Decline of Eastern Wild Turkey Populations in the Southeastern U.S. - Challenges and Collaborative Solutions

Introduction

Once a conservation success story, the Eastern wild turkey in the Southeastern United States is now experiencing alarming declines in many areas. After restoration efforts brought turkeys back from near extirpation by the late 20th century, wildlife agencies across states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina have reported significant population downturns over the past decade​. Hunters and biologists note fewer gobbles at dawn, lower harvests, and disappointing brood counts. This decline threatens a cherished game species and the region's broader ecological health and hunting heritage. In this whitepaper, we examine the key factors driving the decline of Eastern wild turkey populations in the Southeast, ranging from habitat loss and changing forest structure to nest predation, hunting pressure, and weather impacts on reproduction. We incorporate recent data and findings from state wildlife agencies and conservation organizations (with a focus on Turkeys for Tomorrow), and compare these challenges with conservation strategies that have proven effective for other wild turkey subspecies (such as the Rio Grande and Merriam’s wild turkeys) to glean insights. Finally, we highlight how innovative tools like the GOVRAX platform, with capabilities like access control, land mapping, hunter tracking, harvest reporting, and data collection, can support wildlife agencies in monitoring and reversing the turkey decline. The goal is to outline a collaborative path forward, combining sound science, on-the-ground management, community partnerships, and technology, to ensure wild turkeys thrive for future generations.

The Southeastern Wild Turkey Decline: Scope and Signs

Wild turkey populations in the Southeast peaked in the early 2000s after decades of growth but have since fallen sharply. Wildlife agencies have quantified these declines through harvest records, surveys, and research projects: South Carolina: Turkey productivity (reproduction) has dropped about 40% since the 1980s, from an average of 3.5 poults per hen to around 2.1 in recent years​. Consequently, the spring gobbler harvest in SC has declined nearly 50% since its peak in 2002​. In 2024, South Carolina’s estimated turkey harvest was down another ~5% from the previous year, reflecting ongoing low poult recruitment​. Biologists there note a “southeast turkey decline” trend driven by poor nesting success and brood survival​. Georgia: Georgia’s turkey harvest illustrates a dramatic long-term decline. Hunters harvested over 40,000 gobblers in 2005, but by 2023 that number fell to just 11,909 – a nearly 70% decrease that mirrors underlying population losses​. Wildlife researchers at UGA confirm that turkey numbers are dwindling in many areas of the state​. Alabama: In Alabama, biologists have sounded alarms over consistently low reproduction. The statewide poult-to-hen ratio has been below the sustainable threshold of 2.0 for approximately a decade​. The 2023 brood survey tallied only ~1.26 poults per hen on average (well under the level needed for the population to replace itself)​. Harvest data from Alabama’s Game Check also hint at a possible decline: even though hunters reported more turkeys in spring 2023 than 2022 (about 18,122 vs. 15,673 birds), officials caution this may reflect increased hunter participation and reporting rather than a true population rebound​. In fact, a post-season survey estimated the actual 2023 spring harvest at over 47,000 gobblers, suggesting many hunters still did not report kills​. The consensus of long-time Alabama hunters is that turkey numbers “are not what they used to be,” even if 2023 had decent gobbling activity​. Mississippi: Mississippi’s turkey population has also struggled in recent years, with regional fluctuations. In the northern part of the state, turkey numbers “have slid over the past five years due to underperforming hatches,” according to MDWFP, keeping reproduction below desired levels​. The Mississippi Delta region experienced a steep decline after being “hammered by repeated floods from 2008 to 2019,” which devastated nesting habitat and young turkeys​. Encouragingly, Mississippi saw a record-breaking hatch in summer 2022 – one of the best on record – which led to a 30–40% jump in jake (young male) sightings the following spring​. Biologists are “cautiously optimistic” that these strong hatches in 2021–2022 will translate to more 2-year-old gobblers and improved hunting in 2023–2024​. Still, overall turkey density in many parts of Mississippi remains below historical highs. Wildlife agencies across the Southeast uniformly describe a concerning pattern: fewer turkeys heard and seen, poor reproductive metrics, and harvests well below peaks of 10–20 years ago. This decline has been gradual in some areas and sharp in others, but it is widespread enough that researchers refer to it collectively as the regional “turkey decline” problem​. For example, the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) – the long-standing conservation organization behind turkey restoration – acknowledges that “wild turkey populations are experiencing declines and have become unstable in some states, varying significantly from year to year”, underscoring that how we respond now will determine the future of the resource​. In short, the Eastern wild turkey in the Southeast is in trouble, and understanding the reasons is the first step to reversing the trend.

Key Factors Contributing to the Decline

Habitat Loss and Changing Forest Structure

Habitat quantity and quality have changed markedly in the Southeast, often to the detriment of wild turkeys. Loss of habitat through development and land-use change has reduced the space available for turkeys to live, feed, and reproduce. Equally important is habitat degradation – the alteration of remaining forests and fields in ways that make them less suitable for turkeys. Dr. Michael Chamberlain (University of Georgia), a leading turkey researcher, explains that there is no single cause of the decline, but “like many species, turkeys are dealing with a loss and degradation of habitat”​. Eastern wild turkeys thrive in a mosaic of hardwood and pine forests mixed with openings such as fields or thinned stands that provide abundant insects and cover for poults. Unfortunately, much of the southeastern landscape has been altered in the past few decades: large tracts of mature forest have been fragmented or converted to monoculture pine plantations with dense undergrowth​. Fire suppression in some areas has led to thick brush or closed canopies that reduce the grassy, insect-rich understory that turkeys need. In other areas, rapid urbanization has outright removed or broken up prime habitat​. The result is that turkeys have fewer ideal places to nest and raise young. Hens seek secure nesting spots with concealing vegetation (shrubs, brushy cover) but also nearby openings to find food and spot predators. When landscapes lack this balance, for instance, an unbroken expanse of rank vegetation or, conversely, very sparse cover, nests become more vulnerable and poults struggle to find food. A healthy turkey population requires a diverse, well-managed habitat. As Chamberlain notes, “turkeys prefer early successional vegetative communities… they also require a diverse array of habitats to meet their seasonal needs”​. Without adequate brood-rearing habitat (think grassy or weedy areas teeming with insects) adjacent to nesting cover, even successfully hatched poults may not survive long​. In South Carolina, biologists have largely tied the long-term turkey decline to “ongoing poor recruitment of poults into the population, " indicating that habitat conditions are not producing enough surviving young. It’s worth noting that turkeys are often considered an “indicator species.” When turkey numbers drop, it often flags broader habitat problems that can affect many other wildlife species​. For example, the same mature oak savannas or pine woods with open, grassy understories favored by turkeys also support quail, deer, pollinators and more. So, habitat loss for turkeys has ripple effects. The bottom line is that habitat quality across much of the Southeast is not what it once was for turkeys, and improving it is central to any recovery strategy.

