I know plenty.

I got the sarcasm as I'm in the same area as he is, hence my sarcasm as well.

As far as I know Jackson County is still in the Tennessee Valley.

Speak for yourself

I've hunted a lot and lived in Georgia, and from what I've seen, there is absolutely no difference in the quality of private land in either state. Now the public land is slightly better, but that's mainly because they take better care of it.

I'm talking about the Georgia land around Harris, Troup, and Muscogee counties. You are correct, the land in general is taken better care of, but it's also mostly privately owned by families and corporations in big blocks. I got friends with land there, and hunt with them a few times a year, and it seems like they have no problems with their population.

There are alot of birds in that area of Georgia. I was saying it would be hard to compare season length and bag limit in that habitat, to paper company land in 2 counties across the river in Alabama, because the habitat is so different. A biologist couldn't really prove the different season dates made it better for turkeys in that part of Georgia than across I-85 and the hooch.

Does Georgia have a good number of birds in the hilly northwest corner of the state?

I've lived Harris county. I've killed a bird in troup, quite a few in harris, talbot, and Taylor. To the tune of 20-25 birds in that area. I still hunt it every year. I've killed birds on 4 wmas in those counties. It sounds like you have been fortunate to hunt some good land in the area. But, I'm just telling you, it is no better than Alabama on private land. Some places are jam up, most you would be lucky to hear more than a bird or two in a morning.

Depends where you are. Public land wise, I'd take talladega nf or skyline over any of the north Georgia wmas and forests

“We don’t yet have any good objective data from that study, but it is being recommended that we be proactive until they can get a better handle on the situation,” Dr. Strickland said.

Sounds like a real MENSA meeting going on over there

How do they have any idea of how many turkeys are killed or better yet how many people kill a limit?

If declining numbers are indeed an issue, lower limits shouldn't hurt the numbers....

It's pretty simple and a good conservative approach.

Im not sure if making game laws based on whether it "should or shouldn't hurt the numbers" is a particularly valid reason to change anything. That would seem to result in some pretty fudged up regulations!
Based on this quote: , it would indicate that they don't even know if there is a problem with declining numbers, or whether their recommendations will do anything positive.

Ill say again, quail are in far worse shape, why don't they lower the limit on them?

If they want to make an impact, they need to make a regulation that every piece of land over 100 acres, in their unmanaged management areas and Forever Wild tracts have a portion of it burned EACH year. Get the folks who wear loafers to the office every day in a pair of boots and carrying a driptorch. Get the folks planting greenfields off the tractors and out in the woods burning. Now THAT WOULD make a difference. Barbour is an excellent example of a pretty well managed management area.

Not on all of them it wouldn't.

Ok. I will play along. Besides burning...any suggestions?

What are your thoughts to the declining numbers?

Any biological reason to NOT lower the bag limits in addition to the other management steps you suggested?

Now just hold on there Gobbler! Property management takes time and effort before a "change" can be seen. Just regulating because we think and it feels good provides a quick solution and answer to those that ask about what the government is doing for those that don't/won't help themselves.

1. Alabama doesn't have a clue how many turkeys are harvested in the state. Any number would be a guess at best. Without a efficient statewide tagging and checking system you will never know.

2. Is the major decline in turkey numbers real or perceived? The recent surveys points to the latter. Perceived. 37% of hunters say the populations in which they hunt are NOT experiencing a decline. This is the majority for any one issue with predators a close second- which lowering the limit and changing the season structure will not address predators. You can't argue the survey.....

3. The majority simply don't support the changes. By the survey only 1% support lowering bag limit and 2% support shortening the season. So who is pushing this agenda on the state? If a real problem existed it seems the survey results would reflect it.

4. The decision should not be rushed without ample data to back it up. Once the season is shortened and the bag limit is lowered odds are it will be FOREVER.

5. bamaguitar needs to upload another original song......: )

6. "Being conservative" and changing bag limit and season dates will save some Tom turkeys. However, it will be minimal. The only places that may see a slight increase would be fragmented property with extreme hunting pressure- though I challenge this idea because some of the public land that gets hit hard for 45 straight days continue to maintain excellent turkey populations. Protecting jakes (though deemed useless in the grand scheme by most biologists) would prob be enough to off-set the above

Gobbler, our personnel burn as many acres as they can possibly get burned on areas where they can. Obviously we are limited on areas we don't own. That is a huge chunk of the WMAs.

One of the biologists probably could point to ongoing multi-state research in the Southeast - not just Alabama - of a real, serious decline in turkey populations since about 2001 or 2002, I believe. A dozen or so states are looking into this. It's been noticed for quite some time and isn't perceived or anecdotal.

Birds are still being seen and killed by hunters, but the decline isn't mythical and is a mystery.