Maybe you can spread some more light on this since you used to work for them, but why is the state opposed to managing the WMAs similar to how private landowners with lots of turkeys are doing it?

It seems to me that if the state were to thin out multiple areas of timber on all WMAs and get sunlight to the ground to create quality nesting habitat, the profits of cutting the timber should pay for the costs of burning, spraying etc. for many years?

Edit: I think Dr. Craig Harper even spoke about this in a recent podcast. WMA managers can control a lot more acres more efficiently by burning and spraying, and do more for the wildlife, than they could trying to maintain fields and such with a bushhog.

the state is the biggest cheapskate in the world. No matter how low the investment is or how high the return...they ain't spending the money up front.

If they selectively thinned some timber stands they wouldn't be fronting any money, just using those funds. The DCNR does get to keep the money from timber cut on WMAs right? If not, that's another issue that needs addressing.

I seen a forestry guy this morning and he said he was heading to check on some property they had burned on skyline yesterday. They may burn all the time up here but I have never heard of it

The dcnr doesn't own most of the WMAs. They own the one in Barbour county, but I'm not sure what others. Cutting timber is not something they can do on the ones they don't own.

They burn in the bottoms between crop fields and thinned pines. Bad part is 95% of the place is mtns.

I know but he said low gap on the mountain. Jacob’s farm

That’s what I’ve heard as well. The state has tied hands on public, controls zero on private other than regulations. When the issue is out of their control, what do you expect them to do. I guess we should overlook the state level and look at federal incentives for habitat improvement. I know there are several, but they obviously aren’t that good, because not many are taking advantage. And then you have liability.

Ive said a couple things for years and a quick search on my posts on this site would verify it.

If the State cared about turkeys, management areas would be a shining example of how to conduct wildlife management. They should get all the penny loafer biologists out of the office and hand them a pair of boots and a drip torch. They own thousands of acres of management area land, forever wild land and can have an impact on management of much of the National Forest land. That should be enough to show intent.

Why is our State, which used to be the turkey mecca of the US, not participating in wild turkey research

How is our director getting accolades for his dedication to conservation when the opposite seems to be true

Regarding Chamberlains dominant gobbler theory I have always said the season limit was a crock of crap. Even Chuck said it wouldn't matter if the limit was 5 or 50, it won't effect reproduction and poult recruitment. However, I gave the season timing a "possible" for reproduction impact. With the few studies coming out now it appears that delaying opening the season has no impact either.

I know for a fact that the Department was wisely advised to make the changes of lowered limits and delayed season on a few select management areas and national forests to see if it had an effect. They decided to institute it over the whole state so that there was no way to study the effects or lack thereof. Kinda like instituting game check and changing the methods of the previous survey at the same time so no comparisons can be made to past survey results.

Worst administration in my lifetime and they are loosing good employees as a result

If private lands that are well managed (those that care about turkeys) have turkeys as you noted, why would the state lower limits and shorten season's on them? If they are not well managed (the key to having good turkeys) then lower limits and shortened seasons won't help either. If the issue is out of their control then they should stop trying to control it. They should focus on what they can control - the WMA's.

Regarding the Fed cost share - they are HUGLEY popular and tons of folks are taking advantage of them. There are about a million acres prescribed burned in AL. I would guess 20% or so is national forests and I would guess 50% of the rest is under some kind of cost-share. I know all our landowners use it regular. They would do it without it but will take it if the Feds are handing it out.



as of 2023, Forever Wild (owned by the State and managed by DCNR has nearly 300,000 acres. Quite a lot
An additional nearly 70,000 acres owned in management areas
an additional 345,323 acres are Federally owned acreage managed through cooperative agreements with the USFS, USFWS, TVA and COE. They may not own but can certainly impact managememt

Yea, I think they can find plenty of acres they can thin and burn and turn into management showcases - they don't

I understand what your saying gobbler, I’m sure it just boils down to money like everything else. What I’m trying to wrap my head around is the original question, being that populations are decreasing despite years of increases. Years of increases despite little to no habitat change. Seems like more people are actively burning and harvesting timber today than when the population was on the rise. I could be wrong on that.

20 years is the average increasing years after restocking - into unoccupied habitat. After that it tends to fluctuate based on weather, foods, predators, etc, etc. Few years up, few years down. Habitat is the foundation,and also fluctuates over large areas. Some places manage for diversity of habitat types and quality of nesting, brooding cover, etc. These places see little fluctuation. Some places grow large blocks of planted pines, for instance. These areas see WILD fluctuations from year to year and can have many down years in a row. That is the benefit of management. The State making blanket regulation changes based on weak theories does nothing to help, especially when you won't do any research into it. Making do-nothing regulation changes also takes the focus away from finding the real culprit to any decline that may exist. They would do better making management areas diverse, quality habitat that does not fluctuate as much from weather, etc. and regulate the harvest on management areas and leave the rest alone.

