Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk ALTurkey Talk -- Beards and Spurs Regulations and changes in hunting culture

I wanted to comment in the earlier opening day thread, but didn’t want to get off point. I am happy we are seeing a shift back to an earlier opening day, but I feel like more can be done to protect the resource as well as enhance our hunting experience. Let me start by saying I’m generally against more regulations and I’m against government over reach, but something has to be done because we are on a bad road here:

1.) I think that the state should do more for the residents the way some of the other states have done. Why not ban non residents from public land for the first 10 days and only allow a non resident to kill 1 turkey each season? We might lose some revenue over it, but because turkey hunting has become the “in” thing to do, I feel like this will be minimal. Also, if I can’t travel to other states and kill multiple turkeys on public land, why should a hunter from one of those states be able to come here and kill 4?

2.) Ban video cameras on any public land or at the very least tax it to the point that it reduces it.

I’m sure I will come up with more, but these are some of my takeaways from talking to multiple people from multiple states and areas of Alabama. Also, I do not generally hunt public land, so some of this is conjecture.

a draw would be better than a ban. If more states start banning like FL did, non residents will end up without the opportunity to hunt opening week in a lot states. Which really sucks when it involves federal lands. Just make it draw, establish a # of permits, adjust accordingly after a few seasons. That way non residents still have a chance to hunt federal lands on opening week. I have a problem when that opportunity is completely removed.

I have said the second point for years. Make them pay $200 for filming on public land in the state. You can’t just make it like a slap in a wrist of 10 or $15 because people are profiting on our public lands. I have to pay overhead with my business, why are these people excluded in this?

Definitely agree on the first point as well. I was talking with buddies this exact same thing. Come up to North Alabama and just see the out-of-state trucks hammering every gate on opening day.

Yep. Skyline was crawling with TN hunters until their opener on April 13th.

Make it $1,000 or illegal. You can't place a monetary value on the amount of lost and degraded opportunities they've caused.

Covid and YouTube were the kiss of death for turkey hunting. Things have changed so much in the 20 years I’ve been hunting turkeys that instead of looking for out of state options to complete my slam, I am saving my money to secure long term leases/ agreements on local land to have a place to hunt around here. Also to improve habitat and opportunity on those tracts

I see Mississippi— on top of their public land non resident draw - is about to limit non residents to one turkey in March and two per year. If it’s really about protecting the resource then this same regulation should apply to all hunters. The non resident specific bans aren’t rooted in science or they’d provide statistics to back them up. The truth is very few non residents harvest one turkey, less harvest a second turkey and a fraction of that harvests 3. Tit for tat non resident bans / restrictions suck for all sportsman.

Tell that to Missouri!

Missouri didn’t have the statistics to back up there non resident limit. Arkansas doesn’t have the statistics to back up there non resident limit and id bet Mississippi doesn’t either. It’s tit for tat fighting between states and the dominos will continue to fall

“Since 2005, nonresident hunters have made up an average of 8% of total spring turkey permit sales in Missouri and have
accounted for about 9% of the total spring turkey harvest. These numbers have been gradually increasing. In 2025, nonresident hunters made up 9% of permit sales and 13% of
the harvest. Since 2005, Missouri has also asked hunters about problems with interference while hunting. On average, only 4% of respondents said they experienced a "great problem" with
interference. Despite the relatively low nonresident participation and reported interference, public interest in placing restrictions on NR turkey hunters in Missouri has been growing. This led to a new survey effort in the spring of 2025 that sought to understand perceptions associated with the impacts of nonresident hunters and preferences for various regulatory
options related to nonresident participation.
Survey results: Most resident hunters supported all the regulation options presented in the survey, while nonresident hunters opposed
any proposed changes. Among nonresident hunters surveyed: • 59% said they hunted only or mostly on private land (17% on land they own, and 42% on land owned by
family or friends).
• 25% said they hunted only or mostly on public land

The intent in Mississippi is to increase resident hunt quality. If you actually watch the commission meeting, you'll hear MDWFP state that this isn't to help populations. I see a lot of bashing on social media about this very point. Folks quick to criticize before they do their research. View the proposal below:

https://www.youtube.com/live/vT8-oyv-kUI?t=3635&si=HOFXQzxKIA2TObuz


Start at 1 hour in.(if link doesn't start there, it should).

