it would break my heart if I couldn't have the opportunity to kill 5 turkeys a year. I've made it a point to have access to enough pieces of property to consistently get it done. Not only will it be taking food from my belly but money from my wallet. Because not only are they going to lower the limit, they will shorten our season as well, which means less hunters I get to take. And to top it off it won't be as rewarding to reply: yea "I've killed my limit" if I'm only talking about 3 birds

Y'all kill me with the no biological reason debate.

I do a lot of herbicide work in the woods but am confused as to the pelletized or solid herbicides or insecticides that you are talking about. Can you enlighten me a little on what these are and what they are used for?

The only one I could think of was VelparDF.

TDD is obviously very confused. I'm not sure why he thinks there is a lack of food for turkey virtually anywhere. In warm climate, mostly forested areas, there is enough viable turkey food to support 10 times the existing population. But now I'm stating opinion, and TDD knows.....the facts!

I don't think food is part of the habitat problem for Alabama. And I don't believe habitat is the top issue for us anyway.

Hexazinone I believe is what they were using.

I think the state would be in error on several accounts by lowering the limit one of which being out of state hunters. If suddenly Your out of state license (which cost 129$/3 days, 183$/10 day, or 296$/season) and allowed 5 birds last year now only allowed a 3 bird limit, might cause some reconsider and go to spend your money in another state instead.

While I have used Velpar, it is NOT one of the more common herbicides or "soil sterilants" I believe you called it. I use a lot of herbicides to target understory brush and midstory plants and that is specifically to BENEFIT turkeys. Lack of sunlight in forestry managed stands has a LOT more to do with lack of turkey habitat than herbicides and chemicals has nothing to do with lack of insects... again sunlight and lack of understory plants that are promoted by sunlight. 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.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/04/alabama_dcnr_launches_wild_tur.html

http://www.walb.com/story/20156482/uga-studying-wild-turkey-decline-in-the-southeast

http://ncnwtf.com/myJSSImages/file/UGAprogressreport_regionalanalysis_December%202012.pdf

http://www.newbernsj.com/sports/local/ou...ecline-1.118852

http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/PALMER-138-147.pdf

http://m.columbiadailyherald.com/sports/...y-area-counties

http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/262187551.html

http://thecabin.net/news/2011-10-23/wild-turkey-numbers-arkansas-steady-decline#.VHRapIvF-So

http://www.journalpatriot.com/opinion/article_eac90ec2-60fd-11e3-9822-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm

You need to put some smiley faces or something up here. You're walking a fine line with one foot about to stumble over into JINX territory

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

Prescribed burns?? Really, does this give anyone confidence that these guys know what they are talking about?? Wow!

Show me where an overharvest of gobblers was noted in reasons for decline in your cited projects? If it wasn't a reason for the decline then why offer it for a solution? Why not address the reasons they cite like predators, baiting, disease, etc? How about making habitat better so they have higher nest success and poult survival?

How about this theory - restocked wildlife inhabiting uninhabited but good quality habitat have a huge surge in population. This continues until all the habitat is finally taken up and often the population overshoots "normal" population numbers or carrying capacity. This rule applies whether it is a section of land or a State. Just takes longer with a State. Usually this abnormally high population takes a dive from some cause and never completly recovers to its past days of glory because the population was artificially inflated. After that it assumes a more "normal" population that fluctuates from year to year based on annual conditions. This is pretty common with restored critters that were wiped out and maybe turkeys are getting to a population we can expect. We have seen this with restored quail populations pretty regular as seen in this graph.



Pick it up here as well:
https://www.facebook.com/BachAndDevosForestryAndWildlifeServices?ref=bookmarks

I think this would hold true for hens that can find a gobbler to breed them. I also think that it's likely that hens don't get bred if there are no gobblers around, and no jakes that have viable sperm. Williams stated that studies showed only about 28% of jakes have viable sperm.

I know of hen turkeys out west in sparsely populated areas that were so hard up to find something to breed them that they would squat for humans. And I've seen lone hens far from any known turkey population. I suspect there are more hens than we realize that don't get bred in the spring in areas with low turkey density.

So I think it's possible that shooting too many gobblers can cause a decline in the turkey population by resulting in unbred hens. And I also think that reductions in spring gobbler limits are logical policies to take if there is a legitimate concern that turkey flocks are shrinking, even if there is no proof of it either way.

