San Bernardino NF. Turkey Transplants and the DFG & NWTF

[slanttop357]

Originally Posted by baco

Sorry dont see the need to be taking a bird out of such a small flock. Call it what you want but its just plain common sense to me you dont just wipe out a flock in order to kill

F.Y.I I have been trying to bag a turkey for a long time up thair, it would be a cold day in hell if i called a tom in and did not take a shot ,it is turkey season is it not.

[TonyS]

Then slanttop you miss the point. If DFG has the excuse that "there are none alive, therefore the habitat wasn't suitable" then no more birds. If you kill the only tom then no more birds.

I don't know how to explain it further.

[buckfever07]

I still have no response from Donald Koch regarding the birds. I hope we aren't being ignored. If I don't hear back by Friday I'll resend the email. I'll keep you guys posted.

Jr

[TonyS]

Buckfever,

You are not alone. No word from the DFG Director. I wonder if some phone calls would help him? Or I don't want to push a great connection but I wonder if Dr. Eric Loft could help.

This seems an "ignorance is bliss" defense. ["I didn't see the e-mail]

I wonder if NWTF needs some help drafting a lawsuit? I have spent about 25 years drafting civil complaints and some that DA's put in their place on appellate levels. Money spent on defense could be spent helping us get a sustainable flock of turkeys in San Bernardino National Forest. But all it would cost for an OK would be an OK. But maybe that is too much from the 'save our turkeys' folks or bureacrats that are enjoying the salary.

Maybe the problem is too many drinks and dinners with the people that are pushing for a total closure of coastline for fishing on the MLPAs; after all a guy can only drink and eat so much. [I sincerely believe these kind of things are connected to attention span]


I'm not going to mention Marie Antoinette's response but could it be coming?

Buckfever did his part, where is yours?

[buckfever07]

I just resent the same email from earlier this week because I haven't seen a response yet. Here is a piece of it.....


Hello Donald,

My name is Garry Tye and I am a member of the NWTF Inland Empire chapter in southern California I just want to extend my concern for getting turkey’s re-established in the SBNF. The NWTF has been working towards this effort, doing whatever has been asked of us.
We are hearing from the SBNF that they are on board with us and ready to go but it seems that DFG is the hold up.
I’m just wondering why? Why is Bakersfield getting birds? It seems there is way too much hunting pressure going on in San Diego, Meanwhile, the SBNF is getting left out in the cold.
Wouldn’t re-establishing birds in the SBNF help take some of the pressure of San Diego
I’m just wondering what the issues are and why we aren’t seeing birds. Can someone help us get birds?

Thank you,

Garry

[WildlifeBranch]

Just stumbled on this thread-- "ignorance is bliss" but no, you guys aren't being ignored. I have received a few emails in my office, forwarded from the director's office & elsewhere, to respond to on this topic. They are with our upland game shop right now-- didn't realize this was urgent; here's what their response will essentially be:

The Department has an agreement with 4 national forests (Lassen, Mendocino, Plumas, and Sequioa) that they will take turkeys. We do not have an agreement with, and have not been informed that the SBNF will accept turkeys. This is a substantial issue, we will require it in writing from the USFS- the current 4 forests are via a memo from the regional USFS office in Vallejo.

The Bakersfield area gets turkeys because they go on to the Sequioa NF.

Even if the SBNF would accept turkeys, the fact that they are rare or absent there after previous plants from years ago, indicates it likely is not great turkey habitat (or they'd be there). We'd be against put-n-take turkeys going into crappy habitat.

Often, we partner with the NWTF to capture problem turkeys for us. The Department's policy is that we will not release turkeys in areas to expand their range, but will allow them to be placed in these 4 forests, where public hunting can occur.

The policy is to avoid the likely lawsuit based on the concern that turkeys would compete with native species and would be a problem. Also, such an effort would be a CEQA project, requiring an extensive environmental document that disclosed the impacts of turkeys on the environment (we did that before and it went nowhere).

See I said native above? -- the NWTF guys who were at the Vacaville meeting a year-1/2 ago may have heard the UC Berkeley researcher who was investigating whether turkey were native to California in more recent era's. That research, if completed could be important; I thought so anyhow.

Elsewhere (maybe this forum) I also saw someone write that the DFG in San Diego area had a turkey biologist, but that the San Bernardino area did not. Neither statement is correct, as our regional wildlife biologists have responsibility for many wildlife species, game as well as nongame.

hope that explains it some from the DFG perspective -- Eric

[spectr17]

Even if the SBNF would accept turkeys, the fact that they are rare or absent there after previous plants from years ago, indicates it likely is not great turkey habitat (or they'd be there). We'd be against put-n-take turkeys going into crappy habitat.

