Whats yall thought on Alabama going to a 3 bird limit?

HUH

It would suck for the honest hunter,won't mean chit to the others

Yep

Why...unless you don't have the birds to support the five limit... I'm happy with it and see no reason to change it where I'm hunting... If it can support the killers we have....the population is doing fine... But it may be different in other places...

Alabama has a limit already?

IT WOULD DEF SUCK.. NED AND BRANDON COULD LIMIT OUT IN 3 DAYS SQUEAKY MIGHT AS WELL SELL ALL HIS STUFF AND LET ME HUNT THE LANDS

Be fine by me I never kill but a couple anyway then start taking others. Dead birds don't gobble and I like hearing them gobble.

I've held to a three bird limit for prolly the last 20 years. I usually carry more folks that kill than I do....sometimes a LOT more. LOL

No biological reason for it at all, but it would make some folks feel better, so I think its likely to happen. As already noted, it won't effect but a few hunters. Troy has told us many times that nearly all hunters that are able to kill more than 5 will kill more than 5. Change that to 3 and it will be just as true.

I've asked several different DCNR people if they would release the info from the annual hunter survey and tell us how many people actually kill a limit of 5 now. Nobody will tell me the answer to that question. I suspect that the number is extremely low and would make it obvious that the season limit is simply a moot point as far as any impact on the population.

I think I picked a good time to get old.

Limits don't mean anything to an outlaw. I've only killed over 3 birds in one season only 5 times in my life so I'd be OK with it. I definitely feel we have less turkeys now than we did 10 years ago. More hunters + more predators = less turkeys.

My .02

Dr. B

Unless a check-in system becomes mandatory with a tag or confirmation number AND the game wardens do something about catching someone over the limit, it won't make a toot's difference.

If it's to be changed, SHOW the actual biological proof for it and the justification instead of some "oh, it'll be good for everyone." Otherwise, don't change it.

Dont care either way, I have more fun calling in turkeys other people kill anyway

I've heard some talk of this coming. I would hope that this wouldn't be imposed on the entire state. Like PCP, I would love to see the biological evidence that supports a decision like that.

Might make it easier for some to get a limit. Ha

Common sense posts like that are the reason Clem will always be the most powerful man on aldeer.

Clem, I hope you will pass your views to TPTB. They pay no attention to me, but all will be too fearful to ignore you.

Clem, we (the field wardens) put in for a tagging system everydamnyear and it went in the circular file everydamnyear.

the thing is when they cut down to three then next down to two then down to no season for turkey period. IF WE LET THE STATE CONTROL EVERY THING THEN IT IS OUR FAULT AND NOT THE STATES

Oh my word. Nobody is going to take anyone's turkey hunting away from them. There is evidence to support a reduction in the bag in places, and not others. There is an overall trend in ALL southeastern states that is showing considerable declines in some areas. All state agencies are trying to determine the reasons behind the declines. There is a lot of research going into this and hopefully some answers to come in the future, but don't worry about your turkey limit. It's ok for now.

What basis would they use to determine if the limit needs to be dropped? The state "guesses" every year on how many are actually killed. I've never seen a survey or anything asking me how many I killed? I asked the question a while back on here, what percentage of hunters actually kill the limit every year and 90% of the responses were less than 10% so I'd like to see some data showing the 5 bird limit is detrimental.

Hunters killing the turkeys may not be the only thing leading to a decline.

I don't have a decline in numbers where I hunt and don't want your area (if you are seeing a decline) determining how many I can kill. If they can show conclusive data, not subjective data, that's one thing but just saying the numbers are declining doesn't really solve the issue, if there even is one!

I wouldn't be in favor unless lots of hard data supported it.........and game check data don't cut it. And as many others have said, it would need to be area specific and not a blanket reg.

predators take a large numbers of birds and eggs not just hunters. sure 10% might limit out but I would bet that predators ,like cats,fox,coon.skunks and possums takes out aprox 40% so that's 50% lost from the get go and as time goes on you can bet the % goes up even more.

I started out trapping hollins 6 years ago first year never saw a turkey ,two years later seems like I spooked flocks of 40 to 50 two or three times a day. now since I quit trapping hollins but I still test lures I make there and it has been a year since I saw any type of sign of a turkey.

the key is... to have more turkeys one must keep the predators under control.

I agree with every word Cletus said in the post above this one

A mandatory check-in system won't make a toot's difference either. Those who kill over the limit aren't going to be checking in the birds they kill over the limit.

The hunter survey is statistically valid and close enough for determining harvest trends. You can see the reports on the dcnr web site, and see that the AL harvest has been pretty consistent for about 30 years. I've gotten 2 surveys; I think they send out something like 8000 a year. They list the number of turkeys killed by county for the past few years.

Whoever handles the survey should be able to tell us within 5% + or - of the number of limits killed each year, but they ain't saying. Maybe they really never have tried to determine, but the info is right there in the surveys.

My belief is that nowhere close to 10% of AL hunters kill a limit. And the number that kill a limit and then quit hunting is so low that it has no effect on turkey populations. But I could be wrong and would really like to know.

