, from 5 to 7 weekends of hunting occurred, a
Saturday opener was put in place in 2003 and pre-season youth hunts were added in 2004. These
liberalized seasons added significantly to turkey harvest during this period. The liberal seasons may
have increased the number of turkey hunters in the state. Turkey harvest had been rising under
conservative seasons in the late 1990s because of several years of good reproduction, but with
liberalization, the turkey harvest increased dramatically. Meanwhile, reproduction started its downward
trend in 2002. So below-average reproduction was soon coupled with above-average gobbler harvest.
Starting in 2004, despite adding another weekend to turkey season, harvest started a rapid decline. For
the next four years, the decline was between 2,000 to 3,000 birds annually.Beginning in 2005, the Wildlife Management Division and the Commission addressed this
situation by shortening the season 7 days. The shorter season in 2005 and 2006 undoubtedly aided
gobbler carryover. However, this reduction in season length was not enough to reverse the steep decline
in spring harvests and continuing decline in gobbler carryover seen in the 2005 and 2006 brood
surveys. This resulted in the division’s recommendation to again shorten the season by another 7 days.
The Commission agreed with the division’s recommendation and approved the 2007 spring season.
Taking an additional week from the season should have more than doubled the number of turkeys that
potentially were “saved” from harvest and carried over to the next season. The real benefit, however, is
spring turkey harvest has been relatively stable for the past 4 years. The present season structure is now
compatible with brood production levels of recent years; i.e., the output in harvested gobblers is
compatible with the input of young gobblers coming into the system. Poor reproduction since 2002, the
close relationship of reproduction to harvest and the evidence of overexploitation of gobblers in recent
years all point to the need for conservative spring turkey seasons, seasons similar to those in place for
much of the 1980s and 1990s.
From 2007 to 2011, seasons were approximately three weeks in duration and began about April
10. The previous two years, the season duration has been 16 days. Seasons have started as early as
April 3. . As compared to surrounding states, we are the most conservative: Arkansas, Aril 20;
Missouri, April 15; Tennessee, March 30; Kansas, April 10; Mississippi, March 15; Oklahoma, April 6;
Texas, March 15 in the south and March 30 in the north. We also do not allow jakes to be killed by
adults. Fall turkey season was eliminated in 2009, eliminating the legal killing of hens and shortening
the number of days a turkey could be legally harvested by approximately 150 days.
Accomplishments Since the Implementation of the 1999 Wild Turkey Plan
Several of the objectives were met since the 1999 Wild Turkey Management Plan was written.
• In 2002 internet checking was allowed, followed by Telecheck in 2010. This allowed the Arkansas
turkey hunter an easier way to check turkeys and enabled a daily update on the number of turkeys
harvested.
• A statewide two day youth season was implemented in 2004.
• National Wild Turkey Federation and AGFC accomplishments since 1985: Enhanced 2,349 acres of
Arkansas national forests through stewardship contracts. Improved 163,000 acres of wildlife
habitat on 30 WMAs across the state by investing $1,171,000. Facilitated the acquisition of 1,876
acres of public hunting land by investing more than $134,000.
• Development of two walk-in turkey hunting areas.
• The Spring Gobbler Hunter Survey was initiated in spring 2007. The primary purpose for the
survey was to gather more information on hunting activity, turkey gobbling, hunter success and
hunter attitudes.
• The Gobbling Chronology Survey was conducted for 3 years beginning spring 2007. The gobbling
chronology/phenology study was needed to add information to that currently collected (checkedharvest, brood surveys, research findings, etc.) to assist managers in making recommendations for
spring turkey seasons.
• Currently there is one ongoing research project, with an additional two set to begin January 2013.
• Established approximately 186,000 acres in bottomland hardwoods, through WRP, CRP and
various other government programs.
• Adopted zone structure identified in the 1999 turkey plan. This has provided us with the data we
will use to develop the harvest management guidelines.
• Average of three habitat landowner workshops per year.
• AGFC has utilized the 1999 strategic plan harvest management guideline to make incremental
adjustments to season structure.
Development of Plan
The development of this plan consisted of an in-depth review of available turkey population data by Turkey
Management Unit. These indices act as a cornerstone of this plan and will provide managers with
fundamental information concerning turkey populations.