Nesting habitat and avoiding predators goes hand in hand. Any other time of the year you can find a hen turkey in the thickest junk you wouldn’t ever think a turkey should be. When it comes spring they will be where the Lord put in their instinct to be to have the best chance to raise. That’s where they can feed/nest and not worry about being ambushed all the time. They want to be able to scratch and pick around for as long as they want to, then pitch up in a safe place and do it again. The lowlands are too unpredictable for nesting sometimes, I see how the the turkeys act to see how much rain we are expecting during nesting season

I was talking to a large landowner/hunter the other day. Big turkey hunter going way back when. Anyways has around 9000 acres they hunt and actively manage. Has very deep pockets so cost is no issue. They have been burning and creating turkey habitat as long as I’ve known of him. They create patchwork cuts and thinning and burn around 1/4 of the property every year. They don’t hire any of it out. They have the experience, resources and equipment at their disposal.

Asked him if it’s he’s been hearing anything, yup but not like it used to be.
Hunting pressure is very low since only a few get to turkey hunt the property
Once again nothing like it used to be

Asked him if he’s seeing much? Yup finally seeing hens again. Always saw gobblers in some numbers but no hens for several years.
Same experience for me 8-10 miles away where I hunted, he tried to actually buy the property I hunted but she turned him down. Offered well above market price too.

Only can think of a few reasons but I’m not in the know. I’d guess predators and or disease.

They do predator management and hogs are few and far between and actively controlled thru trapping and thermals.

They run a lot of cameras, I mean a lot too. They’ve been running camera surveys on a grid since they could build one. They have a ton of data and been keeping it since the 80s or longer. They were practicing QDM before QDMA existed.

His neighbor has several thousand acres of adjoining land and does similar habitat practices.


I guess we’re excited to being some decent sized flocks again, the last few years have been good hatches.

I’ve often wondered if they cycle up and down kinda like ruffed grouse do

I'm curious as to what evidence you have that the population in AL is decreasing? The harvest has been going up for several years now. They told us we had to have GC in order to know what the population is doing, but it seems to me that they are ignoring it. We have always had people declaring the population was going down, but nearly all of that is based on anecdotal observations.

FWIW, I've seen zero evidence of a decline, but that's anecdotal too.

Personal experience over a multitude of properties. They aren’t thick like they use to be with the only thing changing being various habitat improvements. My experience doesn’t represent the entirety of the state nor to i intend for it too. But it definitely mirrors what every one else is saying.

I disagree that "everyone" is saying that. Lots of folks here agree with me that there are more turkeys than ever in many places. I've hunted the same property every year since 1965 and it has as many turkeys now as it's ever had. I have more on one tract that I've hunted for 30 years than has ever been there before, and by a whole lot. But our experiences don't prove much; nobody can enough personal experience to be sure. So that leaves the harvest numbers, and they keep going up.

I don't believe there is any hard evidence to show that the statewide population is going down. The folks who so strongly promoted the research debunked dominant gobbler theory have proven they can't be trusted, so what does anyone have that says population is going down? Nothing

Agreed. Some places have more than ever, some places are down. Is the overall population down as a whole - I believe so since about early 2000's. However, I don't think it is out of the "normal" population fluctuations that one would expect in a wild turkey population. I think the early 2000's population was so high it was abnormal and expected to come down biologically.

Now if only we had a biologist in charge in the department that could understand this

A bunch if yall are short sighted as hell buying into this silly government chit and have zero understanding of human psychology.

Here is what you do at the state level; stop the silly arse negative reinforcement crap with no scientific backing (IE reducing limits and pushing seasons back) and introduce positive reinforcement geared at ACTUALLY addressing the real problem instead (IE you get to start your season on your private land earlier and/or kill a bonus turkey if you provide proof you are working to produce more turkeys in the form of burning, predator management, etc.)

This chit aint rocket science. The hunting community will do the work on the state’s behalf if they will simply partner with them instead of demonizing and punishing them. More freedom and liberty to succeed ALWAYS spawns better results in society, without fail. You live in the best shining example ever (or used to be anyway) in America. Capitalism >>>> Socialism; always has been and always will be.

Depends on perspective..... if we do management they deem adequate they will give us some of our season dates and limits back? I don't disagree but still seems socialistic. I would be for more days and an extra bird or 2 based on acreage impacted. We burned 13,00 acres of understory last year - they should give me 3 or 4 extras