Matt, if you are still reading this far, how about finding out for us? I'm glad to hear you don't think a limit change is close at hand, but it sure seems to me that a low spring limit has become the politically correct way of management.

Statistically then... The ones who kill over their limit....make up for the ones who don't kill their limit... So in the end...it's equal anyway...

I like this way of thinking.

I bet you are right. I would not be surprised if it's closer to 2% than it is 10%. Less than 10% of NC hunters kill a limit of only 2 birds. I've seen figures from SC that say the same thing - very few who go turkey hunting actually kill a limit.

Well most of yal know i would be in favor of a lower limit. Its not because i have personally seen a lower population in my area, but i have in other areas. The habitat for turkeys atleast in the southern half of the state is declining. Current timber practices are just not conducive for turkeys. Im also in favor of a tagging and reporting system if done properly.

In short i just think 3 birds is enough, & as most have said, once i killed mine i would take other people.

Not that it would do much good. People who dont want to stop at the limit wont. Regardless of what changes are implemented.

After this season, with corn every 50 acres, we may see a serious reduction in the population. Just gives the renegades easier hunting.

I still think we need a season limit on ducks. I haven't killed a single duck in several years, and I know the population is down in my area. Then others go out and slaughter a bunch every week. It ain't fair!

3 ducks a season should be plenty for anyone.

People should take others and call for them after killing their 3.

When the duck population gets down to where the turkey population is. I'll agree.

I do think Alabama needs to implement some public areas for draw only use. Because many areas get way to much pressure. Id rather not get drawn and see the ducks have a place to rest, and the hunting actually be decent, than continue the way it is now.

>>>When the duck population gets down to where the turkey population is. I'll agree.<<<

What evidence is there that the turkey population is down? You admit that you aren't seeing any decrease where you hunt - I'm not seeing it either. There are 50 turkeys for every duck on my place, but I wouldn't want to limit other's duck hunting based on my limited observations in one place. I was, of course, joking with my previous post.

Here is what I object to:

>>>In short i just think 3 birds is enough,<<<

That doesn't seem to be based on anything biological; just a personal feeling of what is "fair." And I don't mean to pick on you; I think that's the reasoning of most people that want to reduce the AL limit.

Unless you have so few gobblers that they can't breed the hens, then the spring gobbler is a surplus bird that can be harvested with no harm to the overall population. The population is dependent on the nesting success of the hens, and no place that I have ever hunted got to the point of having so few gobblers that they couldn't breed the hens.

If there really are places in the state that have populations that get that low, then shorten the season for those areas. That's the only effective way to reduce the harvest. Reducing the season limit state wide wouldn't help them even a little.

A lower season limit is nothing but a feel-good measure that won't help the turkeys a bit. It reminds me a great deal of the worthless gun-control measures that do nothing to reduce crime, but only cause hassles for the law-abiding. But many push gun control, and then congratulate themselves because they think they are "doing something" to fight crime. Mayor Bloomberg said he has earned his way into heaven with his gun control activities; I suspect he's gonna be disappointed.

I've turkey hunted in a lot of states, and I still think AL is the best. The AL system of a generous spring gobbler limit, with very limited fall hunting and no hen-killing ever has proven to be wildly successful. We have the best turkey hunting in the nation; I hate to see politics mess it up.

The generous limit makes the wild turkey a treasure in our state. In other states with low limits, they are often regarded as a nuisance. No turkey hunting culture ever develops because the average man can't hunt enough to become good at it. Additional government restrictions always have unintended consequences; this one would be no different.

I hope it never happens.

That's about the most sensible post I've ever read.

Duck Population- 42.9 Million

Turkey Population 5.1 million


See my point now? But of course I'm kidding as well and these figures arent at all relevant to anything we are talking about.

What you say is somewhat true. I do think 3 is fair. And a need or want for anything more than that just boils down to hunters being greedy (this doesnt exclude me). Regardless of what
people claim, we dont hunt for food anymore. If we need groceries, we go to the store. Hunting is purely a sport and a way to carry on what we have inherited and to reminisce on how we got to where we are today.

I ask you this PCP... Do you not agree there is less habitat for turkeys in Alabama now, than say 20 years ago?
On the property i hunt, no i see no change in population, but in the last couple years there is a huge change in habitat, and i firmly believe that it will lead to less turkeys in the next few years.
But around my home I see a huge drop in habitat and in population. 20-30 years ago there were gobs of turkeys in my home county. Now due to development and current timber practices there are virtually none. It has been a slow decline that to some would go unnoticed. But i see it and so do many other hunters who live where i do.