Those arguing it won't have an affect are too focused on the number of turkeys "saved" and not on the reduction in pressure. If this is finalized, a non resident who kills opening week in March is DONE til April. No taking up a parking spot for a resident, no boogering more turkey making them harder to kill. No more camping out near a gate for a week "claiming" an area.

And in some areas of the state, leases have a high percentage of non residents. This will further benefit the residents of those areas.

We all know how pressure affects turkey. Mississippi is simply looking out for its residents.

As far as stats, I've saw the numbers. The 1 bird in March will get a lot of non residents out of the woods! And they can still come back in April and shoot another. A lot better than a straight 1 bird limit like Arkansas and Missouri have done.

Just remake it reciprocal with other states. Their rules are this so our rules apply to your states folks when hunting here.

Funny how this is playing out the way duck hunting did. Arkansas residents hated OOSs but the business loved them

It’s one thing to do this BS on public. It’s a whole other thing to do it on private too. Clubs and private land can govern themselves and should be allowed to do so in this case.

Because one state does something…..it doesn’t make it right. Arkansas and Missouri are in the wrong to limit non residents to 1. This in fighting between states is contagious.

I hate to see it spreading. We all will end up losing. People need to look at the big picture.

Every cell phone is a video camera now. A high quality one at that. You can make laws about not filming on public land, but every hunter will have a video camera with him. How are you going to enforce a new law when you can’t even enforce the laws we already have? You could make it illegal to post these videos and fine them, but then they will just lie about where they were when they filmed it. There will be an app created to get around it.

I am new to social media. I just got involved in instagram and facebook for business reasons. The amount of turkey hunters that kill in non conventional ways was alarming to me. Crawling and bushwhacking, hunting from shooting houses, fanning gobblers… I know folks should be able to hunt how they want, but no one can deny that the methods used to kill turkeys are changing drastically. I think the bag limits for all hunters, in state and out of state, will probably have to change as well to adjust to these methods.

Agreed. I often wonder how many less turkeys, deer, ducks, fish, etc would be killed if it was illegal to post on social media. I think it would be a very substantial. A MAJOR motivation for the younger crowd is getting that instagram grip n grin.

I agree that it is tit for tat to a point, but I do like MS’s way of thinking. Making a better experience for residents. I really don’t have a problem if another state wants to regulate when I can hunt or how many turkeys I can kill. I just want a quality experience on my home turf. If I want to go to another state bad enough, I will.

With the previous administration, this would have made your proposal moot: "We might lose some revenue over it". They weren't going to do anything that might cost the department a dime. I'm hopeful that the new guy isn't going to approach everything this way.

Lots of good info and opinions in this thread. I think it's good for the department to consider the needs of resident hunters when setting seasons. The idea of reciprocal regulations for oos hunters always seemed fair to me.

I have been doing this 39 years. I wish I could go back to that.

around me i need a ban on roost/limb launching

I have been chasing turkeys in South Alabama for 41 years now. Times sure have changed. Back then, it seemed like there was a turkey gobbling on every 100 acres of wooded property and rarely ran into another hunter. Now, it is another hunter yapping on every hundred acres and rarely run into a turkey. Leasing property for hunting wasn't the business it is now. I could pay Container Forestry $10 per county for a permit to hunt all the unleased property within that county. Every year, I would buy a permit for Pike, Coffee and Crenshaw. If I remember right, seemed like that was giving me 20k+ acres to hunt that was loaded with birds back then with very little pressure. Now, I spend over 10k in leases and still don't have the quality of hunting that I had back then for $30. I want all states to put their residents first when deciding regulations, bag limits ect. to protect the sport for future generations, uphold the quality of experience and increase opportunity for the residents first. If there's more than enough, decide on way to allow out of state hunters to also have an opportunity but Alabama won't. Too much revenue to be had on the hunting industry with license sales, gas, merchandise, hotels and restaurants. It's all about the mighty dollar.