Public input was gathered via an on-line survey during the month of September 2012. Participants were able
to view and provide comments concerning the initial draft of the plan. Public comments were then reviewed
and incorporated into the final draft plan.
Organization of Plan
For organizational purposes, the plan is divided into five major goals related to turkey management in
Arkansas.
Resource Sociological Habitat Education EnforcementSTRATEGIC WILD TURKEY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Statewide Goals and Objectives
RESOURCE GOAL:
Establish and maintain long term stability in the wild turkey population in all appropriate
habitats within Arkansas
Objective A: Determine, monitor and manage wild turkey populations consistent with
desired population targets for each Turkey Management Unit in order to
effectively manage turkeys at the zone level.
Strategy 1. Review and revise the Wild Turkey Harvest Management
Plan. This revision will include identifying criteria to track
long term stability within the turkey population.
Strategy 2. Maintain and monitor long-term stable regulations to meet
desired guidelines.
Strategy 3. Continue to monitor turkey populations through data
collection.
Objective B: Utilize scientific research and monitor long term stability of the turkey
population.
Strategy 1. Identify and prioritize research needs as it relates to turkey
management.
Strategy 2. Complete prescribed fire research in the Ouachitas and
Ozarks.
Strategy 3. Evaluate the effects of artificial feeding on turkey
populations.
Strategy 4. Evaluate the effects of the “no-jakes” rule.
Strategy 5. Develop simple predictive models using turkey harvest and
brood survey data to evaluate harvest and population
dynamics.Objective C: Provide turkey management guidance to private landowners.
Strategy 1: Provide private landowners with technical assistance
concerning turkey management issues.
Objective D: Increase turkey management on selected Wildlife Management Areas and
Co-Op areas.
Strategy 1: Selected WMAs will have more intensified management
where appropriate.
Strategy 2: Hunter use data will be gathered to learn more about hunter
opinion regarding present and future management
practices.
SOCIOLOGICAL GOAL:
Be responsive to public concerns and maintain open communication with public regarding
turkey management issues.
Objective A: Assess public attitudes and opinions in regard to turkey management.
Strategy 1: Develop a survey to identify turkey hunters and determine the
number of turkey hunters in the state.
Strategy 2: Conduct a scientific, statistically valid survey of Arkansas
turkey hunters on a three-year rotation during the life of this
plan.
Strategy 3: Identify appropriate actions regarding identified turkey
management issues.
EDUCATION GOAL:
Improve education and understanding of turkey management and turkey hunting in
Arkansas
Objective A: Determine effectiveness at recruiting and mentoring youth turkey hunters.
Strategy 1: Review of existing youth hunting opportunities.
Strategy 2: Partner with the NWTF/JAKES Program.
Strategy 3: Investigate further youth license opportunities.
Strategy 4: Review and revise the AGFC Turkey Habitat book.
9Objective B: Provide information about Arkansas wild turkeys by utilizing all media
outlets.
Strategy 1: Expand educational information in the turkey guidebook.
Strategy 2: Increase effort to promote and better explain justification and
rationale for turkey management decisions.
Strategy 3: Provide educational information on the AGFC website
regarding game processing and habitat management.
Strategy 4: Participate in various public relation events to inform and
educate the public on the Arkansas’ turkey program.
Strategy 5: Maintain a strong partnership with the NWTF.
Objective C: Maintain a downward trend in turkey hunting accidents.
Strategy 1: Use all available educational outlets to continue reducing
turkey hunting accidents.
HABITAT GOAL
Promote the establishment and enhancement of turkey habitat on public and private lands
in Arkansas.
Objective A: Increase and enhance habitat conditions on public land.
Strategy 1: Review and revise existing Turkey Habitat Management
Guidelines.
Strategy 2: Incorporate Turkey Habitat Management Guidelines into
Wildlife Management Area Master Plans.
Strategy 3: Utilize GIS for WMA prescription process to assess and
quantify habitat conditions.
Objective B: Maintain/strengthen existing cooperative partnerships with
government and non-profit wildlife conservation organizations and
actively pursue other partners.
Strategy 1: Work through the Memorandum of Understanding and the
State Super Fund program with the National Wild Turkey
Federation to increase wild turkey management
efforts on federal, state, and private lands throughout the
state.
10Strategy 2: Pursue possible stewardship agreements with USFS to
implement turkey habitat management on USFS land.
