Received: 16 November 2021 | Accepted: 20 November 2021 DOI: 10.1002/wsb.1287 H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S Status and distribution of wild turkeys in the United States in 2019 Michael J. Chamberlain 1 | Mark Hatfield 2 | Bret A. Collier 3 1 Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E. Green Street, Athens, GA 30602, USA 2 National Wild Turkey Federation, 770 Augusta Road, Edgefield, SC 29824, USA 3 School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Correspondence Michael J. Chamberlain, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. Email: mchamb@uga.edu Funding information National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture, McIntire Stennis project under No. 7001494; Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia; the National Wild Turkey Federation; the School of Renewable Natural Resources and the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Abstract After increases following restoration efforts, the wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ) population appeared to decline during the early 2000s in many areas of the species' range. The 2014 status assessment indicated that estimated population size, harvest, and hunter numbers had declined since at least 2009. Several studies concurrently detailed regional declines in productivity of wild turkey populations. During 2019, we continued to monitor status of wild turkey populations in the United States by surveying state agency biologists charged with overseeing wild turkey management programs. We asked biologists to provide estimates of population abundance and distribution within their state. We also requested that each biologist provide data on turkey hunter numbers and harvest for both spring and fall hunting seasons, if those data were available. Based on agency biologist responses, wild turkey population size declined by ~3% across states that contributed data to both the 2014 and 2019 status updates. However, during our 2019 survey, abundance data were unavailable for 12 states that reported estimates for the 2014 assessment. We estimated that the number of wild turkey hunters declined by 18% between the 2014 and 2019 assessments, but note the 2019 estimate was confounded by missing data from 8 states that provided data during 2014. Across all reporting states, fall and spring harvests decreased by 31 and 12%, respectively, between the 2014 and 2019 assessments. Despite widespread recognition that standardization of monitoring methods across states would facilitate more consistent inferences about wild turkey abundance, further progress towards regional or Wildlife Society Bulletin 2022;46:e1287. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/wsb © 2022 The Wildlife Society | 1 of 19 https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1287 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License national standardization is needed. Furthermore, the approach of converting harvest data to a population estimate by dividing harvest estimates by a constant percentage of estimated take should be revisited to ensure accuracy, especially given known spatial and temporal variation in harvest pressure, hunting activity, and hunter behavior. We encourage continued development of improved techniques to estimate wild turkey abundance and distribution, and recommend that all states and provinces consider standardized methods to accurately monitor and report harvest and hunter effort. K E Y W O R D S distribution, harvest, hunting, Meleagris gallopavo , population, status, wild turkey The restoration of wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo ) is one of the greatest North American conservation stories (Dickson 1992). Wild turkeys had a substantive influence on North American culture (Kennamer et al. 1992) and are an economically important game species across their range (Keck and Langston 1992). Post ‐ restoration, Tapley et al. (2005) noted increasing numbers of turkeys and turkey hunters, and concomitant increases in harvest of males during spring seasons. However, Tapley et al. (2011) reported that estimated wild turkey population size, as well as spring and fall harvests, had begun to decline between 2004 and 2009. Ericksen et al. (2015) detailed continued declines in wild turkey population size, and noted corresponding declines in both spring harvest of males and a reduction in hunters participating in spring hunting. Additionally, managers throughout North America were faced with compelling evidence that eastern wild turkey ( M. g. silvestris ) populations were exhibiting long ‐ term declines in productivity and harvest in the southeastern and midwestern United States (Byrne et al. 2015, and Parent et al. 2015, respectively) with corresponding declines in regional populations in the northeastern United States (Casalena et al. 2015). Since 1970, surveys of state agency biologists responsible for overseeing wild turkey management programs have been conducted every 5 years garnering data on wild turkey population size, distribution, turkey hunter numbers, fall harvest, and spring harvest. Agency survey results have been summarized and published previously in proceedings of most of the wild turkey symposia (Bailey 1980; Kennamer and Kennamer 1990; Tapley et al. 2000, 2005, 2011; Ericksen et al. 2015). Herein, we continued the quinquennial survey and obtained information from state wildlife agency biologists on wild turkey abundance across subspecies, estimates of occupied range, hunter numbers, and harvest estimates for fall of 2018 and spring of 2019. METHO DS During summer of 2019, questionnaires were sent to members of the National Wild Turkey Federation Technical Committee (hereafter members), which is comprised of state wildlife biologists responsible for overseeing wild turkey management programs. We asked members to provide an estimate of wild turkey population size and occupied range within their state. Methods to estimate abundance or distribution included opportunistic brood surveys, harvest representing a percentage of total population, turkeys per unit area of forested land cover, and fall and winter surveys. A