Just for example lets put this out there. Lets say you own and hunt 640 acres (because its 1 sq mile and easy to calculate) of prime turkey timber. You are surrounded on four sides by four other land owners who also have 640 acres of prime timber. Yal all have a great turkey population. Well lets say 2 neighbors decide to clearcut their 640 acres. 1280 acres cut, boom, gone. They also decide to spray it and kill all brows. In 2 years this property is now 4ft tall planted pines and is of no use to the turkeys. What few turkeys are left migrate onto surrounding properties, and some die off due to lack of room and food for them (this does happen). No worries, you are still killing limits off of your 640 acres, because you havent touched it. Now lets say the 3rd year the other land owners decide to do the same as the other 2, and spray and cut their property. Boom, there goes another 1280 acres. All of the remaining turkeys either move onto your property or die out. In two more years you have another piece of property that is useless to a turkey. So in 5 years you have lost 4 square miles of turkey habitat. And close to 1/5 th of the population. Yet you personally, on your property have seen no significant change. BUT, as the years go on, and you continue to kill you 5 birds per year, you will eventually see that drop in population. Because you are no longer getting those birds from the surrounding properties to replinsh what you have harvested.

I try to look at the big picture. More hunters + more predators - habitat = declining turkey population.

To address your next point, you say there is no need to limit gobbler harvest unless there is a shortage or gobblers. Enough so that there are not enough gobblers to breed all of the hens.

Well to that i say this. With no data on that being collected, how do you know that is not the case already? How do you know all of the hens are being bred? Sure you say on your property hat you personally see a drop in population. Well nor do I (yet). But if we only hunt our property, then how do we know whats going on around us? And regardless of what you say, what is happening on other properties in our area is just as important to us as what is happening on our own property! No matter how you slice it, habitat loss will lead to a lower population.

My main point being, without data, your argument that there should be no limit decrease is just as invalid as my arguments that there should be a limit decrease.

Im not saying the state should impose a law on impulse or gut feeling. But i do think they should put more effort into collecting hunter data and hatch data, simply so that they can stay ahead of what could happen (and that i fear will happen).
If the state did impose a lower limit i would not question it.

Well if you kill your 3, and then take somebody else and let them kill 2-3, how is that any different than you killing 5 to start with? Call me greedy, cause I want to be able to kill 5.

The fact that this state has one of the highest number of birds /acre and the fact that we have the most liberal limit is about all The data PCP needs here. There are more factors involved as you mention with development and timber management but our regualtions seem to have produced high turkey numbers and high hunter satisfaction. Now that doesn't mean the current populations in this state and the south may not be declining, but until it could be proven that it was anything but natural population cycles then why try to fix what isn't broke here in alabama........let the other states who don't have our numbers keep fixing themselves however they please.

Disclaimer: I've never killed a limit of turkeys in Alabama, but I believe that I should be able to try............and I believe those that can hunt more time, hunt smarter, ect should be able to get their 5 if they choose. The data is needed to make the change you want not keep the limit we have.

How does anyone know the exact population of turkeys in AL or any species for that matter? If the limit is 5/season, why can't I be allowed to kill my 5 in one day?

There is no difference.... 5 is 5... It doesn't matter when you kill em...

In response to TDD, I have no data to back this up, but with the population of birds this state has, I bet less than 5% of hens go unbred in a spring season. That is their sole purpose and they travel until the find a gobbler or jake who can get the job done. I really don't think harvesting male turkeys has any significant impact on populations. Now if we started smoking 5 hens a year I think that could cause some problems

I would have to disagree with that. If you call up a group of 5 longbeards together on opening day before they get busted up and the breeding has started........ Then let's say you and a buddy get em lined up and kill 3 with the first volley of shots and kill another one of them on the run when the other 2 are trying to get gone you are putting a ton of responsibility on that one gobbler left to try to get all those hens bred in that area before he gets killed himself.

I've never understood the concept of trying to kill more than one at a time anyway. Anything more than 1 is just a dead turkey you gotta fool with and a bird that you will never have a chance to try to trick again.

I agree Brent.

Like Ive said a dozen times, if the limit is 5. 5 is my goal.

But if the state collects the data and determines a lower limit is needed, i would be in favor of it. But i dont see that happening so its really a moot point. Lol

I disagree. I see gobblers together most of the season. You could kill one/day the first 5 days and it would be the same thing. The scenario you described doesn't need 5 birds taken off of it anyway. If the State says a limit of 5 then you should be able to kill 5 at anytime during that season. If there's a problem with killing 5, then maybe the limit is too high.

No actually killing 5 in one day and 5 in 5 days is very different.
1.... 5 on opening day allows no days for breeding during what is the peak breeding season in a good part of the state. 5 in 5 days is still extreme but it does allow some breeding time.
2......Nobody is gonna call up the same group of birds for 5 consecutive days and be able to kill one of them each day. You might possibly kill 2 or maybe even 3 in extreme cases in 5 days out of the same flock if you're hunting them over a pile of corn or ambushing them out of a chufa patch which is about the same thing.

I think the turkeys that survive out of those big bunches of 5 or 6 that we sometimes call up early season are the absolute hardest turkeys to call up and kill a second or third time. They are a real good insurance policy that you're gonna have some gobblers left over for next season and they are also the most fun/challenging/frustrating to fool with. I've had it happen accidently a couple times over the years but you couldn't pay me to shoot two or more at once on purpose.

TDD - blaming "timber practices" is an easy out - easy to say - an easy target. But you need to deal with the fact you are wrong.

If you want to discuss that. Bring some facts. We can see if you know more than I do about this subject (and others on this forum).

You first!