Objective C: Increase and enhance turkey habitat on private lands where
applicable.
Strategy 1: Promote private lands assistance through AGFC technical
assistance, NRCS and NWTF workshops.
Strategy 2: Explore opportunities to include the Turkey Habitat
Management Guidelines within the forest management plans
of private industrial forestland.
Strategy 3: Work with timber companies to explore more ways to secure
conservation easements for public access.
Strategy 4: Work with conservation partners to provide input into existing
private lands programs to improve turkey habitat practices.
Strategy 5: Assist in the promotion, maintenance and enhancement of
private landowner assistance websites, such as the Arkansas’s
Private Lands Network webpage as a way to provide turkey
habitat management information.
ENFORCEMENT GOAL:
Enhance enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with AGFC Regulations.
Objective A: Prioritize enforcement efforts to maximize regulatory compliance dealing
with turkey hunting regulations.
Strategy 1: Identify, through citizen complaints, local areas of high
violations. Utilize, when resources allow, enforcement
saturations to improve regulatory compliance.
Strategy 2: Maintain enforcement efforts focusing on major violations that
have a negative impact on the turkey resource or pose a public
safety issue.
Strategy 3: Promote open lines of communication between local
sportsmen and wildlife officers by community oriented
policing activities.
11Strategy 4: Maintain penalties that deter violations of AGFC turkey
regulations by reviewing monetary penalties, confiscations and
license suspensions.
Strategy 5: Publicize the NWTF/AGFC poaching reward system.
12Appendix I. Guidelines for Wild Turkey Habitat Management
Federal Lands:
• Remain actively involved in U.S. Forest Service plan revisions, environmental assessments
and prescription reviews. Use the Cooperative Management Agreement to accomplish
strategies for turkey habitat improvements. Specific topics of importance that should be
promoted in the plan and all work include:
• Rotational age: Long saw-timber rotations should be promoted and retained. In
hardwoods, 100 years is normally needed, while 70 years is needed in pines.
• Age-class distributions and stand entry: Compatible with long rotations, the majority of
the forest should be in pole or sawtimber stands (preferably >70%). Forest regeneration
and sapling stands should comprise 10% to 15% of the forest, providing temporal brood
and nesting habitats and escape cover (as well as future forests).
• Timber harvest systems (final harvest): Promote single-stem and large-scale even-aged
harvest systems in hardwood and pine habitat. Avoid group selections and other small
cuts in both types and single-stem final harvest in pine types.
• Stand conversion should be avoided in most cases. Poor quality hardwoods or mixed
stands may, with proper management, be much better habitat for turkeys than pine
conversions. Hardwoods should be retained, particularly in the Ouachitas, where they
are generally lacking.
• Stand size/Harvest acreage: Timber harvests should probably be in the 60 to 200-acre
range and well distributed across the landscape. At one time, smaller acreages were
promoted, but research suggests small cuts may lead to increased predation on turkeys.
• Thinning: Pre-commercial and commercial (TSI and WSI) thinning’s should be used in
conjunction with prescribed fire to create habitats with suitable openness and to stimulate
herbaceous growth on the forest floor.
• Prescribed fire: This practice is highly beneficial to wild turkeys and should be increased.
A target of 10% to 15% per year on the Ouachita and the Ozark National Forest should
be burned. In the Ozarks, poor quality oak-hardwood stands should be burned to create
oak savannas.
• Management scale: Prescribed fire and other management activities should be done on a
landscape scale. Turkeys are wide-ranging with annual home ranges of thousands of
acres, thus a landscape perspective is needed in all management activities.
• Brood habitat management: Target 20% of the landscape in suitable brood habitat. This
goal can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including timber harvest (temporal),
wildlife openings, pine-bluestem ecosystem management, and retention of non-forested
openings on the landscape.
• Surface water: Create permanent surface water sources where they are lacking.
• Access: Reduce open road density. Install gates for seasonal (March 1 to Aug. 31) and
permanent closures on each forest annually. Enforce and prosecute violations of ATV
and off-road travel on closed roads. Plant temporary timber harvest roads to annual or
Native Warm Season Grasses mixtures.
13• Walk-in Turkey Hunting Areas: Improve habitat management on these areas. Review
and evaluate habitat on these areas to provide quality turkey habitat.
