Declining Turkey Populations in Alabama

Wildlife Biologist

Well-Known Member
Declining Turkey Populations in Alabama

Alabama, as well as other Southeastern states, is experiencing a noticeable decline in turkey numbers. This decline is actually quite dramatic in some areas. Estimating the population is far from an exact science and is quite difficult to determine. The reasons for the decline of turkey populations are numerous. It is everything from loss of habitat, poor reproduction due to the increasing raccoon population to increases in other predator populations. In the opinion of some wildlife biologists, the liberalization of deer baiting laws has become a detriment to turkeys. Adding to these issues is another very big problem: During the heyday of turkeys, feral hogs were not common and certainly were not in the numbers they are today. Therefore turkeys did not have to contend with the issues hogs have now subjected them too. The rapid increase of wild hog populations has seriously impacted what was once some of the state’s best turkey hunting lands. There is plenty that can be done but most management practices will be time-consuming, expensive, and often out of the hands of most hunters who do not own the property they are hunting. This is especially true when it comes to addressing habitat loss. Let’s look at each of these issues and some possible solutions.

Habitat Loss

This issue is by far the most challenging of all issues faced with addressing declining turkey populations. A drive over much of Alabama reveals a landscape quite different than existed fifty-seventy years ago during the heyday of turkeys. Much of the forests especially in the southern third of the state, have changed from a mixed pine/hardwood forest to a pine monoculture mostly of Loblolly pine. Often, the only mast producing hardwoods in these forests are along the banks of streams. In many places, these buffer zone strips of hardwood trees are usually only 20-30 yards wide. These small areas are usually left during logging operations as a buffer zone to prevent silting of the bodies of water and because of the difficulty in removing the hardwood trees. Often these larger hardwood trees are not marketable. While these trees often provide roosting areas and travel corridors for turkeys, they don’t supply enough acorns and other types of mast to support large flocks of turkeys through the winter months. The mast is consumed by a large number of wildlife species in addition to turkeys.

The large pine stands and clear-cut areas often provide excellent nesting and brood habitat, but this does little to supply food during the cooler months when insects are almost non-existent. Therefore, the turkeys frequent the creek drainages throughout most of the winter. As previously stated these stands of hardwoods are usually narrow and thus too small to supply an adequate food supply.

Another issue with the pine monoculture is that much of it is in fast-growing planted Loblolly pines. This type pine cannot tolerate controlled burning until they reach a certain size and age. Therefore it is generally five years or more before prescribed burning can be practiced. By that time, many of these forests will become far too thick for good turkey habitat.

Many of these Loblolly pine plantings replaced what once were stands of traditional Longleaf pines in Alabama. The Longleaf pines were far more fire resistant even at a very young age and landowners often kept the land under controlled burning plans. This greatly reduced the undergrowth, opening the woods, thus making them ideal for turkeys to travel in. This practice also caused much new growth to sprout, providing additional food through the last part of winter and early spring, when food is normally scarce.

Old growth mixed hardwood and pine timber forests found in the heyday of turkeys have fallen out of favor with land owners. Controlled burning of pine stands is the next best tool a landowner has to positively impact turkey numbers.

As discussed earlier, most hunters don’t own the property they hunt and have little to no control of timber harvest practices or permission to control burn the land. On top of that, controlled burning is not cheap and for that reason, many landowners have ceased the practice. Until the amount of controlled burns somewhat approaches the levels of twenty years ago, much of the forest habitat will just not be suitable to sustain large numbers of turkeys. That is a significant issue in turkey management.

Research through the years has revealed a hen mortality rate of 49% in strictly pine monoculture forests, while for hens in mixed pine/hardwood forests was 38%. In strictly hardwood forests, this mortality rate was just 3%. Let me repeat those numbers: 49% to 3%. This speaks volumes for the best habitat.

So in a nutshell one of the biggest issues in turkey management is Silviculture related. Turkeys continue to loose habitat because of the pine monoculture. Can the turkey population overcome or adapt to this pine monoculture?