High Predation on Nests and Poults

Where habitat has declined, predation on turkey nests and broods has become a more significant limiting factor. Wild turkeys evolved alongside a suite of predators – from raccoons and opossums that eat eggs, to hawks and bobcats that prey on young birds. Under natural conditions, turkeys can coexist with these predators by using their wits and appropriate cover​. However, several modern trends have tipped the balance toward predators: reduced trapping of meso-predators (leading to higher raccoon, fox, coyote, and bobcat populations than in decades past), smaller patches of quality habitat (making it easier for predators to find nests), and an abundance of human-subsidized predators (like raccoons thriving near agriculture and suburbs). Wildlife research is increasingly pointing to low nest success and low poult survival as primary causes of the turkey declines. For instance, a large University of Tennessee study in middle Tennessee found that hen nest success and poult survival were “primary limitations” on the turkey population​. Preliminary results showed “low poult survival primarily due to predation,” with nest predators and poult predators significantly impacting recruitment​. Similarly, an ongoing Iowa study (supported by NWTF) notes that a five-year average poult-to-hen ratio of 1.9 is causing decline, and that “there is also no doubt that predation plays a major role in it”​. In that study area, nest success was only 11% in 2022, an extremely low rate, indicating most nests are being lost (often to predators) before hatching​. It is important to understand that predation and habitat are closely intertwined. Hens can better evade predators if the landscape provides ample hiding cover and if nesting sites are well-dispersed. However, in fragmented or poorly managed habitats, predators can more easily patrol and discover turkey nests. Biologists are now investigating how habitat configuration influences predation rates – for example, how the juxtaposition of nesting cover and brood range can reduce opportunities for predators​. As NWTF biologist John Burk put it, “We have always known the importance of nesting and brood rearing habitat… our understanding of how these habitats need to be specifically juxtaposed on the landscape to reduce predation rates is something [new studies] are taking a closer look at”​. In practical terms, many Southeastern biologists believe predator control in tandem with habitat work may be necessary, at least in the short term, to boost turkey recruitment. A wildlife coordinator in Alabama summarized it this way: “It’s habitat first and predator control as basically a steroid.” Good habitat is the foundation for turkey recovery, but targeted trapping of nest predators can “provide more benefit” as a supplemental boost once habitat is in a healthy condition​. Indeed, now is an ideal time for landowners to assess their properties – “a lot of times the limiting factor is brooding habitat or bugging habitat for the poults”, he noted, and improving that while reducing excessive predator populations can significantly increase the odds of nests and broods surviving​. Several ongoing research projects funded by Turkeys for Tomorrow (TFT) and state agencies are shedding light on predation impacts. In Tennessee, Dr. Craig Harper and Dr. David Buehler have radio-tracked hundreds of hens over multiple years; they found no evidence of disease driving declines, pinpointing nest and poult predation as the bigger issue​. In Alabama, a TFT-funded study is examining gobbler and hen movements alongside hunting pressure to see if predator activity correlates with certain habitats or landscape features​. The message from early findings is that “death by a million cuts” – numerous small factors – is hurting turkeys​, but predation on nests and young birds is one of the most immediate causes of poor turkey reproduction in the Southeast. Efforts to reverse the decline must therefore include strategies to mitigate predation’s impact, especially by improving habitat (to make turkeys less vulnerable) and possibly by direct predator management where necessary.

Hunting Pressure and Season Timing

Regulated hunting of wild turkeys is a longstanding tradition in the South, and when properly managed, it has not been considered a cause of population declines historically. In fact, hunting pressure was much higher in the 1980s–2000s during the turkey boom, and populations thrived. However, in the context of current declines, wildlife agencies are reevaluating hunting frameworks to ensure that overharvest or season timing are not exacerbating the problem. Key considerations include bag limits, season length, and the opening date of spring gobbler seasons. One concern has been that excessive harvest of gobblers, especially early in the breeding season, could reduce hens’ chances of being fertilized. If too many dominant toms are removed right as hens start nesting, some hens may not get bred or may re-nest later (which can shorten the window for poults to grow before winter). In response, several Southeastern states have adjusted regulations in recent years. For example, Mississippi reduced bag limits and 2022 implemented new restrictions on non-resident hunters (shortening the period when out-of-state hunters can hunt public land) to ease hunting pressure in critical early weeks​. Oklahoma (just outside the Southeast) delayed its spring opener by two weeks and cut bag limits after observing declines​. South Carolina has enacted three separate wild turkey season and bag limit changes since 2015, including delaying the season start and lowering the male bag limit, in an effort to curb declines​. Alabama and Georgia have also recently shifted their spring season start dates later and reduced bag limits (Georgia went from 3 to 2 gobblers, Alabama from 5 to 4 in past years, and shorter season length in some zones). These regulatory tweaks are essentially “buying insurance” for turkey populations, trying to ensure that hunting (an additive mortality) is not outpacing turkey reproduction during a downturn. There is active debate and research on how effective these changes are. Interestingly, the Tennessee study (Harper/Buehler with TFT support) found that after comparing turkey productivity for four years before a 2-week season delay vs. two years after the delay (with some counties having the delayed opener and others not), they detected no significant differences in reproductive success​. In other words, simply opening the season two weeks later did not yield an obvious jump in poult numbers in that study area – possibly because predation and habitat were overriding factors, or hunters were not the primary issue to begin with. This suggests that hunting regulation changes alone may not reverse declines, but they are still a prudent part of the solution to avoid undue strain on a struggling population. Another aspect of hunting pressure is the intensity and distribution of hunter activity. Modern hunting technology, such as more effective calls, decoys, and widespread knowledge (often shared on social media), can make hunters quite efficient at harvesting turkeys​. As Alabama’s WFF Director Chuck Sykes observed, “just the legal hunting methods are making people much more effective killers,” and more hunters are in the woods now than decades ago​. In some cases, there is concern that too much hunting pressure on public lands, or excessive disturbance on heavily hunted private lands, might be reducing gobbling activity or stressing turkeys during breeding season. State agencies have responded by implementing draw-permit systems or limiting hunter numbers on certain public lands to reduce pressure. For example, wildlife management areas may require check-in and have quota hunts to spread out hunting. Mississippi’s move to limit non-resident pressure on public lands during peak season is one such attempt to relieve stressed gobbler populations. In summary, ethical and controlled hunting remains a cornerstone of turkey management, but in light of declines, agencies are proactively tightening seasons and limits as a conservation safeguard. Hunting did not initiate the turkey decline – factors like poor habitat and predators did – but aligning harvest with the turkeys’ reduced productivity is essential. Ongoing research (such as fertility studies on gobblers funded by TFT​) will guide whether further changes (e.g., protecting jakes, timing of harvest) are warranted. Hunters themselves, as conservationists, are largely supportive of these measures, recognizing that short-term sacrifices may be needed to rebuild turkey numbers for the future​.

Weather Patterns and Climate Impacts

Weather, especially during nesting and brooding season, has long been thought to influence wild turkey reproductive success. Cold, wet springs are traditionally blamed for poor hatches, as soaked, chilled poults have lower survival. In the Southeast, heavy spring rainfall or extreme weather events can indeed destroy nests or kill young turkeys. The Mississippi Delta flooding from 2008 to 2019 is a prime example of how prolonged weather disasters decimated local turkey populations​. In coastal South Carolina, an unusually cold snap or tropical storm during nesting season can wipe out many nests in a year. However, teasing out the overall role of weather in the turkey decline is complex. Recent scientific research suggests that typical variations in rainfall may not be as strongly correlated with nest success as once thought. A comprehensive 8-year study of 715 turkey nests across multiple Southeastern states, published in 2023, found that “precipitation levels during nesting season are not related to reproductive success for wild turkeys,” overturning some conventional wisdom​. The researchers (Wesley Boone et al. at NC State) analyzed daily nest survival relative to rainfall and temperature and were surprised to find that rain had little predictive value for whether a nest survived​. Turkeys appear fairly resilient to normal weather fluctuations – hens can sit through rain, and nests often endure moderate storms without issue. Similarly, temperatures deviating a bit from average did not dramatically change nest success rates​. What this means is that weather is likely a secondary or contributing factor in the Southeast’s turkey decline, rather than a primary driver. In years with extremely poor reproduction, it’s often tempting to cite “bad weather” as the culprit, but the data imply other factors (like predation and habitat) are usually the bigger issue. That said, extreme weather events do have significant localized impacts. As noted, catastrophic flooding over multiple springs essentially erased turkey strongholds in parts of Mississippi​, and those populations are only now recovering with a run of favorable conditions​. Conversely, a couple of mild springs with good weather can allow turkey numbers to bounce back notably if other factors are in check. Arkansas, for example, reported that 2022 and 2023 had some of the highest turkey reproduction in a decade, “thanks largely in part to good weather,” and their 2023 turkey harvest jumped over 20% as a result​. In the longer term, climate change could alter weather patterns in ways that affect turkeys. More frequent extreme rain events, prolonged droughts, or shifts in spring timing could present new challenges. The research above suggests turkeys can tolerate a range of conditions, but more volatile climate swings might test that tolerance. Agencies are therefore keen to monitor climate and turkey productivity trends. The good news is wild turkeys are adaptable birds – if we address the chronic issues of habitat and predation, the flocks should be robust enough to withstand most weather-related stresses as they historically did. Ensuring a broad geographic distribution of birds (so one storm doesn’t wipe out a whole population) and maintaining habitat refuge (e.g., upland areas for nesting in flood-prone regions) will buffer against weather disasters.