• Recognizing most U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, National Park Service and other federal lands in Arkansas were purchased with
objectives other than wild turkeys in mind (and in enabling legislation), work with those
agencies to implement management practices, whenever possible and within legal
constraints, that benefit turkeys. At a minimum, all habitat management plans and
management prescriptions should contain requirements for creation and maintenance of
turkey habitat where primary consideration is being given to resident wildlife.
State Lands:
• Assist in and promote efforts for a comprehensive strategic management plan, including
management of WMAs, at the agency level. An assessment of the suitability of turkey
habitats on all individual state lands, the primary management objectives for the state land,
and the potential to improve turkey habitats is needed.
• Specifically, promotion and implementation of management practices associated with “ideal”
turkey habitats (guidelines will be provided) should be promoted on those state lands where
implementation is feasible and desirable. This can be accomplished with updated
management plans by WMA that truly address agency and division management objectives
for that particular area. Area managers should be required to adhere to objectives of
comprehensive management plans. In addition to guidelines associated with ideal turkey
habitats, managers should be particularly attentive to the following specific habitat
management items on WMAs.
• Target a minimum of 20% brood habitat management on upland WMAs where turkey
management is feasible. Where food plots or other openings are used to satisfy this
objective, they should be irregular shaped and 1 to 5 acres in size and planted to cool
season legume mixtures and warm-season grasses.
• Use prescribed fire for maintenance of open areas as well as forested areas whenever
possible.
• Acquire inholdings or adjacent lands whenever possible to enhance turkey management
on a landscape basis. Acquisition of adjacent terrace or upland land is particularly
important in the Delta region.
Commercial Lands:
• Create and use working groups to accomplish turkey and wildlife management objectives on
commercial lands. These working groups should, at a minimum, consist of company
14representatives, users and wildlife professionals. Interactions at the administrative and
decision making level are very important to the future of turkeys and other wildlife on
commercial lands. Use public opinions to leverage economic decisions toward practices
beneficial to wildlife.
• Through working groups and direct interaction, encourage all timber companies to become
members of the Sustainable Forest Initiative and to implement best management practices.
• Work with the timber industry to promote longer rotation in commercial stands or
management practices that will result in habitat attributes similar to those of more mature
stands. Increase prescribed fire and stand thinning by 10% over current levels.
• Work with the timber industry to implement Streamside Management Zones that are a
minimum of 75 yards wide on either side of a stream. Work to retain critical hardwood
inclusions in pine types where they occur. Use these management practices to increase
hardwood components on commercial timberlands.
• Use working groups to design and implement wild turkey habitat management projects on
10% of utility right-of-ways statewide.
Private Lands:
• Encourage and assist in creation of Turkey Management Cooperatives so management and
protection can be addressed on a landscape basis.
• Promote the conversion of undesirable cool season grasses to cool season legumes or
desirable warm season grasses.
• Work with private landowners to create alternate food sources, usually large agricultural
grains, on suitable sites in heavily wooded areas. Although suitable sites are very limited,
there are situations where such management is feasible and would greatly benefit wild
turkeys.
• Promote the use of prescribed fire to maintain old field habitat and to enhance cedar glades
for wild turkeys.
• Use EQIP and other programs though the Farm Bill as the primary vehicle to promote
prescribed fire.
• Use Private Lands Biologist contacts to see that private landowners that are primarily
interested in wild turkeys implement habitat management based on guidelines supplied by
AGFC.
Appendix II. Wild Turkey Harvest Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
15The resource goal identified in the Strategic Wild Turkey Management Plan is to
“Establish and maintain long term stability in wild turkey population in all appropriate habitats
within Arkansas.” Currently, we do not know the exact percentage of the population we are
actually harvesting, but use the assumption approximately 10% of the population is harvested
during the spring (Vangilder 1997). Research conducted between 1993 and 1996 in the Ouachita
Mountains, found legal harvest comprised 44% of annual gobbler mortality, with an average of
19.2% of tagged gobblers being harvested in the spring (Johnson et al. 1996). Assuming a 50:50
sex ratio of hens and gobblers in the population, this would translate to a harvest of
approximately 10% of the overall population. However, harvest rates most likely vary from
different regions of the state and determining those rates would require intensive monitoring
(e.g., radio tagging, leg banding, etc.). As additional information is obtained, modifications to
the percentages presented within the SWTMP may be warranted, especially as it relates to what
percentage of the spring population can be harvested while maintaining acceptable levels of
hunter satisfaction and maintaining long-term turkey population viability.