Predator Populations

I will break down predator issues into three categories:

  • Nest predators such but not limited to as raccoons (coons), opossums (possums) and skunks (stripped & spotted),
  • Carnivore predators such as bobcats, foxes (red & grey) and coyotes and
  • Avian (raptor) predators such as hawks, owls, and even eagles.
Nest predators have a far greater impact on turkey populations than carnivore predators. It is very likely that up to 75% of all turkey nests are destroyed by some type of nest predator. The vast majority of these nests are lost to raccoons. So, coons are the main nest predator.

Trapping of coons has dropped dramatically in the last several years as fur prices have been depressed and are at rock bottom. This has led to even less trapping resulting in an explosion of the coon population and caused devastating effects in the hatching success of turkey eggs as well as other ground nesting birds. Thus coons are having a detrimental effect on turkey hatching success. Also coon hunting has fallen in popularity. Coon hunting with dogs was very popular during the heyday of turkeys and indeed until about the 1980s. I grew up coon hunting and new many people that coon hunted.

Carnivore predators, while killing a certain amount of turkeys, are probably a bit exaggerated on their negative effects. The number one culprit of these predators is the bobcat. Bobcats are very stealthy and extremely quick. Not only can they easily catch the young poults, they often kill adult turkeys. Foxes are mainly a threat to the younger turkeys.

While coyotes manage to kill a few turkeys, they also prey on certain nest predators such as coons, opossums, and skunks. While many turkey hunters believe coyotes are a major turkey predator, research studies have proven that not to be the case and actually they have a minimal effect on turkey depredation. So, time and resources may be better spent targeting other carnivore predators such as bobcats and foxes.

While hunting and trapping can both be utilized to remove the predators, trapping removes most carnivore predators. However with trapping it is very difficult to stay ahead of them. It will require a full-time effort to do so. Furthermore, there is simply not enough predator control.

There simply is not enough predator hunting and trapping to keep the nest predators and carnivore predators in check. These same predators are problematic for other prey species as well that would benefit with effective predator control.

Therefore targeted removal by trapping and hunting of nest and carnivore predators can reap noticeable benefits.

Avian predators, especially hawks, are a very real threat to poults the first several weeks of their lives. Due to the fact that killing of all avian predators is illegal, there is basically nothing that can legally be done to address this problem. Therefore control of these avian predators is off the board.

Wild/Feral Hogs

In most areas of the State, the proliferation and explosion of wild/feral hog populations has been devastating to turkey populations. Not only do the hogs destroy turkey nests by eating the eggs, but the worst damage they do is to greatly reduce the amount of hardwood mast (food). The hardwood mast as previously stated is usually very limited in most planted pine forests. Without an adequate winter food supply, large flocks of turkeys just cannot exist. Winter food therefore is a very limiting factor in turkey management.

Feral hogs have been reported in all of Alabama’s 67 counties.

Although some of the hogs are removed by hunting, trapping is the only effective means of keeping wild hog numbers in partially in check. This is a full-time job and not an easy task. There are some very effective trapping systems available but they are quite expensive and out of reach financially for most property owners. Wild hogs quickly become trap wise and will avoid them. I have seen many issues with land owners not allowing hog hunting on their property, especially during deer season when the property is being leased by deer hunters, etc.

Baiting Deer and Supplemental Feeding

Regarding deer baiting, our state’s laws have been greatly relaxed in recent years as to what is considered baiting. The result of this is that there is probably much corn on the ground in Alabama forests versus ten years ago.

Corn obviously attracts turkeys, but at the same time concentrates their feeding zones into small areas. The concentration of turkeys feeding on these baited areas in turn attracts the aforementioned carnivore predators to more easily ambush and kill the turkeys.

However, the main issue of baiting deer when it comes to feeding corn is that it exposes the turkeys to certain alpha toxins (aflatoxin), especially if the corn is molded. This is a toxin produced by fungi on the molded corn. Wild turkeys do not have the strong immune system to protect them from these toxins. Time will tell what effect the deer baiting will have on Alabama’s turkey population. While the corn provides critical food at a time of need it also has the aforementioned disadvantages. More research is needed on the effects of deer baiting on turkeys.