Regarding the statement "rare or absent", that dog turkey don't hunt. We can take anyone interested to see 3 groups of turkeys and turkey sign right now that I know of in the SBNF. Ryan Mathis, the NWTF biologist has a line on several other groups over by Wrightwood.

I was in the SBNF this morning and held several piles of turkey poop in my hand. I saw sign on my last trip in a nearby area. That is not "rare" in my book. Rare would be hardly ever seeing anything.

Can we please get over what seems to be artificial hurdle being thrown up? How can you claim turkeys are rare or absent when we can't even get anyone from SBNF or DFG to come with us while we point the evidence out? I've got a growing file of pics of turkey scat, tracks, and turkeys if the DFG and SBNF doesn't have the time or desire to enter the field with us.

As far as the previous turkey plants not flourishing, this was discussed at the Bass Pro turkey seminar last year. Ryan Mathis from NWTF mentioned planting Rios instead of Merriam's turkeys in lower elevations that should prosper better like the flocks in San Diego. Since our local DFG biologist hasn't done any work on the local turkeys how can we even speculate how many there are? Wouldn't it be the diligent thing to at least find out how rare or absent the turkeys really are?

Does DFG or NWTF have game cameras out to look for turkeys? NO.

Is DFG or NWTF trapping any turkeys in the SBNF to radio collar them for study? NO.

Just how many days in the month are DFG and SBNF working on the turkey population in SBNF? I would bet zero.

[spectr17]

Tony S, it may take a lawsuit or threat of lawsuit to get some movement. That's what CFBD does to get DFG and other groups to react. Many times they just have to threaten a lawsuit.

We need to contact SCI and get their legal beagles involved. They have the money AND horsepower to actually file a lawsuit over this.

We have probably a few thousands hunters in the LA area who shelled out for CA Upland Bird stamps who'd like to be able to hunt closer to home. Especially in these tight times. All we are asking is a fair shake. Right not it feels like we're being shoved out the back door.

[hiline345]

Father in law is buying property in the Green Valley area would like to know if there are any birds in that area or near there.

[chompot]

Originally Posted by hiline345

Father in law is buying property in the Green Valley area would like to know if there are any birds in that area or near there.

There just might be. How much property is he buying? It would be worth it to get out there and take a look. Also a good chance to meet some locals and find out what they have been seeing.

[spectr17]

We're still working on this, so don't give up hope of seeing turkeys in the SBNF.

I find the statement DFG doesn't want to support "put and take" turkeys in SBNF a bit misleading and disconcerting. Way back years ago we actually had a DFG biologist (Kevin Brennan) who was working with the turkeys in SBNF by doing radio collar studies. The fact the turkeys are still in the SBNF shows that in some areas they did take hold and prosper. We also talked at the turkey seminar at Bass Pro last year about planting Rio turkeys in lower elevations so they would have a higher rate of survival.

Any new plan needs some tweaking once you implement it. Did the DFG do anything to help the turkeys expand in the SBNF? You can't tell me the DFG wasted all the time and money we spent on planting the birds only to watch it wither on the vine. DFG had to have expected the birds to become a viable population for local hunters or they would never have signed off on the plants originally.

Is the roadblock really that the turkeys won't survive or is the threat of a lawsuit from the Native Plant Society the real reason DFG is acting like planting turkeys in the SBNF is impossible? I say we line up our ducks for a lawsuit and file it if we can't get what is due the hunters in the LA area.

[spectr17]

Here's an email reply Yucaipa Mike got from Jeff Villepique, the local DFG biologist, regarding the turkey transplants in SBNF.

From what it looks like now DFG and SBNF say no way in heck is it going to happen. Even if we do get the ball rolling it will require a CEQA review and that will take a year or more.

All this info is being forwarded to COHA, NWTF and SCI so their big guns can be brought in to help us get more turkeys in SBNF. I find it ridiculous that turkey are being planted in just about every state but for some reason we can't do it here. How can DFG and SBNF justify not allowing turkeys is beyond me. If the reason is fear of a lawsuit let's call the NPS bluff and see if they can even show up with anything of merit in court.

From: Jeff Villepique
To: Tom Blankinship ,
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 2:21:41 PM
Subject: Re: supplemented turkey sbnf

Hi Mr. XXXXX,

I'm the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) biologist for the San Bernardino Mtns. and would like to provide you with my best understanding of the prospect for adding turkeys on the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF). The DFG supports enhancing hunting opportunities and generally supports the idea of augmenting turkey populations, however, there are major hurdles to achieving this on the SBNF. DFG policy states that introductions or augmentations may take place only with full support of the land manager, in this case the SBNF. My understanding is that SBNF opposes any turkey releases. In case anything has changed, I have requested, this afternoon, that SBNF re-state its position on turkeys.