That may be the case out west and in low population density areas, but AL does not qualify for either of those. I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again, I bet less than 5% of hens in AL go unbred in a spring.

Then why do they have limits? Would you say the same for buck limits and the deer population?

Well, we would have to agree to disagree. I have as much data supporting my position that only an infinitesimal number of hens don't get bred as you do supporting a large number of hens don't get bred. I will say that I have never read a study report indicating any number of hens that were "nonbreeding" for whatever reason and I have read a lot of turkey research projects reports.

Edit: In Dickson, The Wild Turkey, Biology and Management, it is noted that while juvenile wild turkeys are not as fertile, this may be related to the presence of ADULT gobblers in the population. The lack of adults gobblers may allow a high percent of the juveniles to become sexually capable. Dickson notes that domestic juvenile gobblers are FULLY capable of breeding all the hens in a population and there is documentation of successful restocking using only hens and wild JUVENILE gobblers! Also documented was the servicing of up to 20 females by one juvenile gobbler indicating that very few males are necessary for maintaining the breeding of a population of hens.

Reducing the limit would simply be a scapegoat for lack of willpower to address the real problems with a turkey population. Got to be able to say your doing something to satisfy dull hunters.



I bet it is even lower than that - more like 1% in Alabama and it's not for a lack of available males.

My brother raises some 3/4 wild turkeys, rios. This past spring because he tom died, he was down to just one jake to do the breeding. I reminded him of what Williams wrote about the 28% viable sperm, and he was pleased to tell me that Williams was wrong because his jake was frequently breeding both of his hens.

As it tuned out, his hens laid a bunch of eggs, but not one egg was fertile.



Could be. But if I were in charge of making the hunting regs, there's enough uncertainty in all this to keep all options on the table and not assume too much.

But assuming 5% of hens in AL don't get bred from overkill of gobblers and not enough fertile jakes to take up the slack, how many poults would that cost AL every year? Assuming 300,000 turkeys in AL, and 2/3 being hens, that would be 10,000 hens unbred or unfertilized. Might be better off dropping the spring gobbler limit to 3 birds and opening up a two week long state-wide hen season instead.





I guess there is no way of knowing what the number really is.

But speaking of out west, I have a friend that actually caught a wild hen (in a wilderness area) that squatted for him. He was prospecting an area and a hen answered. The hen came right up to him and squatted. He stooped down and acted like he was strutting and she let him come right up to him.

Here's a photo of a squatting hen doing the same thing at an arheological dig.





None of us can know for sure how many hens do or don't get fertilized in any wild population. Seems like there are opportunities for studies out there. I think it sure would be useful to know that kind of data, but I don't know how they'd control a study like that.

I am 100% sure that the author of this article misrepresented the information given to them. That should say "THE LACK OF PRESCRIBED FIRE".

Things I am almost certain of:

1. There IS a decline in turkey populations across the SE.
2. Hens are getting bred. The abundance of gobblers in the population is not even a contributor to turkey declines.
3. There is habitat loss due to urbanization, land use changes, lack of habitat management, and constant disturbance from human activity.
4. There are almost double the amount of hunters in this state as there was when the limit was 5-6 birds/season.
5. We are getting a lot of feedback from hunters about turkey declines.
6. We have developed a turkey technical committee to address these issues, closely work with AU to conduct more research to provide answers, and review hunter feedback on how they prioritize certain aspects of hunter satisfaction.
7. If research indicates a shift in season or change in bag limits would result in the most satisfaction AND provides a sustainable and huntable population of turkeys then it would be a possibility.
8. Y'ALL don't get your feathers ruffled up just yet.
2

And don't forget the turkey technical committee is made up of hard core turkey killers, and veteran wildlife biologists who want to provide the most opportunity possible to the public.

We're not a bunch of dummies half-heartily entering some state of false reality.

There is a LOT of research and discussion going into this.

I think there are lots of parts to this puzzle. I work properties that were once awesome turkey and deer hunting properties. Each of these properties have the same thing in common. They are covered with raccoons, coyotes, and hogs. I wish there were more studies to evaluate these impacts. I believe these 3 do have an impact on the populations and I have had that belief well before I started a business.

Hunting clubs need to start addressing all of these issues just like they do food plots and prescribed burnings.

A combination of dropping the limit and addressing the predators could help turkeys rebound in just a few years. Deer will take much longer.