Preacher, the problem is that you are basing your whole "theory" on the fact that people are just going to be outlaws, regardless of the law.

You cant base the reason for a season change around the few bad apples in the group.

With a true tagging system and checking system, I doubt you would see many "illegal" hunters. It's the same type system we need for deer.

Respectfully, Guys here on the forums and having these discussions are a minority. Guys that can limit out on turkeys is a tiny fraction of over all hunters so in my humble opinion, season limits have almost no impact on over all numbers taken of the whole statewide flock.

you have to limit the numbers of hunters and the best way to do that is shorten the season. I'd say shorten season to a month and move it up two weeks to all of March would be a great idea.

I hunt every single day of Turkey season (Usually twice). I am 100% with Preacher on this. Absolutely spot on (though i would have the season run 3/1-3/30.

how does shortening a season limit the number of hunters?
Especially if most guys cant kill a limit any way.

So you mean to tell me that if an annual limit of birds was 3 instead of 5 and assuming you kill a limit then you didn't take 2 fewer birds out of the population? Holly chit batman. Is this the math that put men on the moon or is it the math that our government uses to screw us. 5-3=2 (more birds).

This entire post keeps echoing an earlier post I made about change that needs to be made in regards to the needs and wants of some areas of the state vs the other. People from opposite ends of the state have a totally different view when they open their front door every morning. Game management in the state should not be a one size fits all mentality. You fellas in south and central Alabama don't need us Yankees making recommendations on your hunting and we don't need y'all making recomendations for us Yankees. Our opportunities are not always the same.

All jokes aside I don't disrespect anyone's opinion that has been given here. Those of us that spend a ton of time with these birds know what the overall health of you flock is. It's hard to swallow that the state says our overall bird population is down when they have no way of recording hard evidence(numbers don't lie). Some of us don't believe a word of it because we have not been directly impacted. Others are saying thank you for trying to make any change that will help stop what few birds we have from being killed.

I personally don't think anyone is going to be spared in regards to the limit being dropped. Turkey population is down across the nation according to the research and it's going to effect everyone eventually in some way. I hope you guys that have good numbers are spared and the state leaves your limits and seasons like you want them. I also hope that they make drastic changes in my area which I fear are already too late in coming to make a noticeable difference.

Must be that common core math being taught in schools these days.

It's Higher math for me. I think your using common core!

I don't challenge the Math, I challenge the notion that more than a fractional percentage of hunters can actually limit out on birds, thus no real gains would be made by reducing limits.

The only substantial way to reduce numbers of birds being killed is to shorten the season.

Trust me on this, my neighbor works at Winn Dixie.

Shorter season would produce less hunts. Not less hunters. The same amount of people are still going to hit the woods. Most people imo will still kill their average number of birds in 30 days.
I still stand by that a 3 bird limit with an an accurate way to document and tag harvest is the way to help the overall population.

YELKCA you are correct thst there's no one form fit all solution. Unfortunately i think whatever the state decides to do, it will be levied equally across the board.

respectfully, A 33% reduction in available days should dramatically reduce numbers of birds taken.

I do agree with the last statement, though.

I'm curious, how did you kill last year in bama?

How his that even possible. If the limit goes from 5 to 3 that's atleast 2 more birds in the population the next year. How many of you commenting are biologist that study the eastern wild turkey? TBD you sound like your an expert what educational background to you have with the eastern wild turkey other than hunting them and what your grand papi told you around the camp fire

You are thinking too small. What he is saying is that there are FEW hunters who kill over 3 so the overall impact would be small. Out of 60,000 hunters for instance (harvest averages 1 per hunter per year), 2% who kill the limit would be 1,200 hunters, saving 2,400 turkeys statewide. We kill 50-60,000 gobblers statewide. This "savings" would never be noticed by any hunters in the state, nor would it help increase the turkey population through increased reproduction.

I have a Biosystems Engineering degree from AU. I have worked in Forestry for 14 years across every region in the state - roughly 30 counties. I have worked on wildlife enhancement projects alongside an AU wildlife biologist in my career. I have hunted and killed turkey for 25 years, across roughly 20 counties.