That is the first hurdle, which seems insurmountable. The second is that DFG is required to determine environmental impacts before a release could happen, and demonstrate no significant environmental impacts in this documentation. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), which advocates for several threatened and endangered plants found on the SBNF, has voiced their opposition to turkey introductions and would challenge a finding of no significant environmental impacts to a turkey introduction. While it is unlikely that turkeys would have a significant impact on the threatened native plants, it is almost impossible to prove a negative; in other words, to demonstrate that turkeys won't feed on endangered plants. Thus, this second hurdle also appears to be an un-winnable situation of non-native turkeys vs. native plants.

What that leaves for those of us who would like to see a huntable turkey population, is habitat enhancement projects that could benefit the populations that do exist, based on encouraging reports this Spring. I commend the Inland Empire chapter of NWTF for the restoration work it has done with SBNF. The SBNF has highly restrictive rules about disturbing the ground, that allow plantings to occur only where SBNF has surveyed and approved this work. Fortunately SBNF is working on ambitious post-fire restoration projects that could benefit turkey, as well as deer and other game and non-game species. That seems to be the best option for increasing wildlife populations.

I have copied this message to Randy Succow, President of the IE chapter of NWTF, and to Tom Blankinship, DFG's upland game coordinator as well, so that Randy and/or Tom can read my view of the outlook at present and correct me if they have any information that differs. Thank you for your interest in Turkeys and the continued good work of NWTF.

Best,
Jeff

Jeff Villepique
Associate Wildlife Biologist
California Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 3222
Big Bear City, CA 92314
Tel. 909-584-9012
FAX 909-584-9049

[BigBearMike]

Thanks everyone for all the intrest and responses, especially Jesse for keeping the information flowing. For those that are interested in contacting / lobbying directly to SBNF I've put some contact info for them below.

Thanks again, Mike

San Bernardino National Forest Contact info:

Jeanne Wade Evans, Forest Supervisor
909-382-2710
Jwade@fs.fed.us

Mary Najera - Forest Resource officer
909-382-2720
mnajera@fs.fed.us

Fran M. Colwell - Forest Recreation Officer
909-382-2715
fcolwell@fs.fed.us

Scott R. Tangenberg - Deputy District Ranger
Mountaintop Ranger District
909-382-2728
stangenberg@fs.fed.us

Supervisor's Office
602 South Tippecanoe Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(909) 382-2600

[BigBearMike]

Not to beat a dead horse, but the following are quotes from DFG's "Strategic Plan for Wild Turkey Management"

Fish and Game Code Section 1801 establishes state policies for the conservation of
wildlife resources. The goal of these policies is to maintain sufficient populations of all wildlife and the habitat necessary to achieve the following objectives:
(a) To provide for the beneficial use and enjoyment of wildlife by all citizens of
the state;
(b) To perpetuate all species of wildlife for their intrinsic and ecological values;
(c) To provide for aesthetic, educational, and nonappropriative uses;
(d) To maintain diversified recreational uses of wildlife, including the sport of
hunting;
(e) To provide for economic contributions to the citizens of the state, through the
recognition that wildlife is a renewable resource, and;
(f) To alleviate economic losses or public health or safety problems caused by
wildlife. The Upland Game Policy of the Commission is as follows: “It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to: Conserve, restore, maintain and enhance upland game habitat and to maintain upland game populations at optimum levels on public and private lands within California. The Department’s upland game program shall be aggressively carried out in a manner that is consistent with Section 1801 of the Fish and Game Code and in accordance with the objectives and elements stated in each Upland Game Species Management Plan…”

"Turkey management is a learning process, commonly referred to as adaptive
management in the management of natural resources (Holling 1978, Walters 1986). The Department has provided the following definition: “Adaptive Management means a flexible approach to the long-term management of fish, wildlife and habitat resources that is directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. If the conservation goals and objectives of the program are not being achieved, the activities or strategies shall be refined and improved in order to achieve those goals and objectives.”

"Overarching Goal: Manage California’s wild turkey populations to balance the interests of hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts with the need to minimize the negative impacts that turkeys have in some areas of the state."

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunti...urkplan_04.pdf

Kinda hoists them with their own petard.

[BigBearMike]

Originally Posted by spectr17

I find the statement DFG doesn't want to support "put and take" turkeys in SBNF a bit misleading and disconcerting.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunti...urkplan_04.pdf

4.2 Recreational Opportunities
4.2.1: Recreational opportunities on public lands

Goal 2: Maximize recreational opportunities on appropriate Department lands.

