PCP, as always, you've produced a logical response to my question. I do not have 52 years of experience behind me to see it through the same focus you do. I also don't have the luxury of hunting multiple spots each and every year, 2-3 maximum.

The main point to my original question was about how to fashion such a study. I do not profess to be a biologist but I have decent reading comprehension and have read many articles on all kinds of scientific research. I began to think about how one would go about proving that higher gobbler survival would lead to increased production. I can't even begin to contemplate all the factors that must be accounted for to ensure a sound conclusion on such a study. Would it be possible to survey two similar properties, one that's hunted and one that's not, and compare the reproductive rates of both? I doubt it. Such a study would be criticized as having a sample size too small.

I think there is still much we don't fully understand about all species of wildlife. I think turkeys are some of the least understood of all of them. I certainly hope your belief that a problem doesn't exist is correct. I fully believe the populations are cyclical. But the experts at the NWTF have voiced the opinion that there is an unexplained 25% reduction in population across the southeastern US and my personal observations support a decrease, although I couldn't begin to quantify it.

Yelp Softly, I sure don't know how to set up such a study. I'm just an old Ag teacher and timber farmer. The only research I've ever been involved in was at Auburn in the 70s, and it all related to Vocational Education and most of the work I did was grunt work. I have had a graduate level course in statistics, and do think I know a little about the scientific method. But I'm in no way qualified to examine a wildlife study and make any pronouncements about it. That's the reason I said I will listen to gobbler.

I don't doubt that there is a decline across the SE. Here is my opinion - I think that turkeys were relocated to many areas in the SE that simply are not turkey habitat anymore. They probably supported turkeys in the old days, but the impact of humans have made them incapable of supporting healthy populations now. They survived, and even prospered for a few years, but the poor habitat eventually catches up with it. I suspect the primary reason is a lack of suitable nesting habitat makes hens vulnerable to predators, and the predators learn how to kill them.

I've seen it happen in several places where the population really takes off when turkeys are first introduced, but then it gradually starts down as the predators learn how to ambush this new meal. There is no "issue" that can be solved by new regulations. Many areas just can't support turkeys. But many can, and will in the future as long as landowners have the incentive to manage their land for turkeys. There is a reason that gobbler sees and hears a whole lot of turkeys on a whole lot of properties - they are intensively managed for turkeys.

If the state really wants to produce more turkeys, it needs to provide landowner incentive to manage for turkey habitat, and especially nesting habitat. The CRP program did wonders for the pheasant population of the midwest; helped a lot of other wildlife as well. Programs like this are expensive and I'm not saying the state should do it; just saying that's one way to more turkeys that really works.

Good stuff and I hope you are right. I can buy that theory. I kind of see it similar to some of the lakes made out of old phosphate pits. They say the best fishing will be had in the few short years after that lake is stocked. The fish flourish and many grow big very fast. After the population of big fish reaches a peak after a few years, things start winding down and fewer big fish are caught because the ecosystem can't support the old growth rate with the new amount of fish that are present.

At the same time, I think we were fortunate to have such a resource that was in abundant supply. I think our turkeys flourished despite our 5 bird limit, certainly not because of it. Just because a 5 bird limit saw periods of growth in the past doesn't mean it's the right prescription for the future. Either way, I think we're all in agreement that more data holds the true answer. I hope their efforts bear fruit.

To all, that is great. Thanks, lets hope it helps.

I think PCP, (as always) stated the case AGAINST lowering the limit succinctly . At this time I am adamantly opposed to lowering the limit in the region I hunt and work. I see too many places that are "normal or above" populations (nearly all on well managed places but NOT all!). I certainly can be convinced otherwise if there were to be a legitimate .
The problem is how do you get that study done. You could have 2 large properties with nearly identical habitat and management practices and "treat" one with heavy gobbler harvest (I want to be a researcher on that one :D) and compare it to a "control" study site with no or little harvest, and follow those populations over a few years. The problem is variables like weather, so they would need to be close. Close properties trade turkeys so they would have to be separated from immigration and emigration - a SEVERE limitation.