Other Factors (Disease and Parasites)

Disease has not been identified as a major culprit in the Southeastern turkey decline so far, but it remains an area of active research. Turkeys are susceptible to diseases like avian pox, blackhead disease, and lymphoproliferative disease virus (LPDV). In recent years, LPDV – a virus new to North American turkeys – has been detected fairly widely, raising questions about its impact. Studies in states like Georgia and Tennessee have screened wild turkeys for disease as part of decline investigations. To date, no widespread epidemic or disease outbreak has been pinned to the population declines​. For example, the University of Tennessee research specifically noted that they “have not identified any disease as a limiting factor as of yet” in the areas studied​. Nonetheless, biologists continue to collect samples (blood, feces) from turkeys during research captures to monitor disease exposure​. The NWTF has also funded health assessments of wild turkeys in multiple states (e.g., a multi-state health assessment of Rio Grande turkeys​ and disease monitoring in Oklahoma​) to ensure that if disease is playing a hidden role, it will come to light. Another minor factor sometimes raised is interspecific competition – for instance, too many deer eating acorns that turkeys rely on, or feral hogs destroying nests. While these could have localized effects (feral hogs in particular can devastate ground nests), they are not thought to be region-wide drivers of turkey declines. Poaching and illegal harvest of turkeys can also locally impact populations, but strong enforcement and education by agencies and the hunting community help keep this in check​. In sum, researchers keep an open mind to any and all influences on turkey populations, but the core issues in the Southeast remain habitat, predation, and lower productivity, with hunting and weather as manageable contributing factors. Now, attention is turning to solutions – how to address these challenges and turn the turkey decline around.

Strategies for Conservation and Recovery

State Wildlife Agencies: Adaptive Management and Habitat Initiatives

State agencies in the Southeast are on the front lines of responding to the turkey decline. They have deployed a mix of regulatory changes, research efforts, and habitat programs to tackle the issue: Adaptive Harvest Management: As detailed earlier, states have adjusted hunting seasons and limits. South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and others have all reduced bag limits and, in many cases, shifted season timing later​. While not a panacea, these steps are aimed at stabilizing adult gobbler numbers and ensuring more hens get bred. Agencies are closely monitoring harvest and population indices to gauge if these changes need further tweaks. For example, Mississippi now tracks hunter effort and success by residency to understand the effects of limiting non-resident hunters during peak season. Long-Term Population Monitoring: All southeastern states conduct annual turkey population surveys, such as summer brood surveys and hunter observation logs, to index reproduction. When Alabama’s Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries biologists run their July–August brood survey, they record every hen seen with poults (and how many poults) vs. hens with no young​. These data yield the pullets-per-hen ratios that inform management. As noted, Alabama and other states have seen those ratios languish below 2.0. By tracking this over time and by region, agencies can identify where turkeys are doing relatively better or worse. In Alabama, the best recent production was noted in the east-central Piedmont and parts of the Appalachian region (though even there it was under the desired level)​. Such information helps target where habitat or predator management might be most needed. Similarly, South Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources has intensively monitored gobbling activity, harvest, and nesting via studies and reported these trends to legislators and the public, which helped justify regulation changes​. Habitat Improvement Programs: Recognizing habitat as fundamental, state agencies (often in partnership with NWTF chapters and other groups) are ramping up habitat management efforts. This includes promoting prescribed fire to restore quality brood range, timber management guidance to private landowners to thin and diversify forests, invasive plant control, and establishing brood fields (plantings that encourage insects and provide overhead cover for poults). States offer cost-share programs or technical assistance to landowners for wildlife habitat projects. For example, many Southeastern states have a Wild Turkey Habitat Enhancement initiative under the federal Wildlife Restoration Program, using hunter license dollars for on-the-ground projects like creating forest openings or planting native warm-season grasses. Land acquisition and conservation easements are also tools – protecting large tracts of land from development ensures turkeys have room to thrive long-term. Predator Management Trials: Some state biologists have cautiously advocated experimental predator control in specific areas to measure the benefit to turkey recruitment. This can be politically sensitive (and logistically challenging), but there is precedent: e.g., targeted removal of raccoons and possums on certain WMAs or study sites during nesting season to see if nest success increases. If demonstrated effective, agencies might encourage private landowners to trap nest predators in late winter/spring as part of turkey management, always alongside habitat improvements. Turkeys for Tomorrow and the Alabama Wildlife Federation have hosted landowner workshops on how “habitat management = predator management,” emphasizing that good habitat naturally lowers predation, but that trapping can boost turkey production, especially where predator numbers are unnaturally high​. Research and Collaboration: State agencies are investing in research by partnering with universities and nonprofits. We have mentioned many ongoing studies – for instance, Alabama DCNR working with Auburn University (Dr. Will Gulsby) on how landscape and hunting pressure affect gobbler abundance​, or the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency partnering with University of Tennessee and TFT on the hen/poult study​. States are not acting in isolation; through forums like the Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) and the National Wild Turkey Technical Committee, they are sharing data and strategies. A regional research initiative is underway to synthesize findings from across states and identify best practices for reversing declines (covering everything from reproductive ecology to survival rates and habitat use)​. Importantly, this collaborative spirit acknowledges that the turkey decline is a broad-scale issue requiring a unified effort. State agencies also engage hunters and the public in these efforts through education and outreach. Public meetings in South Carolina in 2023 drew attention to the turkey decline and gathered input on management options​. Alabama’s wildlife officials regularly communicate results of brood surveys and harvest reports so hunters understand the rationale behind regulation changes​. By involving stakeholders, agencies build support for conservation actions, whether it’s accepting a lower bag limit or volunteering for habitat workdays. The overarching approach is adaptive management: make informed changes, monitor the results, and adjust as needed to ensure wild turkey populations are sustainably managed.