Harvest is often used to assess population trends over time. Lint (1990) found total
harvest and harvest/hunter effort indices were the best predictors of population trends in a long-
term study in Mississippi. However, it must be noted many factors such as weather, gobbling
activity, changes in hunter numbers and hunter effort, regulation adjustments, etc. can cause
variations in harvest between years which may not directly reflect changes in population levels.
Many of these factors are uncontrollable, but those that are controllable (i.e., regulation
adjustments) should be controlled if at all possible. Previous research has shown at least 5 years
is needed to assess the influence of regulation changes on populations (Weaver and Mosby
1979). Based on this information, the Turkey Team recommends turkey regulations remain
consistent for at least a 5-year period, which will allow harvest to more accurately reflect
population trends. There is little scientific documentation on the impact of spring gobbler
harvest on overall turkey populations. Because Arkansas’ season is the latest opening in our
region, including states generally north of Arkansas, the opening day will be reviewed every
year. Therefore, only “emergency scenarios” should result in regulation adjustments during the
5-year evaluation period (e.g., several years of poor reproduction, dramatic decreases in harvest,
disease outbreak, etc.). Variations in hunter numbers and hunter effort can also be corrected if
turkey hunters could be easily identified (Sociological Goal, Objective A), thus, explaining
additional variation in turkey harvest.
Understanding population dynamics and the influence of harvest on wild turkey
populations is crucial in developing harvest management programs (Vangilder and Kurzejeski
1995). Only in recent years has research focused on the intricate relationships between turkey
populations and harvest management (Kurzejeski and Vangilder 1992, Healy and Powell 1999).
Spring Turkey Season
Spring seasons are generally limited to harvest of the male segment of the population.
Under this scenario, it has been believed harvest has no discernible impact on populations
because of the polygamous nature of the species (e.g., an individual male breeds with many
females). Although this is true to some extent, research has shown impacts can occur with a
gobbler only spring season under some scenarios.
16Excessive harvest rates of gobblers (> 25%) each year tends to shift the age structure of
the population towards juvenile males, thus increasing the percentage of jakes in the harvest
(Vangilder and Kurzejeski 1995).
Using population modeling techniques Vangilder and Kurzejeski (1995) found harvest
rates >60% would remove all adult gobblers during some years, thus influencing both population
dynamics and hunt quality, with future spring harvests highly correlated with the previous year’s
reproduction. To maintain population growth and hunt quality, Vangilder (1992; 1996)
recommended harvest rates should remain less than 30% of the male population.
The timing of spring seasons has been shown to have the greatest potential impact on
populations. Typically, spring turkey seasons are set to coincide with peak hen incubation dates,
such that risk of illegal and/or accidental hen harvest is minimized and most breeding has taken
place. Seasons which open prior to the initiation of incubation may increase the vulnerability of
hens to harvest, as they tend to be in close proximity to gobblers and locations where hunters
frequent. In contrast, incubating hens tend to be secretive and often in secluded areas were
hunters tend not to frequent. Research in Missouri (Vangilder 1992) has shown that during years
when spring seasons opened prior to peak incubation, illegal kill of hens was higher. Also,
research conducted in Mississippi found hens incubating a nest were less vulnerable to illegal
harvest than hens not incubating a nest (Miller 1997).
Additionally, if seasons open prior to breeding, gobblers which are harvested are no
longer available for breeding and thus some hens may go unbred. In south Alabama, early
seasons and high harvest rates may have resulted in a high proportion of infertile clutches which
led to low reproductive success, as a result of low numbers of breeding males (Exum et al. 1987).
Another possibility, although no formal research has been conducted, is that early seasons may
result in the harvest of dominant males (i.e., the most fit males) prior to breeding, thus resulting
in sub-dominant males (i.e., the less fit males) conducting most of the breeding. The potential
impacts of this on long-term population viability are unknown, but could potentially lead to
decreases in population viability (i.e., decreased genetic fitness) since those individuals that are
most fit do not make significant genetic contributions to future generations.
