Whatever problem we MAY have with turkeys is NOT because of predators across the state. Therefore a bounty will not help. I don't see it having a net positive on any of those. I would be more inclined to pay a buck an acre for every acre burned. That might help.
I also don't think the dominant gobbler being killed in early season is the problem therefore lowering the limit and delaying season start date will not help either. Therefore limiting harvest or changing seasons will not help change the population as a whole.
These are the reasons I opposed the season changes in the first place. If we have a program or make a season or limit change we should damn well have some data to back it up. Something actually showing 1) we have a problem and 2) that the proposed solution will be impactful.

Why would someone get a bounty to improve their own land. Seems like incentive enough!

Well there’s likely not many turkeys dying from old age…….You’re basically saying that trapping has no impact and I think the majority of folks would disagree…….including yourself in the past on here.

This “data” thingy seems to just be something we use when its convenient.

Where was the data showing what we currently did would work??.......Where is the data showing 5 gobblers was the correct bag limit to begin with?........Where is the data showing the Feb deer extension wouldn’t hurt anything??............Where is the data showing the impacts of legalizing turkey decoys??...........Where the data showing we had too many does and needed to kill 2 per day??........ Where is the data showing the impacts that legalizing corn baiting would have and how many extra coons it would create?........But we need “data” before we can create a trapping incentive to counter it??......Again, sure seems like we pick and choose when we want to pull that stipulation out of the hat.


I don’t know that there’s any way to conduct a study that’s gonna tell you exactly how a state wide trapping incentive would work out in every county before you enact it……I feel like if you could though it would likely show varying degrees of impact from place to place with an overall net positive across the board…….Right now though, “show me the data” just seems to be the go to phrase that we pick and choose to throw out when its convenient to our arguement…..Just like already mentioned…..nobody needs data to pass a baiting law but suddenly we need it for a trapping incentive……That’s mighty convenient.

NOT what I am saying. If a property is well managed, trapping may have huge benefits. If is a crappy property, trapping may have no benefits. Killing a bunch of coons across vast portions of the state is like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.



Just because those programs were instituted without founding data doesn't mean we should institute another because we "think it might help" I opposed the season changes, I asked Corky exactly the same question when he changed it arbitrarily from 6 to 5, Feb deer had some research to go with it, opposed decoys, doe limit freed up those that had too many does to kill them - pretty good data on that, opposed baiting. There have been plenty of bounty programs, show me one that worked and made a difference.

I think I could make a pretty strong case for any bounty program that has failed has likely done so due to the structure of the program and not the effectiveness of trapping…….In other words, if they are failing then its most likely due to a weak incentive that does not effectively take out enough predators. Take South Dakota’s situation for example…….They are paying out $10 per tail…….That minor rate of incentive will only get you “X” amount of tails being taken out and the structure of the program is likely setting it up for failure from the start….……Increase that rate to $20…….$30…….$40…….or offer a better incentive and the number of tails would dramatically increase. At some point or threshold you would definitely create significant change………OR…….in our case offer the incentive to start turkey season a week early which seems to be a very strong incentive to many. I think all of the controversy that follows such is what folks are wanting to avoid more than anything.

I hear you about data Gobbler and lord knows I like to play with it and analyze it as much as anyone…….But I think we’re going deeper and deeper down a rabbit hole where everyone is looking to some study nowadays to tell them “how to think”……Its slowly taking away the individuals ability to think outside of the box and think for himself……”Such and such study showed it didn’t work so therefore that must be true and I don’t have to think any further past that. I no longer have to use my brain, I can simply Google the answer and it tell me what my opinion should be”…….That feels like the road we’re on with all of these “show me the data” driven decisions.

The analogy that we are “dipping out of the ocean” is not really accurate………We have nearly eliminated numerous species of animals in the past during times when there were a lot less of us doing the eliminating……We DO have an impact and whether it be 50,000 coons……..100,000…….or 150,000………there IS a threshold where it creates change…….And if we’re going to get technical about it, a positive impact is defined as one more than we would have produced…….That is the threshold where positive change begins to occur and it goes up from there.

If we use our past history of fur trapping as a reference since everyone tends to agree that it mattered back in the day……..then it at least gives us a ball park figure for what kind of numbers we are talking about having to take out……..I will bet the farm that if you create the right incentive that takes out enough coons that it WILL create “positive change” over time……..(Dont forget that 100K coon tails caught in DP's will take out a lot of possums for free in the process). There is no way of knowing just how much though without enacting it……..You cant really measure just how much the incentive starting turkey season a week early will have until you do it…..I suppose you could survey some folks to get a sense of public support before hand to predict participation.