Any supplemental feeding of turkeys by feeders will concentrate the turkeys around the feeders which attract carnivore predators that ambush and kill the turkeys. To avoid this issue supplemental food plots are suggested especially where food is a limiting factor in turkey management.

. Conclusion

Turkey populations are in peril for aforementioned reasons. I don’t see changes being made to the Loblolly pine monoculture. I believe wild turkey populations will continue on a downward spiral in not only Alabama but other States throughout their range in the southeast. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we will never see large numbers again.

Wildlife Biologist
 
Very interesting, thank you for posting.

As an aside, I have a tongue turkey caller that I use sometimes on walked up shoots, very funny to see the other guns puzzlement 😂😂
 
Similar situation with our woodland grouse here (blackgame, capercaillie, particularly the latter): the scientists of the piece have recently de facto admitted that they’ve presided over a couple of decades of in depth research, all of it at the expense of the rapidly declining population on the ground. They forget (conveniently) that the caper was once extinct in Scotland before, back in the late 18th century, and it only became re established when the Duke of Atholl and the landowning interests in Breadalbane imported stock from Sweden after initiating a determined campaign on the predators of the bird, and continued it for twenty years thereafter. More recently (in the nineteen eighties) in Sweden, research by Professor Vidar Marcström and others from Uni of Uppsala unambiguously demonstrated the impact of predation on these ground nesting birds - for five years they killed all predators on one Baltic island, while leaving the neighbouring islands predators unchallenged; after five years there was a burgeoning population on the controlled island, and a dearth on the other. They then reversed the scenario on either island, with the same results, ie where the predator numbers are suppressed, the ground nesting birds thrive. All ‘real’, practical wildlife managers know this basic stuff to be self evidently true, but the ‘clever’ scientists on whom the future of our populations here have relied have spent the last forty years getting to this same realisation, as if the Swedish example and that of the earlier reintroduction had never taken place, or were somehow irrelevant here. The polite word I think may be hubris, masquerading as earnest research, but in fact equivalent to pondering why the water is coming aboard whilst the boat sinks; to have taken so long to come to the inevitable conclusion they now find themselves arriving at has been severely injurious to the U.K. population, and to now shrug shoulders and walk away, having done ‘all they can’ says much of their ‘wordy worth’ or otherwise.

F***wittery of the highest order is my personally preferred description of their record.
 
Been turkey hunting a few time in KC and SC but never did get one, up at 3am hunt till 7.30 then rush back to KC for a day of work in the office, two weeks of that burns you out, believe me.
 
Similar situation with our woodland grouse here (blackgame, capercaillie, particularly the latter): the scientists of the piece have recently de facto admitted that they’ve presided over a couple of decades of in depth research, all of it at the expense of the rapidly declining population on the ground. They forget (conveniently) that the caper was once extinct in Scotland before, back in the late 18th century, and it only became re established when the Duke of Atholl and the landowning interests in Breadalbane imported stock from Sweden after initiating a determined campaign on the predators of the bird, and continued it for twenty years thereafter. More recently (in the nineteen eighties) in Sweden, research by Professor Vidar Marcström and others from Uni of Uppsala unambiguously demonstrated the impact of predation on these ground nesting birds - for five years they killed all predators on one Baltic island, while leaving the neighbouring islands predators unchallenged; after five years there was a burgeoning population on the controlled island, and a dearth on the other. They then reversed the scenario on either island, with the same results, ie where the predator numbers are suppressed, the ground nesting birds thrive. All ‘real’, practical wildlife managers know this basic stuff to be self evidently true, but the ‘clever’ scientists on whom the future of our populations here have relied have spent the last forty years getting to this same realisation, as if the Swedish example and that of the earlier reintroduction had never taken place, or were somehow irrelevant here. The polite word I think may be hubris, masquerading as earnest research, but in fact equivalent to pondering why the water is coming aboard whilst the boat sinks; to have taken so long to come to the inevitable conclusion they now find themselves arriving at has been severely injurious to the U.K. population, and to now shrug shoulders and walk away, having done ‘all they can’ says much of their ‘wordy worth’ or otherwise.