Brent, that sounds like a case for a later season opener.

It has been my experience that most of the ones who annually kill their limit do it on thousands of acres. I am not saying that small tracts can't produce a limit, but most of the ones I know that kill their limit consistently (which is quite a few)do it on scattered tracts which they are fortunate enough to have quite a few of to hunt. Most of the limit killers I know, won't wipe out a particular tract....which may be why they kill a limit most every year. They kill a turkey off of a tract, then move on to somewhere else. I basically do the same thing, on a much smaller scale. A 2-3 bird season is great for me, rarely do I kill more, but as a turkey hunter I will not overhunt a place. I don't think that most turkey hunters will kill more than they feel they should on a particular tract. I feel like most seasonal turkey kill numbers per man are most likely proportional to the amount of land and time a hunter has to hunt turkeys. I would like to know opinions about this relationship as I think that there may be something to it.

I'd be happy with March 25-May 10 in the northern part of the state. I'd just come down there and hunt with some of y'all for the first 10 days :-)

How am wrong? Its a well known fact that timber companies spray and use pelletized chemicals to kill under growth in pine plantations. This kills many of the plants species as well as insect species that turkeys are heavily reliant on. Timber companies also cut more agressively than they used to. Leaving very few smzs and hardwoods along creeks. Definitely not enough to support a flock of turkeys.


And I disagree that most turkey hunters wont over kill a piece of property. Every turkey hunter I know will kill every bird they can up to their limit and a good many of them wont stop at their limit.

Hunters are naturally greedy. Its just a fact. Only a select few are interested in conservation or preserving what we have for future generations.

If you truly believe timber practices havent hurt wildlife populations in recent years, id suggest you pull your head out of your rectum and look around.

TDD I know this is completely off topic and has nothing to do with this thread but, what do you do for a living?

Please don't whitewash hunters with such a broad brush.

Not "every" hunter wants giant trophy rackhanging monster bucks. Nor is "every" hunter a brown=down hunter. Nor are all hunters "greedy" and have to kill a limit of turkeys or ducks or skwerrels every time they go out.

Guess this would all depend on your turkey population... If your unable to sustain it I could see this being the case....

TDD - when you use the phrase "well known fact", there is a general understanding you are suppose to know what you are talking about. When it comes to timber production practices, it is painfully obvious you don't know facts.

Since I'm obviously so ignorant, please enlighten me...




I work with and produce a wide range of chemicals. Many used in pesticides and herbicides.

I didn't say every hunter wanted those things. I said there were a few who were conservation minded and looked toward the future. But just in my honest opinion, most are just out there to pull the trigger every chance they get and couldn't care less about the actual future of hunting. Im not blanketing anyone.

this past season was the first time in many seasons that I didn't kill my limit of 5 birds,It had nothing to do with the number of birds available.Health issues and time constraints kept me out of the woods.Where I hunt we have a very healthy/huntable population,and I would vote against a limit decrease,but if your area will not support a five bird limit then stop killing them when you get 3 birds.

I agree with you turkey 24/7 as I am on the front lines of our current timber management practices. I think that most of the tracts I manage have improved wildlife habitat. In the forest industry, pesticides are primarily used at seedling nurseries, not in the woods. I have not ran into a shortage of insects in my career. What about the herbaceous layer that is released by the use of forestry herbicides ? Are they not good for wildlife, or is 10 foot tall sweetgum with no herbaceous layer better? I go above and beyond to surpass the standards of Alabama Best Management Practices by leaving wider smz's and other sensitive areas when I set up a timber sale. How about the hundreds to thousands of acres that get burned every year in normal forest management practices ? If I'm not mistaken, that helps many game and non-game species.

What happened to turkeys and deer in this state by the 1950's ? They had to be restocked as they were near extinction....but how could that be as there were thousands of acres in huge blocks that were primarily mixed pine and hardwood ? There were no chemicals used in forest management back in those days either. How did turkey populations explode in the 80's especially considering that most of today's forest management practices were being used by then ?

TDD, I know that you live in the heart of the wood basket of the southeastern U.S. Your primary hunting ground could very well be in the midst of thousands of acres of pre-merchantable plantations owned by investment companies and other industrial forest landowners. From a landscape point of view, you could be in a turkey lull from a lack of standing timber, and prescribed fire regenerating early successional habitat. On a large landscape point of view, your area is a drop in a bucket.

All wildlife populations fluctuate, and they have since the beginning of time and will as long as we are here. I am not saying that there is nothing going on with wildlife populations in Alabama, but to say that the forest industry is the number one culprit is misguided.

My opinion is that we have had several less than average nesting years in a row due to weather, and increased predator populations as a more viable culprit. A wild turkey has an amazing ability to adapt, but there are always numerous biological factors that they must deal with. I don't see suitable forest habitat, which is controlled in this state by 97% private, non-industrial forest landowners as a main biological factor limiting turkey populations.

Im not sure where you work, but in the counties of Monroe, Wilcox, Marengo, Clark, Baldwin, Escambia, and Mobile, translocated, water soluble and soil sterilant herbicides are used very commonly. Usually in Spray for or in a solution or Solid form that is applied to the base of undesired vegetation.