CNC,,,, thats right do just like the government if it don't work just throw more money at it

Forest land is WAY more expansive in Al now then in the trapping heyday. The few people who lived in AL in the 50's, 60's and 70's were rural. Now they all live in cities. By the late 70's - 90's when turkeys were inclining and predator trapping was starting to decline, we were way more attached to the land. One property I am familiar with in dallas co had 30 families living on it and share cropping in the 50's and 60's (3,000 ac). Now NONE. Much of the open land is now pines. They had quail then, now none. We were able to control coons easily when there was only 10 million acres of forest in Al and every high school kid trapped and half the rural people ate them. Now we are removed, fields have been planted to pines and coons are abundant from eating corn.

Lets say we have 23,000,000 acres of forest in AL and lets say we have a coon per 10 acres across that. That is 2,300,000 coons. If we killed close to your estimate and close to what we used to report in trapping, 100,000 coons, that is 4% of the coon population. And the cost would be $2,500,000 according to your plan. Lets say that we apply that to a 3,000 acre, well managed place, with 300 coons preying on turkey eggs. We kill 4% or 12 coons and are left with 288 coons. Do you really think that would not be emptying the ocean with a bucket? It would make NO difference at a high cost, paid by the taxpayer (or license buyer). I set it up this way because I have a 3,000 acre place we work on in Dallas co that has an exceptional turkey population that we kill 100-120 coons per year, every year, off the place. That, I would assume, would be about 40% of the coons on the place - enough to make a difference.

I would submit a $1 an acre, or even $10/acre, incentive to burn would get you 250,000 acres burned or 2,500,000 acres burned for the same cost - A far more beneficial program IMO.

All I can add to this thread is my small experience I have with managing land for turkeys. I joined a club that had very few turkeys on it about 3-4 years ago. 2,800 acres in Conecuh county. When I say very few I mean the deer hunters might see a few during deer season and you might hear
1 or 2 gobblers on a spring morning. Hardly any gobbling on the ground. Very few tracks. We started trapping coons. Killed something like 175 coons the first year. We’ve been trapping the last 3 years only around deer feeders and in patches. Not even hitting the creeks in the woods at all. Just the convenient spots we can drive the truck up to. Then 2 years ago I started trapping coyotes. Killed 8 the first year. Haven’t got to set this year but another guy has trapped a few already.
The Turkey population has grown every year and we had more turkeys this year than they have had in the last 25 years since they started hunting there. Usually 2-4 guys hunt it and they kill 1-2 gobblers a year. Last year we killed 3 and this year we killed 4 and had plenty more on camera strutting with hens after the season. I firmly believe if you want to affect the turkey population, trap coons and possums first, then coyotes. Also kill as many crows as you can.

That’s just my limited experience managing for turkeys.

All we had to do here was get chickens and pen them up . I never would have believed that there was that many possum and coons here . We killed over 70 of them from around that pen . That was a few years back . Since then I trap them around the feeders when I run them .

I've had about the same experience trapping my dads. We've had the place around 22 or 23 years. Used to never hear or see a turkey. I started trapping and turkeys started showing up. The way the government is escpecially now I don't want anything from them. Im sure they'd hit me with a 1099 after paying me.

I don't think the cost of an "earn a tag" or "earn the old start of March 15th" would be costly. Simply a check in day manned by the current wardens and whatever paperwork would be involved. There would be a market created for the predators trapped by turkey hunters that can't or won't trap. I personally think it would make a bigger difference in population than pushing the season back.

There has been a valid point that the enforcement of the game laws is lacking. The conservation officers cover an impossible area. Even worse, when someone is caught the fine is often a slap on the wrist. When the cost of the fines is less than a hunting club membership it makes sense for some to poach until they are caught.

You and PCP must have taken statistics together.

Yea, we went to the same school

You do realize that the FAR majority of turkey hunters hunt on private land right?

Yes sir. The check in day would be to turn in predator tails and issuance of a permit. The permit would be good for a "bonus bird" or a "bonus period" on private land. Cost would be negligible.

That’s a great idea and I agree about the cost being negligible…….I’m not sure where Gobbler pulled that 2.5 million figure from……Probably the same orifice where the rest of that post came from.

You know that $2.5 million number would actually be the potential amount that could be put into the pocket of Alabama hunters who wanted to get out and trap to make some extra money. In reality it would probably be something like half of that since a lot of folks would trap their own 20 coons but still, generating a million dollars to support trappers would be a big positive for the hunters of this state.