F***wittery of the highest order is my personally preferred description of their record.

One issue being contended with in wildlife management is that almost all property is individually/privately owned and not publicly owned. Biologist can't mandate habitat manipulation and predator control on these private properties and certainly can't control loss of habitat on these properties. Those decisions are strictly made by the property owner. The benefits of properly timed and administered control burning is well known as a wildlife management tool. However because of rising costs and many other factors I have seen increasing numbers of property owners opt not to control burn. The same argument can be said for predator control. Many wildlife species populations will continue to decline because of these actions. Wildlife managers can in reality only hope to control habitat management on State or Federal owned land. Even with that said I have many times witnessed politics getting involved and becoming a hindrance. Elected officials control all decisions and budgets concerning the State and Federal lands as well as the wildlife agencies charged with administering them. The elected officials often base wildlife legislative decisions on the dollar bill and support of deep pocket business people who stuff the very politician's pockets with money. Wink! Wink!. You know the old saying "scratch my back and I will scratch yours". The wildlife agencies and public plays second fiddle to these decisions. Worst of all the wildlife plays second fiddle. :(
 
One issue being contended with in wildlife management is that almost all property is individually/privately owned and not publicly owned. Biologist can't mandate habitat manipulation and predator control on these private properties and certainly can't control loss of habitat on these properties. Those decisions are strictly made by the property owner. The benefits of properly timed and administered control burning is well known as a wildlife management tool. However because of rising costs and many other factors I have seen increasing numbers of property owners opt not to control burn. The same argument can be said for predator control. Many wildlife species populations will continue to decline because of these actions. Wildlife managers can in reality only hope to control habitat management on State or Federal owned land. Even with that said I have many times witnessed politics getting involved and becoming a hindrance. Elected officials control all decisions and budgets concerning the State and Federal lands as well as the wildlife agencies charged with administering them. The elected officials often base wildlife legislative decisions on the dollar bill and support of deep pocket business people who stuff the very politician's pockets with money. Wink! Wink!. You know the old saying "scratch my back and I will scratch yours". The wildlife agencies and public plays second fiddle to these decisions. Worst of all the wildlife plays second fiddle. :(
Same thing here, nest predation of ground nesting birds is running at around 80% and virtually all of the predators are protected.
We may get some limited action now that the effect on hen harrier and curlew numbers is acknowledged but a Green minister with an ideological resistance to active control measures and a strong and entirely misplaced faith in the balance of nature may see both species locally extinct soon.
Nobody here’s fault, climate change and hunting are the real culprits.
 
Same thing here, nest predation of ground nesting birds is running at around 80% and virtually all of the predators are protected.
We may get some limited action now that the effect on hen harrier and curlew numbers is acknowledged but a Green minister with an ideological resistance to active control measures and a strong and entirely misplaced faith in the balance of nature may see both species locally extinct soon.
Nobody here’s fault, climate change and hunting are the real culprits.
Yes that is the sad truth. Most all predator species are highly adaptable to habitat change and loss of habitat. Many of the prey species especially upland game birds have specific habitat needs. When the habitat is destroyed or changed they can't cope with it and the populations plummet. Meanwhile the predator species continue to proliferate to the determent of the upland game birds. That is the crux of the situation world wide.
 
Yes that is the sad truth. Most all predator species are highly adaptable to habitat change and loss of habitat. Many of the prey species especially upland game birds have specific habitat needs. When the habitat is destroyed or changed they can't cope with it and the populations plummet. Meanwhile the predator species continue to proliferate to the determent of the upland game birds. That is the crux of the situation world wide.
Not quite anti USA but I have never seen so mush fuss made abt shooting a big old lump walking along a path.