Conservation Organizations Leading the Charge – Turkeys for Tomorrow and NWTF

In tackling the Southeast’s turkey troubles, state agencies are not alone. Conservation nonprofits have stepped up in a major way to drive research, public awareness, and funding toward solutions. The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), founded in 1973, was instrumental in the original restoration of wild turkeys nationwide. Today, NWTF remains heavily involved – in 2023, the NWTF and partners committed nearly $9 million toward wild turkey research across 9 states​, the largest single-year investment in its history. These projects include studies on turkey abundance monitoring in Florida, predator identification via genetics in Iowa, poult foraging ecology in Kansas, disease monitoring in Oklahoma, and fertility and embryonic development issues in Tennessee, among others​. NWTF’s co-CEOs have made clear that understanding and reversing turkey declines is a top priority: “How we collectively manage them over the next decade will determine whether future generations experience this tremendous resource as we do today.”​ While NWTF provides broad support, a newer group, Turkeys for Tomorrow (TFT), has emerged specifically to address the Southeastern turkey decline with a laser focus. Turkeys for Tomorrow was founded only a few years ago (around 2021) by a small cadre of veteran turkey hunters alarmed by dwindling flocks​. In a short time, TFT has become a catalyst for wild turkey research and conservation action on private lands. Their single mission is “to help reverse the downward trend in wild turkey populations across the United States”​, and they pursue this by directly funding scientific research and on-the-ground projects that can yield answers and results. TFT is active in several Southeastern states, including Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky, partnering with leading university researchers in each​. A hallmark of TFT’s approach is identifying practical questions that matter to hunters and managers, and getting them investigated quickly. For example, TFT’s first project launched in Alabama, teaming up with Auburn University and the Alabama Wildlife Federation. This multifaceted project set out to determine “how landscape composition, property management, and hunting pressure affect gobbler abundance across Alabama,” including how hunting pressure influences gobbling activity​. It also examines gobbler fertility rates (to see if younger males can adequately breed hens if many older toms are harvested)​ and uses GPS tracking on hens to measure nest success, brood survival, and causes of failure​. Additionally, every turkey handled provides a chance to collect samples to check for diseases or parasites​. TFT jump-started this ambitious Alabama study by providing direct funding, which was matched by AWF and supported by donations from concerned hunters​. Researchers collect blood samples from a wild turkey hen as part of Turkeys for Tomorrow’s field studies. TFT-funded projects in states like Alabama and Tennessee are tracking hens with GPS, monitoring nests, and quantifying poult survival to pinpoint why recruitment is low​. Understanding these factors guides science-based conservation measures. In Tennessee, TFT helped extend an existing research project for an additional year when the state wildlife agency (TWRA) implemented season and bag limit changes​. This allowed researchers to study whether the new regulations (like a two-week delay in opening) would improve turkey reproduction. Early findings in TN (as mentioned) showed predation driving low poult survival, and interestingly that the delayed season did not markedly change productivity​. Such results are invaluable – they prevent agencies from relying on ineffective measures and underscore where to focus (habitat and predators, in this case). TFT’s funding was crucial to carry this research through multiple breeding seasons for robust data. Notably, researchers in TN recaptured a hen in 2023 that was at least 8 years old – a silver lining indicating that some hens can survive and reproduce for many years if given the chance​. TFT is also supporting projects in Mississippi and Kentucky and is looking to expand to states like Iowa and Texas​. A unique aspect of their work is facilitating the use of technology in research. For instance, TFT provided the onX Hunt digital mapping platform to researchers to help locate landowners and gain access when tracking radio-tagged turkeys that roam across property lines​. This removed a logistical hurdle and improved data collection, showing TFT’s nimbleness in enabling researchers with tools and resources. They even helped deploy an array of 90 autonomous recording units (ARUs) – basically microphones – across study sites in Alabama to record gobbling activity and pinpoint timing of breeding behavior​. Those ARUs generate massive acoustic data, which, as Auburn’s Dr. Will Gulsby notes, can be analyzed with AI to understand turkey gobbling chronology at a scale never done before​. In addition to funding science, Turkeys for Tomorrow emphasizes outreach to the hunting community. The founders, like TFT co-chair Jim Ronquest, speak at events and in media to spread the message of conservation. “If our grandkids are going to have the good turkey hunting we’ve had, we have to turn things around soon,” Ronquest urged, crediting partnerships with hunters and groups like AWF for allowing TFT to launch projects quickly​. TFT also educates on topics like habitat management and predator control through seminars (as hinted by their social media promoting predator control workshops​). In essence, TFT is acting as a bridge between concerned turkey hunters and the science community, channeling grassroots support into actionable knowledge and conservation practices. Other organizations contribute as well. Beyond research funding, the NWTF continues its Save the Habitat, Save the Hunt initiative, which in the Southeast has conserved or enhanced hundreds of thousands of acres of turkey habitat and opened access for hunters. State NWTF chapters have funded numerous food plot seed programs, prescribed burn associations, and land acquisitions that benefit turkeys. Local chapters often donate to state agency projects like brood surveys or trap-and-transfer operations. In summary, the partnership between state agencies and conservation nonprofits is a powerful alliance addressing the turkey decline. Turkeys for Tomorrow represents a new, agile model focusing specifically on today’s turkey issues, while NWTF provides large-scale project support and a 50-year legacy of turkey conservation successes. Together, they engage the public, finance critical studies, and even implement pilot interventions (like habitat improvements or nest predator trapping demonstrations). As we turn next to insights from other regions, it’s clear that any solution in the Southeast will require this collaborative spirit – agencies, NGOs, landowners, and hunters unified in action.