WILD TURKEY ZONES
As mentioned in the SWTMP, turkeys have been managed by regulations which were
related to zones since the creation of AGFC in 1915. These zones have been quite variable from
year to year depending on the type of season (e.g., spring, archery/crossbow), as managers have
attempted to use season closures and restrictions to assist growing turkey numbers in many parts
of Arkansas. As turkey populations expand in most suitable habitats in Arkansas, the need for
large numbers of zones within a particular turkey season has diminished. However, variations in
habitat suitability, production, and population levels throughout the state, create a need for
collecting turkey data (e.g., harvest and reproductive data) based on the potential of the habitat to
support turkey populations.
17There are 10 commonly accepted natural divisions in Arkansas (Fig. 5 of SWTMP; Smith 1989),
however, the Turkey Team consolidated these divisions into nine natural divisions based on
turkey population potential and forest cover. These divisions include the Boston Mountains,
Salem Plateau, Springfield Plateau, Arkansas River Valley, Ouachita Mountains (Central
Ouachita and Fourche Mountains), Athens Plateau, West Gulf Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial
Valley (commonly referred to as the Delta) and Crowley’s Ridge.
To further define areas based on habitat potential, as determined by forest cover or turkey
potential, some of these natural divisions were further subdivided (e.g., Mississippi River Batture
lands) to account for these variations and will serve as future Turkey Management Units (TMUs;
Fig. B-1).
Figure B-1. Turkey Management Units
As mentioned previously, the number of zones for turkey seasons has diminished.
Therefore, season zones will be combinations of TMUs. Since WMA’s present unique
management strategies, they will remain separate zones, with seasons the same as the
surrounding zone or specific to population goals for a specific WMA. Harvest and reproduction
will be monitored at the TMU, county and WMA level. Because the defined TMUs have not
been used in the past, data at the TMU level is unavailable, therefore, comparisons with past
trends will be made at the county level (or aggregations of counties) until data is available for
each defined TMU. When data is available at the TMU level (during the 5-year evaluation
period), measurable harvest goals at the TMU level will be developed.
18SPRING TURKEY SEASON
Season structures will be recommended by the Wildlife Management Division and
approved by the Commission for the spring season immediately following approval of the
SWTMP. As mentioned in the introduction, regulations should remain consistent throughout the
5-year evaluation period to the extent possible, such that trends in turkey populations and the
influence of regulations can be more closely monitored. The following measures will be used to
assess the influence of spring turkey seasons:
• Total harvest should not drop below 80% of the previous 5-year average for any given TMU.
Decreases will be observed during some years while increases will be observed during
others. The current year’s harvest should be compared to the previous 5-year average so
these natural fluctuations can be accounted for. In addition, recent trends should be
compared to past trends; i.e., a drop in this index for the past several years may be indicative
of declining turkey numbers.
• Harvest per square mile of forest should not drop below 80% of the previous 5-year average
for any given TMU. Population levels will stabilize and fluctuate around the carrying
capacity of the habitat. Again, the current year’s harvest should be compared to the previous
5-year average so these natural fluctuations can be accounted for. As updated forest statistics
become available (every 5 years) they should be used in calculations and adjustments in
forested area should be noted. In addition, recent trends should be compared to past trends;
i.e., a drop in this index for the past several years may be indicative of declining turkey
numbers (Fig. B-2).
Figure B-2. Statewide turkey harvest per square mile of forested land for Arkansas, 2000-2012. Dashed
line represents 0.5 turkeys harvested/mi2 forest.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Harvest /mi2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
• The number of gobblers/hen as determined by the annual summer wild turkey brood survey
should remain above 0.5 gobblers / hen. This index provides information relative to the
19carryover of gobblers from one year to the next (i.e., a high number of gobblers/hen would
suggest next year’s spring season will have a high number of adult gobblers). Decreasing
trends with respect to this index may suggest declining turkey numbers and/or excessive
harvest of gobblers (Fig. B-3).
Figure B-3. Total statewide spring turkey harvest plotted against the number of gobblers/hen observed
during annual summer wild turkey brood surveys in Arkansas, 2000-2012. The horizontal dashed line
represents 0.5 gobblers/hen.
20000
18000
# Gobblers/Hen * 1000
0.5 Gobblers/Hen
16000
Total Harvest
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Because turkey populations are dynamic and inter-year variation in populations and
harvest are common, failure to meet one of the criteria above in a given year or over the course
of the 5-year evaluation period should not be cause for alarm. However, if 3 or more of the
above criteria are not met, the information available should be examined in detail and corrective
actions recommended. Because each scenario may differ, these should be handled on a case by
case basis rather than by development of a cookbook recipe for defining corrective measures
beforehand. As additional information is obtained (e.g., influence of harvest rates on hunter
opinion and population viability, population models, etc.), adjustments and refinements to the
criteria above may be warranted at the 5-year evaluation of the SWTMP.
