I can have a good debate with people who disagree with me biologically but this strikes a nerve. You obviously have no idea what biologists do. Nobody in this thread sits behind a desk and guesses anything or makes up 100% fake facts. I spend way more time in the field than in an air conditioned room. And scientific formulas and statistics developed in an air conditioned room are factual when real data collected in the field is used.


Gobbler, I'm not trying to say we are hunting turkeys back to being extirpated like the unregulated periods. That would be pretty foolish thinking, and it's not going to happen. Like I told PCP, my liking the turkey limit to the deer is ONLY an example of something the state did that wasn't the best for the resource. I hope y'all all know I'm competent enough to understand managing deer and turkey is not even remotely similar. Their biology, breeding, and behavior are very different.

For both PCP and Gobbler, what would you think if AU(not MSState), since you like throwing that in there, provided a scenario through a mathematical formula that included season lengths, different bags, real hunter mortality, real poult recruitment, real incidental hen harvest, real natural mortality, real hunter satisfaction, and predicted the population growth or decline over decades for each scenario, AND the results that were scientifically predicted suggested that a change in bag limits or season structure was needed? I throw in the term real data, meaning it was collected in AL by real hunters and biologists who spend time in the real world. (Bankhead that's for you).

Now what if the data suggested no change was needed? Yay!!

For some reason y'all have the idea that the state wants to reduce the limit. I'm not sure where y'all have concluded that. We are only conducting the research to see IF it makes a difference and is needed. I've already said I'm for killing as many as possible if it's sustainable. I'm only asking questions that need to be asked, and doing the research answers them.