As many things in the US it is exaggerated lol The real exciting bit is @ min 7.00 :rofl:

 
I’ve always warmed to the idea of hunting wild turkey with a rifle and ever since reading a story in the 1975 Edition of The Gun Digest. In fact it made me want to hunt small game with a CF rifle more than any account of hunting deer or big game. The same Digest made me want a 243 for long range rock chuck hunting!

Enjoyed reading the Op’s post and this book:
3613FCF8-7A78-4792-B622-AEE124E103EF.webp
K
 
I bagged one first day in Osceola county ,Florida with the hire car .Wife wasn’t happy with half a mile of off roading 😀
 
Yes that is the sad truth. Most all predator species are highly adaptable to habitat change and loss of habitat. Many of the prey species especially upland game birds have specific habitat needs. When the habitat is destroyed or changed they can't cope with it and the populations plummet. Meanwhile the predator species continue to proliferate to the determent of the upland game birds. That is the crux of the situation world wide.
Our main predators are generalists, crows, raven, badger, fox, stoat, martens, with everything except the fox getting some level of protection. Blanket Sitka spruce plantations on the uplands give them nesting cover and observation posts, the general lack of habitat management doesn’t help.
Unless theres a change of attitude and policy pretty soon there’ll be very few ground nesters left to protect.
 
I bagged one first day in Osceola county ,Florida with the hire car .Wife wasn’t happy with half a mile of off roading 😀

LOL did you have to stop and clean out your pants? I haven't tried that method yet.😂
Seriously we have a bunch of white-tailed deer harvested using that same method. But we have plenty to spare.
 
Not quite anti USA but I have never seen so mush fuss made abt shooting a big old lump walking along a path.

As many things in the US it is exaggerated lol The real exciting bit is @ min 7.00 :rofl:


I’d say the yanks would ridicule using .243 for muntjac Tim but there tis .Every man to his sport .
 
I was surprised how heavy the bird was to be honest .Had to stop just to have a good look .Wife hit a raccoon two nights later .Place was littered in roadkill .
 
I don’t have a problem with that either .Get out and about a bit Tim and see more of other peoples sport and you realise there are no barriers ,only prejudice .
 
Similar situation with our woodland grouse here (blackgame, capercaillie, particularly the latter): the scientists of the piece have recently de facto admitted that they’ve presided over a couple of decades of in depth research, all of it at the expense of the rapidly declining population on the ground. They forget (conveniently) that the caper was once extinct in Scotland before, back in the late 18th century, and it only became re established when the Duke of Atholl and the landowning interests in Breadalbane imported stock from Sweden after initiating a determined campaign on the predators of the bird, and continued it for twenty years thereafter. More recently (in the nineteen eighties) in Sweden, research by Professor Vidar Marcström and others from Uni of Uppsala unambiguously demonstrated the impact of predation on these ground nesting birds - for five years they killed all predators on one Baltic island, while leaving the neighbouring islands predators unchallenged; after five years there was a burgeoning population on the controlled island, and a dearth on the other. They then reversed the scenario on either island, with the same results, ie where the predator numbers are suppressed, the ground nesting birds thrive. All ‘real’, practical wildlife managers know this basic stuff to be self evidently true, but the ‘clever’ scientists on whom the future of our populations here have relied have spent the last forty years getting to this same realisation, as if the Swedish example and that of the earlier reintroduction had never taken place, or were somehow irrelevant here. The polite word I think may be hubris, masquerading as earnest research, but in fact equivalent to pondering why the water is coming aboard whilst the boat sinks; to have taken so long to come to the inevitable conclusion they now find themselves arriving at has been severely injurious to the U.K. population, and to now shrug shoulders and walk away, having done ‘all they can’ says much of their ‘wordy worth’ or otherwise.

F***wittery of the highest order is my personally preferred description of their record.
I believe the Game Conservancy did a similar project some time back. Similar conclusions reached.
 
Back
Top