Commission policy states that, “The Department shall continue the process of reviewing
current upland game management opportunities on lands under its control. The management of the Department’s lands should be an example and a model for what can be done to maximize habitat development opportunities and upland game populations. Where and when feasible, habitat on Department-controlled lands shall be managed for upland game species to maximize upland game hunting opportunities. This shall include the use of “put and take hunting programs” where feasible, as well as the prudent use of naturally produced birds.”

Now while DFG doesn't control USFS land, this policy flys in the face of "Eric's" post that "We'd be against put-n-take turkeys..."

[spectr17]

I'm going to try and open a dialogue with the CA Native Plant Society. At least get them on record why they oppose any turkey transplants from continuing.

Once we get all the orgs on record then we can line up our ducks to start overcoming these so called obstacles.

I talked with Mark Hennelly from COHA today and he is going to talk to Tim Gaines and see about getting this issue on front of the DFG's next commission meeting. Mark also said he knew the NAtive Plant Society lobbyist in Sacramento and would talk to them in regards to this issue.

California Outdoor Heritage Alliance

Thanks for all the help We're on the radar now, even in the capitol.

[baco]

Some other thoughts here. If SB is being the problem why dont we try to introduce them to the Angeles? There are some good areas there that would support turkeys. What about releasing turkeys on private property. If they got off and reinhabited NF naturally what would be wrong with that? These are just ideas I dont know the legilaty of any just throwing out suggestions.

[BIGCIM]

Maybe we should just give everyone the big middle finger and start transplanting birds without anyones permission. I feel like Ive been talking about this for to long and it hasn't been compared to some of you guys. Lets just get problematic captured birds says were putting them in Kern or Cleavland and let them "accidentally" escape in SBNF each time. It seems that the greenies are the only ones who seem to benefit from doing things by the book. So now you guys know my plan I will be looking for some partners in crime, you know how to get a hold of me

[spectr17]

BIGCM, your plan is counter productive to our cause and illegal. There is no need to resort to that. Let's use our heads here.

If SB is being the problem why dont we try to introduce them to the Angeles?

Baco, same hurdle. The Native Plant Society has said in the past they are opposed to ANY transplants in SoCal. I'm going to assume they would fight any turkeys going into ANF.

What about releasing turkeys on private property. If they got off and reinhabited NF naturally what would be wrong with that?

Same approval needed from the SBNF land manager as the birds will eventually move into the SBNF. Same resistance from the NPS.

[WildlifeBranch]

Mike- I'll stand by my complete sentence that you referenced part of... We've got a meeting coming up with NWTF and COHA. I'm now going to resist the urge to put more text on the internet related to this topic! -- Eric

[LKN4HOG]

Man is this getting heated, it's about time.

BigCim: watch what you say on here, comments like that could be taken seriously and cause more damage than good.

Jesse: E-Mail sent to Ryan...copied to you and Mike. I never got the one from Mike.

Keep me in the loop and I will do what I can..

Randy

[Farmerdoug]

Originally Posted by WildlifeBranch

Mike- I'm now going to resist the urge to put more text on the internet related to this topic! -- Eric

Wow! More silence on this topic is all we need.
BIGMIC- I feel your pain brother and know exactly where your coming from. I would be lying if I said the thought hadn't crossed my mind also. ( and I stress only a "THOUGHT") You, me, and every other guy who has the Angeles and SBNF in our back yard are getting pretty frustrated with the lack of consideration from the DFG and the Forestry Dept(s). Every year we pay for the licenses, stamps, and tags. And so what do we do, we buy a forest adventure pass to top it off and grin and bite our tongues. The silence is starting to get really old, really quick. So before anyone decides to bust out their Hovabator Incubators and restock the forest, let's let the professionals deal with problem first. I myself would not be opposed to contributing some spare change from the couch cushions if the Admins set aside a spot to donate for a possible lawsuit. Just a thought...Before I hit "Submit Reply" I would like to thank all the guys from the NWTF who are working hard to make this happen.

[spectr17]

Sorry Eric, it seems you've become the whipping boy here. We still love ya and hope you won't stop posting DFG policy.

[WildlifeBranch]

Originally Posted by spectr17

Sorry Eric, it seems you've become the whipping boy here. We still love ya and hope you won't stop posting DFG policy.

that doesn't bother me at all. I know you guys are trying to maintain some of these traditional uses. There are just some things related to posting about controversial environmental topics in CA by me, that are better left to official documents. Eric

[see the SLO bear hunt post for example- google articles on that topic to see where a substantial portion of the public opinion sits].