Plus my grand papi was pretty smart!

First, the 2% ain't a theory, though it is an approximation. The point is eliminating turkeys 4 and 5 from a very small number of hunters is not gonna have any effect on the overall population, which is entirely dependent on reproduction. And unless hens can't find a gobbler to breed them, there is no problem with the gobbler side of the equation. That doesn't happen where I hunt; I'm still hearing gobbling at the end of the season and long after.

Second, I am not basing a season change on bad apples or anything else. I am arguing for the status quo, at least in central and south AL where I hunt. The system has worked better any other state's system for over 50 years, so why change it now, unless there is a biological need for it. Biological reasons for change is what I asked for in the thread; ain't heard none so far.

Third, a "true tagging system" is not part of the equation. If you haven't noticed, AL is flat broke and can't pay for the govt services we have now. Every year they rob money that is supposed to be earmarked for the dcnr and use it to fund prisons and such. Look for them to steal even more in the next budget. You ain't gonna get your true tagging system in the foreseeable future. The most you can hope for is that they reduce the season limit and use the same system they have now to enforce it. And since there has never in recorded history been an arrest for anyone exceeding the AL season limit, I'd say that system is pretty meaningless as far as impacting the turkey population. But as I said, it will make some folks feel better, so I guess it will accomplish something.

Of course, if the limit is reduced, some AL hunters will continue to make like a Viking warrior and go rape and pillage in other states.

Many who do that may think that they can live with a limit reduction; they are gonna get to keep hunting other places after getting an AL limit. The problem I see with that thinking is what it does to turkey hunting culture that exists in AL more than any place on earth. The generous limit has over the years created people like us, who have had the chance to hunt a lot and learn a little about how to do it. And its caused the wild turkey to be regarded as a treasure here and treated that way. In places with low limits and no real hunting culture, they are often regarded as pests.

That culture took decades to develop, and it won't vanish over night, but set the limit low enough and it will vanish. The ultimate result of that will be fewer turkeys, not more.

So I guess nobody has a biological reason?

Consider the possible impact of a shortened season:

Number killed per year in 45 days = 54,000
Turkeys killed per day = roughly 1200 per day
In 30 days, kill would be 36,000 for 18,000 less.
54,500 square miles in Alabama so there would be an extra 0.34 turkeys per square mile resulting from a 30 day season.

If you're in a county with low density, 0.34 more per square mile is an increase of 15 to 20%. In a high density county, it's less than 5% or so.

Also, in my experience, more turkeys are killed in the first three weeks of season than the last 4 (a lot more in some years) because of hunter enthusiasm and eager turkeys so the per day rate has to be a lot lower in the last 15 days of a 45 day season.

My numbers were 50k hunters statewide killing 45k turkey. If 2% killed the limit, which is probably high - that would be 1k hunters killing the limit. Lowering the limit from 5 to 3 means 2000 turkeys saved statewide - out of an estimated population of 400k turkeys.

Some guys are just struggling with it for some reason - but lowering the limit is NOT a good answer to increasing overall populations.

I hate turkeys! Kill'em all

When I am not feeling like crap and coughing and snoting every breath I'll jump in. Until then have fun.

Yall are right. Add more days to turkey season and increase the bag limit. It won't bother a d*mn thing up this way. When your birds have been shot out and hit with disease then you have no were to go but up right?

In the example above based on 67 counties in Alabama that means 35.82 birds survived per county due to the decrease. In a county that has 500-1000 birds total on the ground living that is a big number.

Just playing devil's advocate but why would a tagging system help?

In 2014 Joe has his harvest record. He kills 5 birds by April 15th. He hasn't recorded any of the birds so he kills 5 more.

In 2015 how has his 3 turkey tags. He kills 3 birds by April 1st. He hasn't used any of his tags and he kills 7 more.

Either way if Joe gets caught the fine is the same. He didn't record it on his harvest record or he didn't use a tag.