I've lost many a turkey hole to modern timber management practices. For me personally, I don't think a pine plantation does much for turkeys. Those that survive in them do so in spite of and not because of, IMO.

First, we are talking landscape level. You guys may be interested to know over 60% of land ownership in this state is by the private sector.

Second, nothing used in timber management kills insects in the woods.

Third, most forestry herbicides are selective and or limited in control, plus those used for mid rotation stands do not harm legumes, and mid rotation releases are known to be very beneficial to wildlife.

The southwest part of the state has the most intensive timber management, and the highest turkey population on a landscape level. Ask someone from Morgan and Marshall County, where a fraction of pine stands exist, compared to beautiful fields and hardwoods if they would trade turkey density with the pine belt. Ask the Ag country of Southeast AL if they would like a few pine belt turkeys.

You are barking up the wrong tree here. I probably can't change your mind. But I do have a good memory. You posted some pics one Spring of a bunch of turkey in some managed pine stands that I actually thought looked too thick for a lot of turkey activity. You hunt in one of the counties you mentioned, and say you have plenty of birds.

Population studies aren't limited to a 40 acre 5 year old pine plantation. It's a landscape level. And the freaking pine belt you mentioned is doing just fine.

Just stop blaming easy targets. You are wrong.

I use to kill a limit of turkeys every year in pine plantations.

I hear ya!

TDD just called you a liar, though. Don't take it personal.

I'm an evil forester, too. . My first job out of college was spraying forestry herbicides.

Correct, we use herbicides, but not insecticides. I work in every one of the counties mentioned and there are still plenty of insects for turkeys to eat. Do you honestly believe that no forest management would be better for turkeys ?

Oh. OK.

I'm not a turkey hunter so...

Have any of you that have noticed a decline in the turkey population noticed if poultry litter is being applied to fields in your area? I know there's a whole lot more litter being trucked out of this area and into other areas.

I just wish IP would burn their stuff,when Union Camp sold out to them the burning stopped,that's been over 15 years ago,other than that,our turkey population is doing fine with current timber management

My uncle owns 8 chicken houses along with cattle,he spreads his chicken chit on all his pastures and they are full of turkeys every spring,hasn't affected the birds around his place

Well, TDD, we helped revive a thread that seemed to be dying down.

Been a long day and I'm too tired to answer everything you said, but I'll try on a few issues:

You said:

>>>I ask you this PCP... Do you not agree there is less habitat for turkeys in Alabama now, than say 20 years ago? <<<

I don't travel the whole state and don't think I'm really qualified to answer, but I doubt it. People have been moaning all my life about how timber practices would destroy turkey hunting. I moved to Wilcox County in 1970 and every turkey hunter I met was furious with MacMillan-Bloedel because of all the clearcutting they were doing. The common theme was that turkey hunting would soon be ruined. I thought it too.

Well, it wasn't. Some areas are now growing their third loblolly forest and the turkeys are still there. I also see a lot more areas being converted to longleaf and managed on a much longer rotation, which is good for turkeys. My main forest is 35 years old, and I haven't cut it mainly because I want to keep it good turkey habitat. I believe there are more people like me than ever, and one of the reasons we are willing to do it is because of the generous limit. Take away that limit, and many people might not be willing to manage that way. Charles Kelley often stated this was their reasoning for generous limits for deer and turkey - give the landowner the right to manage their resources and he believed they would do a good job of it. States that took a more socialistic view were way behind us in getting huntable populations.

>>>I try to look at the big picture. More hunters + more predators - habitat = declining turkey population.<<<

If that is true, then by far the most effective way to reduce the harvest in those areas is to shorten the season. Limiting what hunters can do in an area with a thriving population because the population is down in an area hundreds of miles away doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm thankful the AL DCNR already realizes this and does manage different populations by season length. I hope they will continue this practice and not punish hunters in other areas with good populations.

>>>To address your next point, you say there is no need to limit gobbler harvest unless there is a shortage or gobblers. Enough so that there are not enough gobblers to breed all of the hens.
Well to that i say this. With no data on that being collected, how do you know that is not the case already? How do you know all of the hens are being bred?<<<<

I said that no place that I had ever hunted had a population get so low that the gobblers couldn't breed the hens. That's because I have always seen or heard gobblers right to the end of the season. You can be sure that if I heard them, then any hen that still needed to be bred would hear them too. There are plenty of studies that show it doesn't take many gobblers to breed all the hens in a population. Gobbler posted in this forum about a researcher that documented a single gobbler that bred 25 hens in a single day, and hens have to bred only once. But once again, if this is a problem somewhere, then shorten the season in that area. That's the sure way to limit the harvest.

>>>What you say is somewhat true. I do think 3 is fair. And a need or want for anything more than that just boils down to hunters being greedy<<<<

I think this is the real reason that some are proposing a lower limit. Its all about a personal feeling that nobody should be allowed to kill over a certain number they have in their mind, and its easy to demonize those who would as being "greedy."