EVALUATION
As stated previously, harvest management is an important aspect of assuring the long-
term welfare of wild turkey populations in Arkansas. Therefore, it is imperative that sound
science and current, reliable data are used to drive and evaluate the plan. The reduction of
variation in harvest data will be important in effectively evaluating the harvest management plan
and for defining measurable harvest objectives at the TMU level when baseline data becomes
available (5 years).
20Thus, regulations should remain consistent during the 5-year period of the plan. As
additional information is obtained on harvest rates, habitat suitability, etc., adjustments to the
plan may be warranted in the future. Because wild turkey potential varies between TMUs,
evaluation of the need for specific measurable criteria for individual TMUs should also be
examined at the 5-year evaluation period of the plan.
Appendix III – 2013 Action Item List
As the 2013 Strategic Wild Turkey Management Plan was being developed, the AGFC Turkey
Team realized certain items became elevated in importance and their completion should become
a priority.
RESOURCE GOAL:
Establish and maintain long term stability in the wild turkey population in all appropriate
habitats within Arkansas
Objective A: Monitor and manage wild turkey populations consistent with desired
population targets for each Turkey Management Unit in order to effectively
manage turkeys at the zone level.
Strategy 1. Maintain and monitor long-term stable regulations to meet
desired guidelines.
Strategy 2. Utilize the Annual Turkey Summer population Survey,
Mast Survey and the Spring Turkey Hunter Survey to
monitor turkey populations in Arkansas.
Objective B: Utilize scientific research and monitor long term stability of the turkey
population.
Strategy 1. Continue prescribed fire research in the Ouachitas and
Ozarks.
Strategy 2. Evaluate the effects of artificial feeding on turkey
populations in south Arkansas.
Strategy 3. Evaluate the effects of the “no-jakes” regulation on
populations in the Ozark Mountains and Gulf Coastal Plain.
Objective C: Provide turkey management guidance to private landowners.
Strategy 1: Provide private landowners with technical assistance
concerning turkey management issues.
21Strategy 2: Hunter use data will be gathered to learn more about hunter
opinion regarding present and future management
practices.
SOCIOLOGICAL GOAL:
Be responsive to public concerns and maintain open communication with the public
regarding turkey management issues.
Objective A: Assess public attitudes and opinions in regard to turkey management.
Strategy 1: Develop a survey to identify turkey hunters and determine the
number of turkey hunters in the state.
Strategy 2: Identify appropriate actions regarding identified turkey
management issues.
EDUCATION GOAL:
Improve education and understanding of turkey management and turkey hunting in
Arkansas
Objective A: Work with the Education and Communications divisions to explore ways to
increase recruitment and retention of turkey hunters.
Strategy 1: Review existing youth hunting opportunities.
Objective B: Provide information about Arkansas wild turkeys by utilizing all media
outlets.
Strategy 1: Expand educational information in the turkey guidebook.
Strategy 2: Increase effort to promote and better explain justification and
rationale for turkey management decisions.
Strategy 3: Provide educational information on the AGFC website
regarding game processing and habitat management.
Strategy 4: Participate in various public relation events to inform and
educate the public on the Arkansas’ turkey program.
22HABITAT GOAL
Promote the establishment and enhancement of turkey habitat on public and private lands
in Arkansas.
Objective A: Increase and enhance habitat conditions on public land.
Strategy 1: Incorporate Turkey Habitat Management Guidelines into
Wildlife Management Area Master Plans.
Objective B: Maintain and strengthen existing cooperative partnerships with
government and non-profit wildlife conservation organizations and
actively pursue other partners.
Strategy 1: Work through the Memorandum of Understanding and the
State Super Fund program with the National Wild Turkey
Federation to increase wild turkey management
efforts on federal, state and private lands throughout the
state.
Strategy 2: Pursue possible stewardship agreements with USFS to
implement turkey habitat management on USFS land.
Objective C: Increase and enhance turkey habitat on private lands where
applicable.