Comparative Insights: Lessons from Other Wild Turkey Subspecies

While Eastern wild turkeys in much of the Southeast are struggling, other subspecies of wild turkeys have experienced different trajectories. Rio Grande and Merriam’s wild turkeys, in particular, offer some success stories and management lessons that could inform Eastern turkey conservation. By examining what has worked in other regions, wildlife managers might adapt relevant strategies back to the Southeast. Rio Grande Wild Turkeys – Habitat Management and Restocking Success: The Rio Grande turkey is the primary subspecies in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. In Texas, Rios have demonstrated how robust habitat and strong private land stewardship can sustain turkey abundance. By the 1920s, uncontrolled hunting and land use had reduced Texas’s Rio Grande turkey population to an estimated 100,000 birds​. Since then, numbers rebounded dramatically thanks to improved range management, restocking of wild-trapped turkeys, and partnerships between Texas Parks & Wildlife and landowners​. At one point, Texas’s wild turkey population (mostly Rios) was the largest in the nation, topping half a million. The keys to this success were habitat and water: Rios thrive in the patchwork of Texan rangelands where ranchers implemented better grazing practices, preserved roost sites, and maintained water sources. Research in Texas showed that areas with abundant insects and a mix of grassy and shrubby cover had much higher poult survival, whereas areas with declining turkey numbers often lacked those brood habitat qualities​. One study found that brood survival and insect abundance were significantly greater on sites with stable Rio Grande turkey populations compared to sites with declining populations​. This underscores the universal turkey truth: ample insects (protein for poults) and good cover are non-negotiable for population growth. Texas also pioneered the “super-stocking” technique in the 2000s, releasing 70+ wild-trapped birds at once into unoccupied range to jump-start populations, which proved successful in restoring turkeys to East Texas​. The Texas example shows that even severely depleted turkey populations can be brought back with a combination of science-based restocking, habitat enhancement, and landowner cooperation. Southeastern states already have turkeys on the landscape, so they may not need restocking, but they can emulate the habitat-centered approach and work closely with private landowners (who own most of the land) as was done in Texas. Merriam’s Wild Turkeys – Thriving with Prudent Management: Merriam’s turkeys inhabit the pine-covered mountains and prairies of the West (eg, the Black Hills, Rocky Mountain foothills, etc.). Many Western states saw dramatic increases in Merriam’s turkey numbers in the late 20th century due to aggressive reintroductions and relatively intact habitat. For instance, Colorado went from having virtually no wild turkeys to a population of about 35,000 turkeys after reintroductions in the 1980s​. Merriam’s turkeys did so well in Colorado that wildlife officials “increased hunting licenses to help manage turkey populations in areas where the birds have become overabundant.”​ This success can be attributed to the availability of large public land areas with suitable habitat (ponderosa pine forests with meadows and oak scrub) and careful management, initially limiting harvest, then slowly liberalizing it as populations grew. Merriam’s habitat preferences (more open forests, often maintained by natural fires, and less human development in mountain regions) mean they face fewer of the fragmentation issues that Eastern turkeys in the Southeast do. Additionally, Western states often use limited-entry permits for turkey hunting, which inherently controls hunting pressure. For example, states like Montana and Wyoming issue turkey tags by lottery in many areas, ensuring harvest is kept sustainable. The lesson from Merriam’s is that where habitat is expansive and well-managed (including periodic fires that create excellent brood habitat), turkey populations can sustain themselves and even exceed social carrying capacity, requiring hunters to thin numbers. Merriam’s turkeys also highlight the importance of roost site protection – they often use traditional roost groves of large trees. Western managers work to protect these roost sites from logging or disturbance, something Southeastern managers might mirror by safeguarding mature hardwood roosts in otherwise pine-dominated landscapes. Translocation and Genetic Diversity: Both Rio Grande and Merriam’s restoration programs relied heavily on translocating wild birds. Moving turkeys around not only repopulated empty habitats but also helped maintain genetic diversity and adaptability. The Eastern turkey restoration in the mid-1900s did the same (trap-and-transfer). In today’s context of declines, large-scale restocking is not a primary solution (since turkeys still exist in low numbers rather than being extirpated). However, small-scale, targeted translocations could be considered to bolster isolated or remnant populations in the Southeast that aren’t recovering on their own. The East Texas project sourced wild Eastern turkeys from numerous states (including Alabama, Missouri, and South Carolina) to ensure a good genetic mix and sufficient founder population​. Any such efforts in the Southeast would likewise need coordination across state lines and careful disease screening (another area NWTF has helped standardize​). Cultural and Hunter Engagement: Rio Grande and Merriam’s turkey conservation also benefited from strong local hunting cultures that supported conservation measures. In Texas, landowners often take pride in managing wildlife on their ranches – many instituted turkey-friendly practices because they value having turkeys to hunt or view. In the West, tribal and community involvement in Merriam’s reintroduction (for example, Navajo Nation’s efforts or local chapter fundraisers to trap turkeys) built a constituency that ensured turkeys would be valued. The Southeastern turkey decline has, in a sense, galvanized the hunter conservation community (evidenced by the rise of TFT and increased attendance at agency meetings). This energy must be harnessed much like it was in past turkey successes: by involving hunters and landowners directly in recovery actions – whether it’s habitat work on their land, citizen science reporting of turkey sightings, or compliance with new regulations for the greater good. In summary, other subspecies teach us that habitat restoration, strategic restocking, controlled hunting, and private-public partnerships are effective tools for turkey conservation. They also show that wild turkeys can be incredibly resilient and productive when given the right conditions. A million more turkeys roam North America today than in the 1940s​, thanks to these kinds of efforts. The current Southeastern decline is a serious concern, but it is not insurmountable – with informed, comprehensive action, Eastern wild turkeys can rebound just as their cousins did out West. The next section examines how innovative technology can augment these efforts and provide new capabilities to wildlife agencies on the ground.

Leveraging Technology and Data: How the GOVRAX Platform Can Support Wild Turkey Conservation

Conservation in the 21st century is not just about boots on the ground – it increasingly involves data, connectivity, and smart technology to guide decisions. GOVRAX is a modern platform with tools designed to help manage land access, collect field data, and foster communication between stakeholders. By deploying GOVRAX’s capabilities, state wildlife agencies and partners can enhance their monitoring and management of wild turkey populations and hunter activities. Below, we outline how specific features of GOVRAX align with the needs highlighted in the Southeastern turkey decline:

Monitoring Access Pressure and Timing of Land Use

One challenge identified in turkey management is understanding how much hunting pressure is occurring and when. Traditionally, agencies rely on harvest surveys or game check systems that record the outcome (turkeys killed), but have less insight into effort (how many hunters were out, and on which days or properties). GOVRAX can fill this gap through its access control and check-in/check-out system. Land managers (be it a state WMA or a private landowner co-op) can require hunters to “check in” on the app when they enter a property to hunt, and “check out” when they leave. This yields valuable real-time data on hunter distribution and pressure. Wildlife agencies could monitor in-season in which areas hunters are concentrated, and at what times. For example, if a particular public hunting area is seeing heavy use every weekend of the early season, biologists might correlate that with turkey behavior (do gobbling activity or harvest rates drop off due to disturbance?). By analyzing GOVRAX access data, agencies can identify hotspots of hunting pressure that might need rest or additional regulation. On private lands enrolled in programs, landowners could likewise see if certain parcels are over-visited. Overall, this helps ensure equitable and sustainable use of hunting lands – a form of adaptive management where access can be modulated based on pressure. In the long run, maintaining moderate hunting pressure is part of preventing overharvest and undue stress on turkey populations. GOVRAX provides the mechanism to quantitatively monitor and manage hunter distribution, something that has been difficult to achieve at scale until now.

Encouraging Ethical Hunting Practices through Accountability

Ethical hunting and rule compliance are critical, especially when turkey populations are vulnerable. GOVRAX’s user tracking and profile features introduce a level of accountability that can positively influence hunter behavior. When hunters know their access and harvest are being logged (and possibly visible to land managers or even peers), they are more likely to adhere to regulations and self-police their actions. For instance, GOVRAX can log each hunter’s bag limit status – if the app shows a hunter has checked out two gobblers (the season limit in many states), that hunter can no longer check in for turkey hunts elsewhere without administrator approval. This kind of system discourages the temptation to bend the rules. It can also timestamp hunting activity; if a property rules say no hunting after 1pm (a regulation some states use to reduce pressure), the check-out times can verify compliance. Essentially, GOVRAX creates a digital logbook of hunter activity that both the user and manager can see, fostering transparency. Ethical hunters benefit because the few bad actors who might poach or trespass can be more easily identified and filtered out. Landowners benefit by having a record of who was on their land and when – a deterrent to trespassers or those who might otherwise go unpermitted. In sum, by making hunters accountable (in a user-friendly way), GOVRAX helps promote a culture of stewardship and respect. This is perfectly aligned with what agency directors like Chuck Sykes in Alabama call for – hunters who “respect the bird and love the hunt” rather than simply trying to kill as many as possible​. In a period where every adult tom is valuable for breeding and future regeneration of the flock, an accountable hunting system ensures that each turkey taken is within sustainable limits and done with full compliance to seasons, bag limits, and reporting requirements.