I'm as capable of anyone of falling to greed, but I really don't see myself as being greedy if I kill 5 AL Spring gobblers. That's been the limit all my hunting life and the AL turkey population has thrived with that limit. I sure can't see any evidence that its damaged the population.

I spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours every year working to improve the turkey habitat on my farm. I'm confident I produce a lot more than 5 turkeys every year, and others are able to also benefit from my work, and I'm happy for them. How can you arrive at a figure of 3 being ok and 5 is "greedy?" I just can't see your logic in that.

I usually shoot one deer a year; that's all we need to eat. I also kill a few doves and a few squirrels, and try my best to kill my limit of gobblers. We eat what I shoot, and that's all I take from the land. From your posts, I'd think you likely take a lot more game from the land than I do. How many ducks do you have to kill in a season to reach the point of greed? Are turkeys somehow different? Maybe I am greedy, but I just can't see it that way.

But greed is definitely a bad thing; I'll sure agree on that.

So is jealousy. Maybe that's for another post.

I suspect the limit argument is a moot point for me. I struggled to get a limit last season and don't know if I will ever be in good enough health to do it again. But I really do believe that the AL system of turkey management is the best in the nation, and I'd hate to see it destroyed because of politics.

A good evening to all!

Good read PCP. Thanks for the post

As a forester and turkey hunter I will say that the densest turkey populations I have ever seen on a regular basis were in intensively Managed IP pine plantations in Baldwin County and in intensively managed Weyerhauser pine plantations in Clarke County. These were large tracts with the same forest management practices applied across the whole tract. IP tracts in this area of Baldwin County were infamous for having crappy SMZ's but the turkeys flourished nonetheless. With that said, I really don't think that forest management practices in general should be targeted as the reason for the decline in turkey numbers. I also believe that if I have enough turkeys to kill five, then I am most likely killing the surplus. If the DCNR drops the limit to three, I fear that they world not increase back to five when the populations were to increase. I say leave it at five.

Looked like an interesting thread. No reason to comment though, just wanted to make sure PCP was posting good info as I have taught him over the years. Good posts PCP! You are carrying the biological response well. Carry on

I wondered where you were - you need to join in. You may have taught me well, but I don't have any credentials. Well, except when it comes to the greed and jealousy part. Guess I'm supposed to know about that.

Agree 100%.

And yes, I've said 10 times that we have a solid turkey population where i hunt, and it is due to the fact that for the last 10 years there has been very little cutting or spraying on this property. Unlike areas surrounding us. But ill also say this, i drive 2 hours to hunt here because there are very few turkeys around my home, where there used to be an extremely high population. Nothing has changed in that area other than timber management practices. So you tell me what happened to all the birds if it wasnt timber practices and/or over harvesting? Im sure preadtors hurt, but the area i hunt now has a much higher predator population...

I never said a turkey couldn't live in pines. A turkey can live in some tough environments. But its impossible for them to sustain such a high population in pines that lack the food that they once had. If you are trying to tell me that current timber practices aren't targeting the killing of under brush and small vegetation, then YES im calling you a liar.

Our property, like alot of others in the counties i mentioned, was bought by an investment group last year. They came in and cut half of the timber, sprayed the new growth, and dropped pelletized herbicides via helicopter in the 5-15 year old pine stands. I know because I was here watching them do it. Now ALL undergrowth is dead. And in all honesty i know it hurts the deer worse than the turkeys, but it definitely hurts ALL wildlife. So no, you will not change my mind.

Hell 3toe I figured you'd like it. Then you could say you limited out or at least came close!

No! If the limit was only 3, I would be done every year by 3/20!! That would make a boring April!!

Seriously, leave it where it is.

Until I started hunting this way I rarely had a chance to kill a limit. The more land I have spread out in different areas the more opportunities I have to kill a limit.

it would break my heart if I couldn't have the opportunity to kill 5 turkeys a year. I've made it a point to have access to enough pieces of property to consistently get it done. Not only will it be taking food from my belly but money from my wallet. Because not only are they going to lower the limit, they will shorten our season as well, which means less hunters I get to take. And to top it off it won't be as rewarding to reply: yea "I've killed my limit" if I'm only talking about 3 birds

Y'all kill me with the no biological reason debate.

I do a lot of herbicide work in the woods but am confused as to the pelletized or solid herbicides or insecticides that you are talking about. Can you enlighten me a little on what these are and what they are used for?

The only one I could think of was VelparDF.

TDD is obviously very confused. I'm not sure why he thinks there is a lack of food for turkey virtually anywhere. In warm climate, mostly forested areas, there is enough viable turkey food to support 10 times the existing population. But now I'm stating opinion, and TDD knows.....the facts!

I don't think food is part of the habitat problem for Alabama. And I don't believe habitat is the top issue for us anyway.

Hexazinone I believe is what they were using.

I think the state would be in error on several accounts by lowering the limit one of which being out of state hunters. If suddenly Your out of state license (which cost 129$/3 days, 183$/10 day, or 296$/season) and allowed 5 birds last year now only allowed a 3 bird limit, might cause some reconsider and go to spend your money in another state instead.