Retaliatory regulations are not the way to go, and very short sighted. Many residents of all states are also Non resident hunters in others so to think you “win” is very short sighted.

That mindset will have everyone watching TV one day. When you main reason for something starts off with “because so and so does it to me” you are already off course from actual resource management.

Regulations on private land do almost nothing to help residents. When a club opening is posted those residents CAN fill it but they don’t! Theres no favoritism to Non residents on clubs and leases, in fact if two call about the membership (1 res and 1 non) I bet most clubs would FAVOR the resident. It’s very simple fact that most residents can’t or don’t feel paying the fees are worth it!

You can try and “think” the dues will come down but they won’t, the memberships at best will just increase per acre (also harming residents) or the clubs could lose the ability to pay for the lease.

I’d be careful what’s wished for there as again it’s very short thinking.

Also, I just got on instagram for business purposes. I’ve never seen so many people proud to kill a Jake. If I shot a jake there ain’t no way I’m posting it and bragging.

On the banning of filming, would that just be for Turkey hunting? Lots of people film and post activities on public lands. From hiking to camping to fishing to bird watching.

What about the large number of people that own significant acreage in Alabama, but for work or family purposes, have to live in other states. They own the land, pay the same taxes on it that every other Alabama resident does, yet still have to have an out of state license. You gonna limit them to 1 bird per year? My neighbor owns 1600 acres that he grew up on, that was willed to him by his parents. He lives in and runs a big insurance business in GA and because that is where he is homesteaded, he is considered a non-resident. I'm not for the state taking away or limiting the hunting rights of any private landowner in the state. If they want to do that on public, fine, but if you own the property, I dont even think that a non-resident license should be required.

One other thing I just looked up. Out of state hunters contribute $11.5 million in out of state licenses annually. If the 315,000 in state hunters all bought licenses (laughable I know) that's only $11 million in resident license sales. Add in all the additional revenue that the out of state hunters bring with them for lodging, leasing, food, etc and they contribute way more to Alabama wildlife than the resident hunters do. They also seem to follow the rules better in my experience. Ive run a lot of big clubs over the years and I'll take out of state members over resident members all day, everyday. Lot less problems and they seem to care more about the wildlife and experience.

Well #1's just silly and asking for more government over-reach on our hunting heritage is crazy. If they were to do something that silly they should shut down ALL NFS lands/Federal lands to EVERYONE incuding AL Residents until the non-res can hunt too. If ya want rules like those listed buy your own land. Silly rules made by hunters against hunters is no better than the anti-hunters BS.

Right on. Idaho and MT make a killing off non-res hunters

Ray Coon’s #1 in his post is a valid point. Yours on the other hand is silly. You can come and enjoy the public land, but you’ll be limited hunting wise as a nonresident. You know, just like about every State out West does it.

Guys, I don’t know the answers. I was just trying to get a discussion going since the season is over. My points were targeting public land more than anything else. I think that public is where it starts.

Not sure how you came up with that nonsense but there are NO STATES banning non-residents from hunting public land. That's probably the dumbest chit I've ever heard of lol. If there are any, please enlighten me... There's a big difference in limited non-res tags and actually banning people from "public land". BTW, I don't need to come hunt the public land in AL, I hunt private land in Marengo, Washington, and Monroe county when I visit

If you can't get drawn to hunt, then you ARE banned from legally hunting.