Building a Landowner Database for Collaborative Habitat Improvement

A major hurdle in landscape-scale habitat work is connecting with private landowners and fostering their involvement. The majority of land in states like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi is privately owned. Many landowners may be interested in improving habitat for turkeys but are not plugged into agency programs or lack information. GOVRAX can act as a bridge by maintaining a database of landowners who enroll their properties for hunting access management. These are landowners already open to wildlife-oriented use of their land (since they are using GOVRAX to manage hunting access); as such, they are prime candidates for outreach on habitat improvements. State agencies could partner with GOVRAX to send targeted communications or surveys to landowners in the system, offering habitat evaluations or sharing best practices (for example, “Did you know that a fall prescribed burn in your pine stand can increase turkey poult survival by promoting insect-rich groundcover? Contact us for a cost-share program.”). Over time, this network forms a community of conservation-minded landowners. They could even interact via GOVRAX forums or events, facilitated by the platform, to swap habitat management success stories or coordinate landscape-level efforts (like neighboring properties agreeing to all trap predators one spring). Moreover, by analyzing the land characteristics of enrolled properties (GOVRAX’s mapping can include habitat types, acreage, etc.), agencies can identify which key areas are lacking participation. If, say, an entire county with a declining turkey harvest has very few landowners in the database, the agency knows to focus outreach there. Conversely, if many landowners in a region join, that might allow for a cooperative conservation initiative (akin to a quail focal area model, but for turkeys). Collaborative habitat improvement – such as coordinated prescribed fire across property lines or establishing travel corridors – becomes more feasible when you have a ready-made directory of engaged landowners. GOVRAX essentially provides the infrastructure for a public-private partnership at scale, with the incentive of improved hunting access keeping landowners involved. This is highly valuable because, as history shows, the great turkey boom decades ago was in large part due to private land habitat recovery (old farm fields growing into young forests, etc.); now we need private lands to once again be part of the turkey solution through active management. GOVRAX gives agencies a 21st-century tool to organize and energize this crucial group.

Crowdsourcing Wildlife Data: Hunter-Reported Sightings and Activity

Wild turkey biologists often say hunters are their eyes and ears in the field. Every spring, thousands of hunters witness gobbling behavior, see hens and broods, and observe habitat conditions across the landscape. Traditionally, much of this anecdotal information is lost or only captured in scattered conversations. GOVRAX can transform that by enabling systematic hunter-reported data collection. Through the app, hunters can log observations during their outings – for example: “heard 3 gobblers, saw 2 hens with 5 poults, habitat note: recent clearcut nearby with lots of thick cover.” These observations, tagged by date and location (GPS), can be aggregated to provide incredibly rich datasets for biologists. Imagine being able to generate a gobbling intensity map across the state based on hunter reports, or to track the timing of nesting (when hunters start seeing hens alone vs. with poults). This would complement formal surveys like brood counts with a much larger sample size. Turkeys for Tomorrow’s projects have already employed some of this concept with acoustic recorders and hunter logs to understand gobbling chronology​. GOVRAX can crowdsource similar information every season. Over a few years, agencies could develop indices like a “gobbler heard per hunt” or “poults observed per trip” that serve as real-time indicators of population status, without having to wait for post-season surveys. It also engages hunters deeply – they become citizen scientists, contributing to the knowledge base that will help turkey management. Additionally, GOVRAX can gather hunter feedback on regulations or proposals in-app. For example, after a spring season, a short survey could pop up asking, “Did you support the later season opener this year? Did you notice more, fewer, or the same number of gobbling turkeys compared to prior years?” This kind of structured feedback can assist agencies in evaluating the social acceptance and perceived effects of management actions. The platform could even allow photo uploads, so users can document habitat issues (like an area overtaken by invasive plants or evidence of nest predation) and share with managers. All of this data collection funnels invaluable information to turkey biologists working on conservation plans. It’s essentially a constant, distributed research effort at minimal cost. With proper analysis and validation (filtering any dubious reports, etc.), hunter-sourced data via GOVRAX could substantially improve the resolution and responsiveness of turkey population monitoring. In an era where turkey fortunes can change quickly year-to-year, having this finger on the pulse can guide timely actions, such as identifying a region that had a particularly poor hatch and might need a more conservative fall season to protect hens.

Identifying Priority Areas for Habitat Restoration and Managed Access

Finally, GOVRAX’s suite of mapping and analytics can aid in strategic decision-making about where to focus conservation efforts. By overlaying turkey population data with land access and use data, patterns will emerge that highlight opportunity areas or problem spots. For instance, GOVRAX usage data might show a cluster of properties in one county that have very high hunter check-ins, but the hunter-reported turkey sightings are consistently low. This could indicate an over-pressured turkey population there. Wildlife agencies could respond by prioritizing that county for a habitat restoration project, perhaps increasing food resources or nesting cover to support more turkeys that can withstand the pressure, or by implementing a quota/draw system via GOVRAX to limit hunters in that specific area until turkey numbers recover. Conversely, the data may reveal areas with great habitat and turkeys but little hunter access (maybe large private lands with no hunting allowed). Those could be prime candidates for access initiatives, working with those landowners on easements or controlled hunts (possibly administered through GOVRAX’s reservation system) to spread out hunting pressure and harvest to under-utilized turkey populations. The platform could also integrate a habitat rating tool in the future – for example, landowners or biologists could input a habitat score for properties (taking into account factors like percent of area in mature hardwood, presence of spring brood cover, etc.). When combined with turkey productivity data, this could quickly show which regions are habitat-limited. Agencies like to focus habitat funds where they will have the most bang for the buck. If GOVRAX data highlights that a particular landscape unit has many willing landowners (in the database) and documented turkey observations but still low reproduction, it might be an ideal place to launch a habitat improvement cost-share program (those landowners would likely participate). On the other hand, an area with few landowners engaged might need outreach first before habitat grants would be effective – again, something the platform’s data can inform. In terms of managed access, GOVRAX can enable dynamic adjustments such as implementing draw hunts in real-time. Suppose an agency biologist sees via the app data that turkey harvest or activity in a certain wildlife management area is down to concerning levels; they could switch that area’s access to “draw only” for the remainder of the season to prevent over-harvest, notifying hunters through the app. In the past, such nimbleness was impossible; regulations are set pre-season. But with a tool like GOVRAX, adaptive management within a season or year-to-year becomes feasible, much like a fisheries slot limit that can be adjusted, but here applied to hunting access. This is a forward-thinking concept that could revolutionize game management: data-driven, targeted access management rather than broad one-size-fits-all rules. It ensures that regions with declining turkeys get relief, while regions with abundant turkeys can sustain more use, optimizing both conservation and hunter opportunity.

Turkeys for Tomorrow and GOVRAX: Partnering for Change

It’s worth noting that an organization like Turkeys for Tomorrow, which is already leveraging technology (e.g., using onX and novel research techniques), finds a strong ally in GOVRAX. TFT’s mission involves not just research but also turning findings into actionable improvements. For example, if TFT identifies that predators are a big issue, GOVRAX could potentially be used to coordinate volunteer trappers on properties (sign-ups, reporting of trap results, etc.). In essence, GOVRAX provides the platform to operationalize the recommendations coming out of TFT’s research. As a partner, Turkeys for Tomorrow can help promote the use of GOVRAX among the turkey hunting community, enhancing data collection and participation. In turn, GOVRAX can share aggregated insights (while protecting sensitive data) with TFT and state biologists to support their studies. This synergy – science identifying solutions and technology deploying those solutions on the landscape – exemplifies the innovative approach needed to bring turkey populations back.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The decline of Eastern wild turkeys in the Southeast is a complex, multi-faceted challenge. No single factor caused it, and no single silver bullet will resolve it. However, through detailed research, we have a good grasp of the primary issues: habitat loss and degradation, low nest success and poult survival due to predation, and mismatches between past management approaches and current population realities. The encouraging news is that these are issues that can be addressed through concerted effort, just as wild turkey numbers were intentionally restored in the past, they can be bolstered again with purposeful action. This whitepaper has highlighted how Southeastern state wildlife agencies, with support from passionate nonprofits like Turkeys for Tomorrow and the National Wild Turkey Federation, are responding. Strategies range from tweaking hunting regulations to launching comprehensive research projects, and from ramping up habitat improvements to educating the public. By also looking at successes with Rio Grande and Merriam’s turkeys, we see that wild turkey populations can flourish when habitat is abundant, predators are balanced, and hunting is sustainable. The Southeastern turkey decline can be reversed by applying those same principles, adapted to our local context. A critical addition to this effort in the coming years will be the use of technology and data-driven management. GOVRAX offers an example of how innovation can empower agencies and hunters to be more effective stewards. By monitoring land access, encouraging hunter accountability, organizing landowner cooperation, crowdsourcing biological data, and enabling targeted management actions, platforms like GOVRAX can amplify the impact of traditional conservation work. This helps turkeys and builds a stronger connection between the hunting community and resource managers – a win-win for wildlife conservation. Restoring Eastern wild turkeys in the Southeast will take time. It will require continued research (to ensure we adapt and learn), significant habitat restoration on both public and private lands, strategic predator management where needed, and the collective will of hunters to perhaps restrain our harvest in the short term for greater rewards in the future. The path forward is one of partnership among state agencies, NGOs, hunters, landowners, and technologists. By walking that path together, we can ensure that the spring woods of the South will once again echo with the thunderous gobble of the wild turkey for generations to come.