While I have used Velpar, it is NOT one of the more common herbicides or "soil sterilants" I believe you called it. I use a lot of herbicides to target understory brush and midstory plants and that is specifically to BENEFIT turkeys. Lack of sunlight in forestry managed stands has a LOT more to do with lack of turkey habitat than herbicides and chemicals has nothing to do with lack of insects... again sunlight and lack of understory plants that are promoted by sunlight. Lack of qualitu or quantity of habitat would not be benefited by an change in the limit.

Two questions come to mind here. If a lack of quality or quantity of habitat exists, does that habitat deficiency have a positive or negative impact on the number of turkeys? If it has a negative impact on the turkey numbers, would a higher or lower limit benefit the turkey flock?

Since the southeast turkey decline is a reality, Alabama isn't the only state concerned with these sort of questions and the answers of what to do about it. Arkansas has decreased the season length and limits. SC and TN are currently grappling with these questions also.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/04/alabama_dcnr_launches_wild_tur.html

http://www.walb.com/story/20156482/uga-studying-wild-turkey-decline-in-the-southeast

http://ncnwtf.com/myJSSImages/file/UGAprogressreport_regionalanalysis_December%202012.pdf

http://www.newbernsj.com/sports/local/ou...ecline-1.118852

http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/PALMER-138-147.pdf

http://m.columbiadailyherald.com/sports/...y-area-counties

http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/262187551.html

http://thecabin.net/news/2011-10-23/wild-turkey-numbers-arkansas-steady-decline#.VHRapIvF-So

http://www.journalpatriot.com/opinion/article_eac90ec2-60fd-11e3-9822-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm

You need to put some smiley faces or something up here. You're walking a fine line with one foot about to stumble over into JINX territory

If there is a net loss of turkey habitat acres (quantity), there would be less turkeys although turkeys per acre should remain static. If the lower population is a direct result of loss of habitat quantity, a change in the limit would have no effect since habitat quantity was the driver.

If there is a net loss of turkey habitat quality, there would be less turkeys per acre but the acreage of habitat remains static. If the lower population is a direct result of loss of habitat quality, a change in the limit would have no effect since habitat quality was the driver.

This is, of course, is in theory. However, gobbler populations have little effect on turkey populations as a whole. Each gobbler represents one turkey and their breeding potential can easily be replaced by another gobbler simply doing a little more breeding - something I am quite sure they would be happy to do. . However, each hen represents all the offspring she can raise individually. She cannot be replaced as directly.

Gobbler limits have little to do with turkey populations, hen harvest does. Ask PCP, he'll tell you

Prescribed burns?? Really, does this give anyone confidence that these guys know what they are talking about?? Wow!

Show me where an overharvest of gobblers was noted in reasons for decline in your cited projects? If it wasn't a reason for the decline then why offer it for a solution? Why not address the reasons they cite like predators, baiting, disease, etc? How about making habitat better so they have higher nest success and poult survival?

How about this theory - restocked wildlife inhabiting uninhabited but good quality habitat have a huge surge in population. This continues until all the habitat is finally taken up and often the population overshoots "normal" population numbers or carrying capacity. This rule applies whether it is a section of land or a State. Just takes longer with a State. Usually this abnormally high population takes a dive from some cause and never completly recovers to its past days of glory because the population was artificially inflated. After that it assumes a more "normal" population that fluctuates from year to year based on annual conditions. This is pretty common with restored critters that were wiped out and maybe turkeys are getting to a population we can expect. We have seen this with restored quail populations pretty regular as seen in this graph.



Pick it up here as well:
https://www.facebook.com/BachAndDevosForestryAndWildlifeServices?ref=bookmarks

I think this would hold true for hens that can find a gobbler to breed them. I also think that it's likely that hens don't get bred if there are no gobblers around, and no jakes that have viable sperm. Williams stated that studies showed only about 28% of jakes have viable sperm.

I know of hen turkeys out west in sparsely populated areas that were so hard up to find something to breed them that they would squat for humans. And I've seen lone hens far from any known turkey population. I suspect there are more hens than we realize that don't get bred in the spring in areas with low turkey density.

So I think it's possible that shooting too many gobblers can cause a decline in the turkey population by resulting in unbred hens. And I also think that reductions in spring gobbler limits are logical policies to take if there is a legitimate concern that turkey flocks are shrinking, even if there is no proof of it either way.

That may be the case out west and in low population density areas, but AL does not qualify for either of those. I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again, I bet less than 5% of hens in AL go unbred in a spring.

Then why do they have limits? Would you say the same for buck limits and the deer population?

Well, we would have to agree to disagree. I have as much data supporting my position that only an infinitesimal number of hens don't get bred as you do supporting a large number of hens don't get bred. I will say that I have never read a study report indicating any number of hens that were "nonbreeding" for whatever reason and I have read a lot of turkey research projects reports.

Edit: In Dickson, The Wild Turkey, Biology and Management, it is noted that while juvenile wild turkeys are not as fertile, this may be related to the presence of ADULT gobblers in the population. The lack of adults gobblers may allow a high percent of the juveniles to become sexually capable. Dickson notes that domestic juvenile gobblers are FULLY capable of breeding all the hens in a population and there is documentation of successful restocking using only hens and wild JUVENILE gobblers! Also documented was the servicing of up to 20 females by one juvenile gobbler indicating that very few males are necessary for maintaining the breeding of a population of hens.

