Predators matched on gobblers; harvest split by state

STEP 1 · Two areas

Georgia had large fields and South Carolina had small food plots

Georgia held about 3252 acres of open ground (1316 ha). That ground included agricultural fields and pastures above about 25 acres (10 ha) and smaller planted openings under about 5 acres (2 ha). South Carolina held about 445 acres of open ground (180 ha). Those openings were mostly food plots under about 5 acres (2 ha). The authors present the idea that the small plots made South Carolina males easier for hunters to predict as speculation. They did not change the cover to test it.

Private property blocked some routes from primary roads onto public land in Georgia. The authors reported no such private block on the Webb complex. Seasonal road closures made parts of both sites harder to reach by vehicle.

The authors called a male riskier when his daily average sat closer to open cover, closer to edge or closer to a public parking spot. Faster average hourly speed counted as more exploratory. They assumed ground farther from parking saw less hunting. Each model used locations from 1 March through 31 July. Georgia units recorded hourly from 5:00 to 20:00 and South Carolina units recorded every 30 minutes, so our read is that speed values should not be lined up across states.

Each of the four movement traits was moderately to highly repeatable, which is why the authors treated them as behavioral types. Across the spring both populations moved closer to openings as the hunting stages went on. South Carolina males also moved more during the season than before it. The authors judged the Georgia change in movement across that same step too small to matter. Georgia males averaged closer to open cover than South Carolina males. South Carolina males on average sat closer to edge and closer to hunter access.

STEP 2 · Predator pattern

Predators leaned toward slow males near openings in both states

The survival models separated predator deaths from harvest. Crews read field sign at mortality sites and named great horned owls, red-tailed hawks, bobcats and coyotes as examples of guilds they could recognize. Guild samples were too small to model apart, so predator deaths were pooled. In the survival subsets Georgia had 10 predator deaths against 36 males that survived that comparison. South Carolina had 7 predator deaths against 29 survivors.

In both states predators were more likely to kill males that lived nearer openings and nearer edges and males that moved slowly. Predators also leaned toward males that lived farther from parking. Farther from parking is the less risky end of the access measure as the authors defined it. Our read is that predators did not take the riskier end of every trait.

STEP 3 · Hunter split

Harvest leaned near parking in Georgia and far from it in South Carolina

Hunter deaths included birds recovered and reported by hunters and crippling losses the crews assigned from the circumstances they described. A discarded cut transmitter harness counted as harvest. In those survival subsets Georgia had 13 hunter deaths and South Carolina had 14. These fitted associations describe the GPS males in the models. Our read is that they are not a tally of every gobbler killed on the areas.

The same models showed Georgia hunters were more likely to harvest males that lived near parking and near edge and that moved fast. Those Georgia models did not support harvest of males that lived closer to open cover. Our read is that this miss leaves the open-cover question open in Georgia.

South Carolina hunters were more likely to harvest males that lived far from parking and males that moved slowly. Males closer to edge were also more likely to be shot there. The discussion limits hunter selection on openings to South Carolina. Predators in both states were more likely to kill males nearer openings, so on that trait South Carolina harvest lined up with predators and the Georgia hunter models did not show the same support.

The authors suspect South Carolina's small food plots made males easier for hunters to predict once birds used openings in spring. They read Georgia's mix of large fields and small openings as less predictable. Our read is to hold that as their speculation. Ownership, study years, access and the GPS schedule already differed. Opening size is one clue to set beside your own sightings and known harvests.

STEP 4 · Shared edge

Edge lined up with risk from hunters and predators

In both populations hunters were more likely to take males closer to edge, and predators showed that same edge direction. Edge came from 98-foot land-cover cells (30 m) where forest met open cover, and the authors tied that layer to both road types. Our read is that a gobbler on edge carried higher risk from every mortality source the paper separated. Edge alone does not tell you whether harvest or predators are the source of that risk.

The distances are each gobbler's daily average. Hunter paths were not recorded. Distance to parking stood in for hunting pressure by the authors' assumption. Our read is that the paper cannot separate where gobblers lived from where hunters chose to go.

The authors say harvest of these traits could make turkeys harder to take if the traits are heritable, and they ask for future work on that question. Our reading is that the forecast stays open. This paper did not measure inheritance and it did not test any calling approach.

STEP 5 · Local record

Sightings and known harvests can check one scouting assumption

Our observation is optional and coarser than a GPS daily average. On ground you already hunt, note the parking spot, whether the morning sat on an edge or beside an opening or farther into interior cover, whether you saw adult gobblers, and any known hunter harvest you can tie to that place. Keep the notes on mornings you actually hunt.

Harvests near parking can simply reflect where people hunt, so weigh known harvests against the mornings of effort you logged at each distance before reading the Georgia or South Carolina direction into them. Birds that disappear with no known cause stay out of the comparison.

What the notes can establish is where your sightings and known harvests sat relative to parking and edge on the days you were there. They cannot name an unmarked gobbler's travel rate, assign a behavioral type or recover the strength of these models. The behavior sample was 59 Georgia adults averaging 88 tracked days and 50 South Carolina adults averaging 91 tracked days, and the survival contrasts used the death counts above. A few mornings on one property are a hunch for next spring. Ground that resembles neither study area is ground this paper cannot settle. Similar fields or food plots do not by themselves carry one state's harvest direction onto the other.