Key Takeaways

Southeastern Turkey Decline is Real: Eastern wild turkey populations in AL, GA, MS, SC and neighboring states have dropped significantly in the last 10–15 years, with indicators like poult-per-hen ratios falling below sustainable levels and harvests down 40–60% from early 2000s peaks​. Urgent action is needed to prevent further losses. Multiple Factors Involved: The decline is driven by a combination of habitat issues (loss, fragmentation, fewer quality nesting/brooding areas)​, high predation on nests and poults (exacerbated by habitat allowing predators easier access)​, and possibly overharvest or mis-timed harvest in some areas (leading agencies to adjust seasons/bag limits)​. Weather variability is generally a lesser factor except in cases of extreme events​. No major diseases have been pinpointed as a cause so far​. State Agencies Responding: Wildlife agencies are actively modifying hunting regulations (later season openings, lower bag limits) to reduce pressure on turkeys​. They are also expanding habitat management programs (prescribed fire, timber thinning, predator control trials) and partnering with universities on research to guide decisions. Annual monitoring (brood surveys, hunter check surveys) is being enhanced to track progress​. Turkeys for Tomorrow & Partners Leading Research: The nonprofit Turkeys for Tomorrow has emerged as a key player, funding research projects in multiple states to pinpoint causes of decline and test solutions​. TFT’s initiatives, like GPS-tracking hens in AL, studying season delays in TN, and analyzing gobbler fertility, complement NWTF-supported projects across the country. These efforts are producing actionable insights (e.g., predation is a major limit, season delays alone may not help) that agencies can use​. TFT and NWTF also engage hunters in conservation advocacy and habitat work, demonstrating the power of public-private collaboration. Lessons from Other Subspecies: Success with Rio Grande and Merriam’s turkeys shows that wild turkeys rebound when habitat and management align. Rio Grandes in Texas recovered from historic lows through habitat improvement, restocking, and landowner cooperation​. Merriam’s populations thrived out West under limited hunting and strong habitat conditions, to the point of needing more harvest in some areas​. These cases underscore the importance of quality brood habitat (insect-rich areas), protected roosting cover, and adaptive harvest management – all relevant to restoring Eastern turkeys. Technology (GOVRAX) as a Force Multiplier: Innovative tools like the GOVRAX platform can greatly assist in turkey conservation. By tracking hunter check-in/out, agencies can monitor hunting pressure and avoid overuse of sensitive areas. Real-time harvest reporting and user profiles promote accountability and ethical hunting compliance. A database of enrolled properties and hunters creates a network for outreach and habitat collaboration with private landowners. Hunters can log sightings and gobbling activity through the app, providing crowdsourced biological data to biologists for better decision-making. Mapping and analytics help identify priority areas for habitat work or where to institute draw hunts, enabling truly adaptive, data-driven management. In short, technology can connect stakeholders and inform actions faster than ever before. Holistic Approach for the Future: Reversing the turkey decline will require an integrated strategy: habitat first (improve nesting and brood-rearing conditions), predators second (manage predator populations especially where imbalances exist)​, smart harvest regulation (align seasons/limits with biological realities), continual research feedback, and robust monitoring. Equally important is maintaining hunter and landowner engagement through education, opportunities to participate in conservation, and tools like GOVRAX that make them partners in wildlife stewardship. With all these pieces working in concert, the wild turkey can be set on a path of recovery in the Southeast, ensuring that its proud call remains a defining sound of southern forests each spring.

Works Cited

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Region Turkey Season and Bag Limit Change since 2015.” SCDNR, 2023, www.dnr.sc.gov/news/2023/jul/jul25_turkey.html. University of Georgia Research News. “The Wild Turkey Doc: Chamberlain Translates Innovative Research to Impactful Conservation.” UGA Research, 2023, research.uga.edu/news/the-wild-turkey-doc/. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Observed Declines in Productivity.” SCDNR, 2023, www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/turkey/broodsurvey.html. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Average Recruitment Trends since 1988.” SCDNR, 2023, www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/turkey/history.html. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Declines in Spring Harvest and Brood Survival.” SCDNR, 2023, www.dnr.sc.gov/news/2023/aug/aug1_turkey_report.html. University of Georgia Research News. “Tracking Devices Spark Wild Turkey Research.” UGA Research, 2023, research.uga.edu/news/the-wild-turkey-doc/. University of Georgia Research News. “Turkey Hunting Numbers in Georgia Decline Significantly.” UGA Research, 2023, research.uga.edu/news/the-wild-turkey-doc/. Realtree Camo. “The 2024 Southeast Turkey Hunting Forecast.” Realtree, 2024, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. Outdoor Alabama. “Turkey Harvest Up; Debate Continues on Population.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Outdoor Alabama. “Game Check Reporting and Data Accuracy Concerns.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/game-check-reporting-concerns. Realtree Camo. “Hen Ratios and Poult Survival Trends.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. Outdoor Alabama. “Gobbling Activity and Season Observations.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Outdoor Alabama. “Offseason Habitat Planning for Turkeys.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. “2023 Spring Turkey Season Forecast.” MDWFP, 2023, www.mdwfp.com/turkey-program/spring-forecast-2023. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. “Historic Flooding and Turkey Habitat Recovery.” MDWFP, 2023, www.mdwfp.com/turkey-program/spring-forecast-2023.

National Wild Turkey Federation. “Wild Turkey Research to Receive Nearly $9 Million from NWTF and Partners.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. University of Georgia Research News. “The Wild Turkey Doc: Chamberlain Translates Innovative Research to Impactful Conservation.” UGA Research, 2023, research.uga.edu/news/the-wild-turkey-doc. Realtree Camo. “The 2024 Southeast Turkey Hunting Forecast.” Realtree, 2024, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. Outdoor Alabama. “Turkey Harvest Up; Debate Continues on Population.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. “Private Lands along the Mississippi River and Turkey Population Trends.” MDWFP, 2023, www.mdwfp.com/turkey-program/spring-forecast-2023. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Research Examines Overlap Between Predation and Nesting Habitat.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/research-examines-overlap-between-predation-and-nesting-habitat. onX Hunt. “Turkeys for Tomorrow Tackles Population Decline.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Updated Research on Turkey Nesting Habitat in Iowa.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/research-examines-overlap-between-predation-and-nesting-habitat. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Iowa VHF Nest Success Study.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/research-examines-overlap-between-predation-and-nesting-habitat. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Co-evolution of Wild Turkeys with Predators.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/research-examines-overlap-between-predation-and-nesting-habitat. Realtree Camo. “Newsmaker: Turkeys for Tomorrow Group Aims to Help Declining Southeast Populations.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Realtree Camo. “Turkeys for Tomorrow Gobbler Fertility Study.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Realtree Camo. “TFT’s Founding and Mission to Reverse Turkey Decline.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Phys.org. “Study Overturns Conventional Wisdom About Wild Turkey Nesting Survival.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html. Phys.org. “Weather Influence on Turkey Nesting Success.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html.