Reducing the limit would simply be a scapegoat for lack of willpower to address the real problems with a turkey population. Got to be able to say your doing something to satisfy dull hunters.



I bet it is even lower than that - more like 1% in Alabama and it's not for a lack of available males.

My brother raises some 3/4 wild turkeys, rios. This past spring because he tom died, he was down to just one jake to do the breeding. I reminded him of what Williams wrote about the 28% viable sperm, and he was pleased to tell me that Williams was wrong because his jake was frequently breeding both of his hens.

As it tuned out, his hens laid a bunch of eggs, but not one egg was fertile.



Could be. But if I were in charge of making the hunting regs, there's enough uncertainty in all this to keep all options on the table and not assume too much.

But assuming 5% of hens in AL don't get bred from overkill of gobblers and not enough fertile jakes to take up the slack, how many poults would that cost AL every year? Assuming 300,000 turkeys in AL, and 2/3 being hens, that would be 10,000 hens unbred or unfertilized. Might be better off dropping the spring gobbler limit to 3 birds and opening up a two week long state-wide hen season instead.





I guess there is no way of knowing what the number really is.

But speaking of out west, I have a friend that actually caught a wild hen (in a wilderness area) that squatted for him. He was prospecting an area and a hen answered. The hen came right up to him and squatted. He stooped down and acted like he was strutting and she let him come right up to him.

Here's a photo of a squatting hen doing the same thing at an arheological dig.





None of us can know for sure how many hens do or don't get fertilized in any wild population. Seems like there are opportunities for studies out there. I think it sure would be useful to know that kind of data, but I don't know how they'd control a study like that.

I am 100% sure that the author of this article misrepresented the information given to them. That should say "THE LACK OF PRESCRIBED FIRE".

Things I am almost certain of:

1. There IS a decline in turkey populations across the SE.
2. Hens are getting bred. The abundance of gobblers in the population is not even a contributor to turkey declines.
3. There is habitat loss due to urbanization, land use changes, lack of habitat management, and constant disturbance from human activity.
4. There are almost double the amount of hunters in this state as there was when the limit was 5-6 birds/season.
5. We are getting a lot of feedback from hunters about turkey declines.
6. We have developed a turkey technical committee to address these issues, closely work with AU to conduct more research to provide answers, and review hunter feedback on how they prioritize certain aspects of hunter satisfaction.
7. If research indicates a shift in season or change in bag limits would result in the most satisfaction AND provides a sustainable and huntable population of turkeys then it would be a possibility.
8. Y'ALL don't get your feathers ruffled up just yet.
2

And don't forget the turkey technical committee is made up of hard core turkey killers, and veteran wildlife biologists who want to provide the most opportunity possible to the public.

We're not a bunch of dummies half-heartily entering some state of false reality.

There is a LOT of research and discussion going into this.

I think there are lots of parts to this puzzle. I work properties that were once awesome turkey and deer hunting properties. Each of these properties have the same thing in common. They are covered with raccoons, coyotes, and hogs. I wish there were more studies to evaluate these impacts. I believe these 3 do have an impact on the populations and I have had that belief well before I started a business.

Hunting clubs need to start addressing all of these issues just like they do food plots and prescribed burnings.

A combination of dropping the limit and addressing the predators could help turkeys rebound in just a few years. Deer will take much longer.

That last part was for you PCP. I still have a couple hen indulgences that you granted me....

elkhunter well put and I agree with every thing you said,

just a idea here on predators
maybe the clubs should think about raising their fees a little,
clubs pull to gather add that money to the pot
hire a few professional trappers to trap after hunting season
maybe the state could let traps and snares with deer stops be used when there is less chance for dogs to get caught
maybe the state could raise the lie fees a tad and chip that in or pay a bounty on predators like yotes

I know for a fact predators do a lot of damage to our game, I saw a huge difference in turkeys when I trapped hollins, when I trapped hollins by the second year you saw huge flocks of turkeys and I mean every day. since I left hollins I see very few. some times I might see some once a month if I am lucky while I am getting pine straw

but your right a combination of dropping the limit and controlling the predators is some thing that would work

The state is not going to offer a bounty on predators. We can't.

But predators are probably a contributor in some places. We have far fewer trappers now than we used to have, even on the recreational level. Folks just aren't trapping.

So are you the "hard core turkey killer" or "veteren wildlife biologist"? Just making sure I have my facts straight.

I don't think the bounty is going to happen. Clubs are going to have to step up and do something. Yes, it will cost more time and money. But, it will show results. Sitting around and doing nothing dang sure won't.

I just got a text/picture from a client where he caught 22 hogs last night in a single trap.

Traps cost money, but they are the most effective approach and they last. The initial investment might hurt but it will pay off in the long run.

I am a hard core turkey killer. Somebody like you puts one in front of me and I can kill it.

Neither, he plays at both J/K of course.