Strategy 1: Promote private lands assistance through AGFC technical
assistance, NRCS and NWTF workshops.
Strategy 2: Assist in the promotion, maintenance and enhancement of
private landowner assistance websites, such as the Arkansas’s
Private Lands Network webpage in order to provide turkey
habitat management information.
Communication Goal
Strengthen communication between the AGFC and Arkansas turkey hunters.
Objective B: Efficiently utilize communication avenues with the public to address turkey
management and regulation concerns.
Strategy 1: Make turkey management information and regulations more
accessible to the public by increased utilization of electronic
media outlets; i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Internet, email,
newsletters and smartphone applications.
23LITERATURE CITED
Dickson, J. G. 1995. Whence and to where. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey
Symposium 7:273-278.
Exum, J. H., J. A. McGlincy, D. W. Speake, J. L. Buckner, and F. M. Stanley. 1987. Ecology of
the eastern wild turkey in an intensively managed pine forest in southern Alabama. Bull.
Tall Timbers Research Station 23:1-70.
Foti, T. L. 1974. Natural divisions of Arkansas. Pages 11-34 in Arkansas Natural Area Plan.
Arkansas Department of Planning. Little Rock.
Healy, W. M. and S. M. Powell. 1999. Wild turkey harvest management: biology, strategies,
and techniques. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Tech. Pub. BTP-R5001-
1999. 96 pp.
Howell, A. H. 1911. Birds of Arkansas. U. S. Department of Biological Survey Bulletin No.
38. 34pp.
Johnson, J. E., W. E. Thogmartin and W. J. Etges. 1996. Population dynamics of wild turkeys
of the Ouachita mountain region. Final Report. Arkansas Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res.
Unit, Fayetteville. 96 pp.
Kennamer, J. E. and M. C. Kennamer. 1995. Status and distribution of the wild turkey in 1994.
Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 7:203-211.
Kurzejeski, E. W. and L. D. Vangilder. 1992. Population management. Pages 165-184 in J. G.
Dickson, ed. The wild turkey: biology and management. Stackpole books, Harrisburg,
Pa. 463pp.
Lewis, J. B. 1992. Eastern turkey in midwestern oak-hickory forests. Pages 286-305 in J. G.
Dickson, ed., The wild turkey: biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
PA. 463pp.
Lint, J. R. 1990. Assessment of mark-recapture models and indices to estimate population size
of wild turkeys on Tallahala wildlife management area. M.S. Thesis. Mississippi State
Univ., Mississippi State. 255 pp.
Little, T. W., J. M. Kienzler, and G. A. Hanson. 1990. Effects of fall either-sex hunting on
survival in an Iowa wild turkey population. Proc. National Wild Turkey Symp. 6:119-
125.
Miller, D. A. 1997. Habitat relationships and demographic parameters of an eastern wild turkey
population in central Mississippi. Ph.D. Diss. Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State.
307pp.
24Responsive Management 1998. Arkansas deer hunters’ opinions and attitudes toward deer
management. A report prepared for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, February
1998. 197pp.
Roberts, S. D. and W. F. Porter. 1995. Importance of demographic parameters to annual change
in wild turkey abundance. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 7:15-
20.
Smith, R. M. 1989. The atlas of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press. Fayetteville. 226pp.
Suchy, W. J., G. A. Hanson, and T. W. Little. 1990. Evaluation of a population model as a
management tool in Iowa. Proc. National Wild Turkey Symp. 6:196-204.
UALR. 1998. Arkansas game and fish commission turkey survey. University of Arkansas at
Little Rock. Little Rock. 33pp.
__________. 1999. Turkey hunter survey, 1999. University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Little
Rock. 30pp.
Vangilder, L. D. and E. W. Kurzejeski. 1995. Population ecology of the eastern wild turkey in
northern Missouri. Wildl. Monogr. 130. 50pp.
__________. 1996. Wild turkeys and wild turkey hunting in Missouri- a report to the blue
ribbon panel. Missouri Depart. of Conserv., Jefferson City. 30 pp.
__________. 1992. Population dynamics. Pages 144-164 in J. G. Dickson, ed. The wild
turkey: biology and management. Stackpole books, Harrisburg, Pa.
Weaver, J. K. and H. S. Mosby. 1979. Influence of hunting regulations on Virginia wild turkey
populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:128-135.
25You can also read