Phys.org. “Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Wild Turkeys.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html. Phys.org. “Precipitation and Temperature Links to Nest Survival.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. “Flood Recovery in Mississippi Delta Turkey Populations.” MDWFP, 2023, www.mdwfp.com/turkey-program/spring-forecast-2023. Realtree Camo. “2024 Spring Outlook from AGFC's Luke Naylor.” Realtree, 2024, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. Realtree Camo. “Harvest Increases in the Arkansas Ozarks.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. Realtree Camo. “Disease Sampling for Wild Turkey Studies.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. National Wild Turkey Federation. “NWTF’s $582K in Research Investments for 2023.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “New Wild Turkey Studies in Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Research on Gobbler Fertility and Embryonic Death.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Eastern Wild Turkey Recruitment and Poult Survival Study.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. Realtree Camo. “How Wildlife Officials Adjust Season Dates and Bag Limits.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Outdoor Alabama. “Annual Brood Survey and Hatch Estimates.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Realtree Camo. “Alabama Poult-Per-Hen Trends by Region.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. onX Hunt. “Turkeys For Tomorrow Research Extensions in Tennessee.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Act 224 and Public Meetings on Turkey Management.” SCDNR, 2023, www.dnr.sc.gov/news/2023/dec/dec15_turkeymeetings.html. Outdoor Alabama. “Hunters Are More Effective than Ever.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Outdoor Alabama. “Respect for the Bird and the Hunt.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Realtree Camo. “TFT Gobbler Fertility Research in Missouri.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Realtree Camo. “TFT’s Founding and Urgency for Action.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Phys.org. “Study Overturns Conventional Wisdom About Wild Turkey Nesting Survival.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html. Phys.org. “Weather Influence on Turkey Nesting Success.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html. Phys.org. “Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Wild Turkeys.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html. Phys.org. “Precipitation and Temperature Links to Nest Survival.” Phys.org, 2023, phys.org/news/2023-03-wild-turkey-nesting-survival.html. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. “Flood Recovery in Mississippi Delta Turkey Populations.” MDWFP, 2023, www.mdwfp.com/turkey-program/spring-forecast-2023. Realtree Camo. “2024 Spring Outlook from AGFC's Luke Naylor.” Realtree, 2024, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. Realtree Camo. “Harvest Increases in the Arkansas Ozarks.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. Realtree Camo. “Disease Sampling for Wild Turkey Studies.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. National Wild Turkey Federation. “NWTF’s $582K in Research Investments for 2023.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “New Wild Turkey Studies in Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million National Wild Turkey Federation. “Research on Gobbler Fertility and Embryonic Death.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Eastern Wild Turkey Recruitment and Poult Survival Study.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. Realtree Camo. “Adjusting Season Dates and Managing Hunting Pressure.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Outdoor Alabama. “Statewide Brood Survey from July to August.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Realtree Camo. “Alabama Poult-per-Hen Averages by Region.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. onX Hunt. “TFT Research Extensions in Tennessee.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Public Meetings and Act 224 Response.” SCDNR, 2023, www.dnr.sc.gov/news/2023/dec/dec15_turkeymeetings.html. Outdoor Alabama. “Survey Indicates Sub-Replacement Hatch Rates.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. National Wild Turkey Federation. “2023 Research Investment Totals $9 Million with Partners.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Wild Turkey Ecology Projects Across the U.S.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Investigating Fertility and Embryonic Mortality in Turkey Eggs.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. Realtree Camo. “Wildlife Officials Use Habitat, Disease, and Pressure Data.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Outdoor Alabama. “Annual Brood Survey and Gobbler/Hen Tracking.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Realtree Camo. “Alabama Regional Trends Still Below Threshold.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/the-2024-southeast-turkey-hunting-forecast. onX Hunt. “TFT Helps Extend Research with TWRA in Tennessee.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Act 224: Season and Bag Limit Revisions.” SCDNR, 2023, www.dnr.sc.gov/news/2023/dec/dec15_turkeymeetings.html. Outdoor Alabama. “Poult-Per-Hen Count Below Sustainability Threshold.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Largest Research Investment in NWTF History.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Nationwide Turkey Research in 2023.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Research Projects Across Florida, Kansas, and Texas.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Monitoring Turkey Fertility and Nest Success Nationwide.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Recruitment Metrics in Eastern Wild Turkeys.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/wild-turkey-research-to-receive-nearly-9-million. onX Hunt. “Why Are Turkey Populations Declining Across the Country?” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. Realtree Camo. “Learn More About Turkeys for Tomorrow.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. “80602 Habitat Appraisal Guide.” TPWD, 2007, tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0806.pdf. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. “Brood Habitat Requirements for Wild Turkeys.” TPWD, 2007, tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0806.pdf. University of Georgia Research News. “Early Successional Habitat Is Key to Turkey Success.” UGA Research, 2023, research.uga.edu/news/the-wild-turkey-doc. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Predator Overlap and Nesting Habitat Studies.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/research-examines-overlap-between-predation-and-nesting-habitat. onX Hunt. “TFT Study: Predation Limits Poult Survival in Tennessee.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. National Wild Turkey Federation. “IDNR Turkey Nest Success: Just 11% in 2022.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/research-examines-overlap-between-predation-and-nesting-habitat. National Wild Turkey Federation. “Turkeys Can Evade Predators — If Habitat Is Right.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/research-examines-overlap-between-predation-and-nesting-habitat. Outdoor Alabama. “Habitat First, Predator Control Is the Steroid.” Outdoor Alabama, 2023, www.outdooralabama.com/articles/turkey-harvest-debate-2023. Realtree Camo. “Newsmaker: Gobbler Abundance and Hunting Pressure in Alabama.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. Realtree Camo. “GPS Tracking of Hens: Missouri & Beyond.” Realtree, 2023, www.realtree.com/turkey-hunting/articles/newsmaker-turkeys-for-tomorrow-group-aims-to-help-declining-southeast-populations. onX Hunt. “TFT’s Mission to Reverse the Turkey Decline.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. onX Hunt. “Answering the Hard Questions: Predation, Habitat, Hunting Pressure.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. onX Hunt. “States TFT Supports: AL, KY, TN, MS (and possibly IA, TX).” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. onX Hunt. “Landowners Allow Access to Researchers via onX Maps.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. onX Hunt. “Recapturing an 8-Year-Old Hen in Tennessee.” onX Hunt, 2023, www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/turkeys-for-tomorrow. Auburn University. “Auburn Professor Gulsby Researches Turkey Decline.” ocm.auburn.edu, 2023, ocm.auburn.edu/newsroom/news_articles/2023/05/121537-turkey-decline-research.php. Auburn University. “Using AI to Analyze Turkey Audio Data.” ocm.auburn.edu, 2023, ocm.auburn.edu/newsroom/news_articles/2023/05/121537-turkey-decline-research.php. Texas A&M AgriLife. “Rio Grande Wild Turkey – Recovery and Habitat Management.” wildlife.tamu.edu, 2023, wildlife.tamu.edu/wild-turkey/rio-grande/. National Wild Turkey Federation. “A Microcosm of National Success in East Texas.” NWTF, 2023, www.nwtf.org/content-hub/a-microcosm-of-national-success.