As stated in another thread, I think the best study site is Georgia vs Alabama. If lower limits result in higher turkey populations than why doesn't GA have higher turkey populations? Very similar states. I would take AL turkey populations every day and I have hunted several areas in GA for years. Alabama's turkeys flourished not because of NOR despite the higher limits. We were simply allowed to harvest a good number of birds. As the Director noted, and I also believe, our turkey numbers would NOT change if we had a 1 bird limit or a 21 bird limit. I believe the populations would be exactly the same. Why should we succumb to what other states (with less turkeys than AL) are doing.

I see NO area of study design in the current HUGE turkey study of management area turkey populations that will address whether lowering the limit will result in higher turkey populations. NONE. If there is I would love someone to explain it to me.

One of the members of the turkey committee once asked what would happen if a group of Alabama turkey hunters were set loose across Kansas. My experience tells me that there would be carnage the first year, the second year turkeys would be more wary and the third year Kansas turkey hunting would be just like Alabama with wary birds and just as many turkeys.

My real issue is that it seems that those wanting to lower the limit want to say 1) there is a population decline without knowing what the population is or was 2) want to say that the decline is caused by weather, predators, and habitat, yet want to lower the gobbler limit, and 3) are nearly totally focusing on computer models the drop data in (some virtually made up) and see what the un-understandable model spits out - inevitably, lower limits result in more gobblers. However, the Director himself said that "the population decline won't be changed one whit regardless of whether the limit was 1 or 21". He's a biologist that agrees with me.

Gobbler, that's about as good a case as any could make for leaving the limit alone. Not only has Director Sykes said that turkey numbers would be the same with a 1 bird or 21 bird limit, he also said on a radio program that reducing the limit would be "symbolic". He didn't explain that; I suppose I shouldn't guess at exactly what he meant.

But if he meant that it wouldn't affect 98% of the hunters, then he is right. It would not be merely symbolic to the few of us that have made turkey hunting and management our primary hobby, while still trying to follow the law.

I meant to include a link to this radio program earlier, but I see I left it out. Scroll down to the 3/05 program if anyone has time to kill. There are actually 2 hours of programming with a separate link for each hour:

http://www.gettinoutdoorsradio.com/2016-shows.html

Do away with the daily bag limit.

One important question PCP. How many responses did you get - Im too lazy to count it up!

You better not be too lazy to double check the responses in your true turkey kill thread. Too many folks posting at the same time. The math is all boogered up.

Yea, I saw that! Ill readd Hope these guys can simply add to 5 It was close to 15 off at one point!

48 different people responded and actually answered the question. That produced replies on 101 tracts of land.

Bumped by request

I enjoyed the read pcp..i cant say for sure,BUT..i grew up in a place in marshall county that had some of if not the highest turkey population in our county. From the 70's all the way to the mid to late 90's, we had tons of birds. My daddy used to kill 2 or 3 a year and youd see droves of 50 in the winter. On average youd hear 5 to 10 turkeys gobbling around that was not uncommon. I saw the last turkey in 2002...the only one i ever got to see. My daddt remembered when the gentlemen up the road built his chicken houses and began selling to the local cattle owners. That was early 90's.....in about 5 years you couldnt buy a turkey..they were just gone....i remember daddy sayin "you know what..i ai t seen a turkey all year" then it was 2, then 3....they wer gone before we even realized there was a problem....it could have been prevented..and i know what happened. You dont just go from a thriving turkey population to complete extrapation in 5 years..UNLESS....the common denominator..CHICKEN LITTER!! Alright state of alabama dcnr magic wand wavers...i want my dang turkeys back...PLEASEEEEEEEEEE.....i never got to enjoy them...i want them back dangit....

This was interesting to read. Never really thought of this to be a problem before. We use the chicken litter in our fall plots and we don’t plant in the summer at the one place I hunt. We saw 16 turkeys in our big field a couple weeks ago. Idk if that’s a low number or not. I’m not an avid turkey hunter but wish I was. I’m trying to learn more and hopefully can bag my first long beard this year.

Id put the hiatus on that crap like yesterday...

It’s not my land and the only reason they use it is because of my uncles chicken houses. It sure makes the food plots look good.

Thread bumped for Semo.

Thank you