[/quote]GEEB
If you can't get drawn to hunt, then you ARE banned from legally hunting.[/quote]

Anyone using common sense would know there's a difference in the two. If Alabama did a drawing for tags and an individual failed to draw it would be a different story. Either way it's really not an issue since the state wouldn't do something so ignorant lol.
It's about as dumb as saying charge all Alabama hunters extra when they apply for out of state hunts so I'm surprised individuals that do hunt out of state would promote something like that. Hunters against hunters are just as bad as the anti-hunters!

Alabama already limits opportunities to residents on public land. Just look at the SOA's. I think it enhances the experience for those lucky enough to draw.

This is not going to be a popular statement and it might be one of the most unpopular statements on here. The state has no constitutional obligation to provide, nor has it enshrined any legal requirements to use tax dollars to provide public land for the citizens to hunt or fish on. With the way big govt is today, those of you using the WMA's and state provided resources should probably just be happy to have what you have. Many states have produced and legally enshrined the "right to hunt and fish" within their state constitutions, but none to my knowledge, have in any way legally provided for a state to have an "obligation" to provide land upon which to do either. Everyone complains about welfare; free housing, free medical, free phones and free food, I guess providing public land for hunting is like recreational welfare for those that don't want to have to spend their own money owning or leasing a privately owned place to hunt.

That is spot on, abolt.

Exactly and I guarantee you 99% of the hunters in Alabama and every other state have ever heard of the Robertson Pittman act. Most don’t know that the federal government subsidizes state fish, and wildlife budgets for conservation and other Hunter perks. That’s why I thought it was really funny people were agree with banning other hunters. Like I said in a previous post if they banned non-resident hunters they should shut down all federal lands, including core of engineer, national Forest, etc... It’s not rocket science.

The people of Alabama voted overwhelmingly for the FW act that took a share of the oil and gas royalties and used it to buy land for the public to use, and hunting is one of the uses of those lands. I'm not sure how spelled out the right to hunt was in the legal documents, but hunting was used as a reason to get the people to vote for it. As far as I know, hunting has always been allowed on the national forests, with a few exceptions for various reasons. It would be outrageous imo for the government to take away the right of the public to use public lands.

Most of the WMA and SOA land was already public, and the primary thing I've seen the dcnr doing with it lately is just restricting access. Sykes had a hatred of the public and even said that some of the SOA land was just too good to allow the public to use. That really rubbed me the wrong way and I truly hope the new guy has a different attitude.

I don't see the right of citizens to use public lands as being anything close to welfare. Alabama doesn't have nearly as much as some states, but I'm glad there are still places where anyone can go and enjoy the outdoors.

Imo, a turkey has no match for cell cameras and decoys.

There’s a lot of “public land” around here you aren’t supposed to hunt on.

I found kinterbish wma about 2 and 2/3 years before it was closed. It was somewhere around 3000-3300 acres then best i remember. Years before i ever discovered it - it was like 40,000 acres. My stupid butt put in incredible man hours that 1st year feeling like i had walked 10,000 miles. I got to where i was tagging out on the “bish”

The little morsel that was left that my dumb but thought i could hunt forever was yanked out from us! No more kinterbish wma! At least you got a place if you do hav a WMA
I will never get the Bish back and i still good enough to stackem up like cord wood if i did

Damn right!!

I’m grateful!

I dated a girl for many years whose family had land that butted up to the old Kinterbish. Her family told me the hunting out there was unbelievable before some rich doctor came and bought it all up. MANY mornings I would stand on her property line and listen to birds absolutely tear it up across the line. There were still WMA signs hanging on the trees. made me real sad that I never got to hunt it

^^^
I felt like i had walked 100,000 miles learning it in 2 1/2 years and i had figured out where birds were and exactly how to hunt it. That last year i tagged out there. The birds gobbled there by and large better than most places. You had some dummies that had been shot over and they acted stupid and i killed a few of those - but it was a great great place to hunt and dudes respected your truck!!! When i found out the next year it was gone it ripped my heart out
I hav struggled to find places since