I think my hole point is being missed here. I'm not saying pines can't be good habitat, I'm saying that there is a good chunk of the growing period that is wasted turkey habitat. You cannot look at the lifespan of a pine plantation and tell me that it is beneficial for turkeys all the way along. Therefore taking natural timber and turning it into pines has eliminated turkey habitat to some extent.

Brian Williams said that habitat loss didnt happen in the late 80's!

Huge area? You said 10-15k acres. That's not a huge area of any county on a percentage basis. Yes, I think they moved. Yes, I believe they survived. They are adaptable and tough, and should be given more credit.

Did those small specific areas have less turkey temporarily, sure, I believe you and can't question that. I also do not believe big mature hardwood bottoms can support their needs year round. They are pretty places to kill a turkey, and we fantasize about those places, and hold them in high regard.

But the truth is that they are adaptable, and the turkey population increased when forest product demand increased (70s thru early 2000s). Did individual, small acreages, experience change - of course. But on the landscape level, they survived and adapted.

This is the third time recently a thread about population or limits caused somone to bash timber companies (harvesting, pine plantations, etc.).

I've grown weary of it. Here's my last thought.

Did turkey populations rise from the 60s to the 90s in AL?

Did harvesting and forest products demand also rise during that time?

We know the answer to both, but some just don't want it to make sense. Because their favorite pretty patch of timber to call a turkey in the spring was gone.

All Ive wanted to do in each thread was to make you think about it. To stop guessing about perceived population declines and playing the blame game to an industry that is an easy target.

So now I will retire my thoughts, throw another piece of metal in the fireplace, enjoy the comfort of my plastic house, grab a glass for my evening drink straight from my carbon fiber cabinets, and try not to pass out on my beautiful new aluminum flooring. In addition, I prayed this morning at church for the sins of the forest products industry.

I'm out.

Enjoy your drink I don't think the timber companies are the devil but a lot of people lease from timber companies and know how the process works. Clearcut, spray to kill, plant, thin, clear cut. On an individual piece of property there is only one phase of that process that is GOOD for turkey hunting...after the thinning. Maybe on a large scale this actually good for turkeys..I don't know.

Turkey247 - Can you send me the plans for that plastic house? I think Wood is Good, but I have family that works for Exxon and they are always promoting plastic. Oil companies aren't greatly loved either.

Troy, that's an amazing story on the 20 gobblers off 100 acres. I can't peck out a response on this phone; will get back to you later. Everyone carry on. Facts are gonna win out in the end.

before you go... Does the fact that common timber practices eliminate habitat during certain stages of growth hurt or help the turkeys? Lets throw a dart and say that at any given time 25-40% of timberland is unusable to turkeys. If that is the case, how is an automatic loss in habit outweighed by a tree plantation that offers no benefit at anytime except for a roosting site, or nesting site?

If you want to look on a large scale. Lets say plum creek owns 1,000,000 acres. Of that lets assume 300k is after thinned, 300k is before thin, and 300k is clearcut. 100k is hardwood drains and misc scrub. That leaves an absolute loss of 300k acres, a portional loss of another 300k, and 400k that is good habitat. Lets just assume that a clearcut offers great benefit to nesting. Which it really doesn't, because they are typically much larger than the area needed. So bare minimum a timber company has reduced the turkey habitat on their owned lands by 30%, and depending on your ideas of nesting habitat, it could be as great as 50%. Now you are telling me that an automatic loss of habitat is responsible for the increase in population? Or are you telling me that you are just using that as an argument because it coincides?

Do y'all really think all stages of hardwood regeneration is excellent turkey habitat?

no, I don't. But without mass timber harvest that is mostly a mute point except for tornado stricken areas, etc.

If I'm just throwing darts, I'd say 90% of all the property I have stepped on, that is made up of natural or mature mixed timber, is serviceable to turkeys. Whereas a much smaller percentage is usable in pine plantations. I'm not complaining, heck I'm too realistic to think that timber companies are going away anytime soon. And as I've said several times in this thread, timber companies are not the nail in the coffin that many like to believe. At the same time, I get tired of people trying to say that common timber practices somehow help turkeys. In my eyes, turkeys exist despite timber lands, not because of them.

What makes you think that they're unserviceable to turkeys? Because you can't see them in there or that you can't shoot them in there?

I will say this on the matter. Each timber company (I have had the privilege of hunting on several tracks owned by different large scale companies) has a different approach on how they manage their lands. It seems to me that certain practices seem to help all the wildlife over the practices of other companies. For example, I hunted for 3 seasons on a club owned by a company whose goal seemed to be that the ideal number of pole pines grown where 100 or so per acre. From the cut process at this stage, they never replanted because it took them about 30 years to get that 100 trees per acre, as they thinned, they used minimal Trax in and out the parcel, and relied on natural regeneration. The land as never really a clear cut because of the multi stages of trees on each parcel.
That being said, I have hunted on the lands of some of the mentioned companies on this thread and other similar companies that cut all the way to the streams, ringed the oaks out in the clear cuts so they would die, and cut every hardwood strip on their property when the chance arose. In three years or so, an armadillo would have a hard time living, much less a turkey.
But I still believe that predator control, combined with habitat loss, is the key to population management.

What makes me think that? Offer any upside that a turkey would have in planted pines from lets sage age 5 to first thin? The reason I think there is no use for them is because a bird does not eat pines or anything produced by them, and the pines shield out all the natural vegetation beneath during these stages, leaving simply pinestraw in a very very thick forest of unedible trees.

additionally, I'm not saying that with a constant burning program, and a lot of proactive work, that you cannot turn it into something that is not completely unused, but we are talking about your average timber plantation here, not the exception to the rule.

A deer doesn't eat anything produced by a pine tree, either. Those planted pines offer the same thing a planted hardwood stand offers at that age.

Do what? Who hunts replanted hardwoods in Alabama? Not very many folks. I've hunted WRP in Mississippi and young hardwoods still produce a bunch of acorns. I don't understand how anyone could look at a 10 year old pine plantation and think it is good habitat for anything.

All I'm saying is it doesn't matter what species you plant(hardwoods or pines), after a clearcut there is a period that isn't what most would consider ideal for turkeys. However, they do use these areas.

I agree, but I'm not debating hardwood planting vs. pines. I'm debating timberland vs. natural.

Y'all better thank the farmers for the corn. From row droppers to cattle farmers. Feeding shelled corn to cows is the best turkey call I got.

You're right about that DW, I never knew that turkeys scratched the corn out of cow poop until I saw it with my own eyes.