[BigBearMike]

Originally Posted by WildlifeBranch

that doesn't bother me at all. I know you guys are trying to maintain some of these traditional uses. There are just some things related to posting about controversial environmental topics in CA by me, that are better left to official documents. Eric

Eric, I'd also like to offer my appolgies, I had no intention of offending you. I greatly appreciate, as I'm sure everyone else does, your "insider information" even if I might not agree with the particular position DFG is taking, I really like hearing what the "real" issue is. So please if you did take offense, accept my sincere appolgies.

Mike

[Farmerdoug]

Originally Posted by WildlifeBranch

that doesn't bother me at all. I know you guys are trying to maintain some of these traditional uses. There are just some things related to posting about controversial environmental topics in CA by me, that are better left to official documents. Eric

WildlifeBranch: Actually, I applaud you for speaking your mind and giving all of us some rational insight on what's going on, on the inside. Your opinions are well respected and encouraged as far as I can tell. Most of your replys act as our free "online hunting tech support".

[buckfever07]

Well, It looks like we are going to have some things to talk about at this Wednesday's NWTF meeting. At least it looks like we are being heard.

Jr

[LKN4HOG]

From what I have been hearing, even way up here, is that Dave has been giving the I.E. Chapter (not to mention others) the run around. That was a problem I was having when I was Chapter President. He has been hanging that carrot out there for years now but always seems to come up with some excuse as to why the NWTF is not pushing bird issues. If I was still there, I would ask or sorta demand from Dave, in writing, just what is the NWTF doing to support your efforts. I am willing to bet he can not produce it. You guys have busted your humps with nothing to really show for it. Stand behind Jesse and Mike and make them (NWTF) prove to you what they are doing (except milking everyone for money) to support you. I may be almost a thousand miles away but still an I.E.er at heart. I wanna see it happen!

randy

[BigBearMike]

Hey guys, couldn't make the IE NWTF meeting, apparently "hunny-do's" take priority (at least according to my wife). So for those of us who couldn't be there, what happened and is there anything new from NWTF?

Thanks, Mike

[spectr17]

4 of us there at the Inland Empire chapter NWTF meeting Wednesday at Bass Pro. You can really see how important this is to the local turkey hunters by their support.

Not to be a Debbie Downer but the transplants are not going to happen. NWTF has come out and said they are more worried about banquets and the money from them. NWTF regional director Dave Halbrook said they are happy with their local chapters even without any huntable turkeys in SBNF. Tom Dockter, a member on the CA state NWTF board, told Yucaipa Mike and me that the NWTF regional directors biggest and only concern is banquets and generating money. NWTF corporate couldn't care less, they dismissed Yucaipa Mikes plea for help.

Worrying more about lifting as much money as they can out of my pocket and not about local issues was the biggest reason I left the NWTF years back. I'm headed that way again.

Bottom line, we're being told habitat improvement is the only thing we can do now since the turkey transplant EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) was written poorly by DFG and just invites being sued by the Native Plant Society.

As far as a hunter or a hunting group suing DFG, that's not possible I'm told. Wishful thinking but not something that can be done. I'm being told to just keep the heat on DFG to do the right thing.

I am a bit ticked also in that I was lead to believe the transplants were coming the past couple years. Every year there was a new hurdle for us to get over like prove there were still turkeys in the local forest only to find out there never was any real push to get the transplants going. We only just recently got DFG and NWTF to admit it publicly. Well, actually, it's the same line from years back, we just had them restate it to be sure.

Dave H. said they would try and get money to fund another biologist position to help the local DFG biologist (Jeff Villepique) study turkeys and the habitat here but as Jim Matthews told me, that's BS. Have the local DFG biologist just do his job, that's what he's paid for. Ryan Mathis, the NWTF biologist was down here 2 months ago to meet with Jeff Villepique for a mind meld on what to start doing and Jeff Villepique was a no show for some reason. Same ole same ole, nothing getting down and more excuses.

I'm going to post this on the national NWTF forum, WON (Western Outdoor News) and OldGobbler.com so it's gets even more publicity in the last ditch hope someone will light a fire under the DFG or NWTF to do something. If they refuse to help us out, I'm done with the NWTF. They can bleed other fools for their banquet money to send RDs on grand turkey hunts around the country while we scrap for turkeys on the crowded public land here in San Diego or travel hours north. In fact, that's how it was put to us by Dave Halbrook. Hey, others are having fun right driving half a day one way to hunt right? Not me, I'd rather stay local a few weekends to save money and hunt less crowded land, but that's me. You folks make up your own minds.