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.
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
