RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS

Abstract: Best management of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and turkey hunting includes understanding hunter attitudes to balance quality and quantity of hunting opportunity. We conducted Responsive Management telephone surveys of a random sample of 1,410 turkey hunters from 26 Georgia wildli...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Reggie E. Thackston, H. Todd Holbrook
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 1995-01-01
Series:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2328-5540.1995.tb00238.x
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849696746651779072
author Reggie E. Thackston
H. Todd Holbrook
author_facet Reggie E. Thackston
H. Todd Holbrook
author_sort Reggie E. Thackston
collection DOAJ
description Abstract: Best management of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and turkey hunting includes understanding hunter attitudes to balance quality and quantity of hunting opportunity. We conducted Responsive Management telephone surveys of a random sample of 1,410 turkey hunters from 26 Georgia wildlife management areas (WMAs) during the 1991‐93 spring turkey seasons. Results indicated that the average hunter was male (98.9%), Georgia resident (99.0%), and 37 years of age, had 8 years of turkey hunting experience, and hunted 16.3 days annually on public and private lands combined. A total of 49% depended solely on public lands for their turkey hunting. For a given WMA and year, the average respondent hunted 6.4 days, was disturbed by other hunters 3.0 days, heard gobblers 4.7 days, and harvested 0.11 gobblers. Of those surveyed, 63.6% favored quotas and 73.3% favored closing roads to improve hunt quality. Hunt quality increased as gobblers heard, hunter success, and harvest per respondent increased and disturbance by other hunters relative to days that gobblers were heard decreased. Hearing and harvesting gobblers appeared to be the determining factors affecting hunt quality ratings, even on public lands with relatively high hunter densities and high levels of hunter disturbance.
format Article
id doaj-art-6b34d69190cb4cc49977099e0dccb0df
institution DOAJ
issn 2328-5540
language English
publishDate 1995-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Wildlife Society Bulletin
spelling doaj-art-6b34d69190cb4cc49977099e0dccb0df2025-08-20T03:19:23ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55401995-01-011995S125325710.1002/j.2328-5540.1995.tb00238.xRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREASReggie E. Thackston0H. Todd Holbrook1Georgia Department of Natural ResourcesWildlife Resources Division116 Rum Circle DriveForsythGA31029Georgia Department of Natural ResourcesWildlife Resources Division2070 U.S. Highway 278, S. E., Social CircleGA30279Abstract: Best management of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and turkey hunting includes understanding hunter attitudes to balance quality and quantity of hunting opportunity. We conducted Responsive Management telephone surveys of a random sample of 1,410 turkey hunters from 26 Georgia wildlife management areas (WMAs) during the 1991‐93 spring turkey seasons. Results indicated that the average hunter was male (98.9%), Georgia resident (99.0%), and 37 years of age, had 8 years of turkey hunting experience, and hunted 16.3 days annually on public and private lands combined. A total of 49% depended solely on public lands for their turkey hunting. For a given WMA and year, the average respondent hunted 6.4 days, was disturbed by other hunters 3.0 days, heard gobblers 4.7 days, and harvested 0.11 gobblers. Of those surveyed, 63.6% favored quotas and 73.3% favored closing roads to improve hunt quality. Hunt quality increased as gobblers heard, hunter success, and harvest per respondent increased and disturbance by other hunters relative to days that gobblers were heard decreased. Hearing and harvesting gobblers appeared to be the determining factors affecting hunt quality ratings, even on public lands with relatively high hunter densities and high levels of hunter disturbance.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2328-5540.1995.tb00238.xGeorgiahunter densityhunt qualityMeleagris gallopavoResponsive Managementsurvey
spellingShingle Reggie E. Thackston
H. Todd Holbrook
RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Georgia
hunter density
hunt quality
Meleagris gallopavo
Responsive Management
survey
title RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
title_full RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
title_fullStr RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
title_full_unstemmed RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
title_short RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF TURKEY HUNTING ON GEORGIA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
title_sort responsive management survey of turkey hunting on georgia wildlife management areas
topic Georgia
hunter density
hunt quality
Meleagris gallopavo
Responsive Management
survey
url https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2328-5540.1995.tb00238.x
work_keys_str_mv AT reggieethackston responsivemanagementsurveyofturkeyhuntingongeorgiawildlifemanagementareas
AT htoddholbrook responsivemanagementsurveyofturkeyhuntingongeorgiawildlifemanagementareas