number of states estimated total (both sexes) population size by multiplying spring male harvest by 10, using a relationship described in the 1960s (Lewis and Kelly 1973), whereas other states used 2 of 19 | CHAMBERLAIN ET AL 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License state ‐ specific population estimation models. In the 2014 status assessment, Ericksen et al. (2015) used a modification of the aforementioned derived constant (0.1) to approximate population size for 4 states (Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington) that did not provide a population estimate but provided harvest estimates, and separately to approximate population size for California using harvest data from Tapley et al. (2011). We opted against using a similar approach for several reasons. First, a greater number of states (12) did not provide population estimates for 2019. Second, harvest rates on which the derived constant were based are known to vary both spatially and temporally (Diefenbach et al. 2012). Third, the proportion of the total population represented in spring harvest (which is mostly males, but varies across states) is unknown, and the structure proposed by Lewis and Kelly (1973) was based on a single, small ‐ scale study using index methods that have not been critically evaluated for application at the regional or state level. As such, we only used total population size for states that provided data for our assessment, and only compared estimates to states that provided data during both 2014 (Ericksen et al. 2015) and 2019. We did not attempt to calculate population size estimates by subspecies, as data were unavailable for Florida wild turkeys, and some states that support multiple subspecies provided information on population size that did not partition estimates to subspecies. We made similar comparisons between 2014 and 2019 for harvest (spring and fall) and turkey hunter numbers so that comparisons were appropriately framed. All states that have a spring harvest season provided estimates of spring harvest, but information on fall harvest, population estimates, and occupied range varied considerably across states. Finally, we reported percentage changes in reported population estimates, spring harvest, and turkey hunter numbers relative to numbers presented in Tapley et al. (2005) as data from 2004 roughly represented the end of restoration efforts in most states. Schorger (1966) contained a historical range map for the wild turkey subspecies (Figure 1), the designations of which were based on plumage variation, body size differences, and color of edging on the retrices and tail coverts (Mock et al. 2002). In the 1959 proceedings, Mosby (1959) produced a range map of the wild turkey subspecies which was focused on areas where wild turkeys were restored. The inclusion of the Mosby (1959) map or some derivative thereof was standard in status updates ever since, with the exception of the proceedings of the 5 th symposium held in 1985. Beginning with Kennamer and Kennamer (1990), the range map began solely depicting specific geographic ranges for the 5 subspecies that occur in the United States. The range map in Kennamer and Kennamer (1990) also included range occupied by potentially hybridized wild turkeys. We speculate that the inclusion of purported hybrids resulted from wild turkeys in these areas exhibiting plumage characteristics believed to be intermediate between 2 or more subspecies, or because birds restored to these areas came from source populations that included multiple subspecies (see Table 5 in Tapley et al. 2000). Regardless, subsequent status updates included supposed range estimates for hybrid wild turkeys; the estimates appear to be associated with areas where 2 subspecies ranges were juxtaposed (e.g., eastern and Rio Grande [ M. g. intermedia ] wild turkeys in Oklahoma; Tapley et al. 2000), across broad areas of states where historically only a single subspecies was recognized (e.g., eastern and central Nebraska; Tapley et al. 2005 but see Schorger 1966), or in areas where wild turkeys claimed as hybrids were surrounded geographically by wild turkey populations believed to be comprised of known subspecies (e.g., central Oregon; Tapley et al. 2011). Numerous status updates have included supposed hybridization zones between eastern and Rio Grande subspecies and Rio Grande and Merriam's ( M. g. merriami ) subspecies, but none included similar zones between the eastern and Florida ( M. g. osceola ) subspecies despite widespread recognition that such zones have existed for decades (Aldrich 1967, Williams and Austin 1988). Likewise, restoration programs responsible for the current distribution of wild turkeys across North America often ignored historical subspecies ranges, resulting in birds from multiple subspecies being released at sites within states (Mock et al. 2001). Previously, subspecies boundaries were viewed as discrete in distribution mapping efforts, but in reality, the boundaries were both subjective and poorly defined. Furthermore, interbreeding commonly occurs across subspecies, wide variation in plumage characters occurs among individuals within the same subspecies (Stangel et al. 1992), and neither STATUS OF WILD TURKEYS IN 2019 | 3 of 19 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License regulatory nor management actions are implemented based on purported hybridization zones. Therefore, we decided that the wild turkey range map presented herein should not contain undocumented subspecies and hybridization ranges (Figure 2, taken from Ericksen et al. 2015), and instead we took a more generalized approach to describing turkey distribution. To generate a general depiction of subspecific ranges, we relied on the historical distributions detailed in Schorger (1966) in combination with information obtained from members to delineate states that contained primarily a single subspecies, or those that are known to contain multiple subspecies (Figure 3). We recognize that in the latter states, wide variation in plumage characters should be expected, and individual wild turkeys could exhibit plumage characteristics indicative of multiple subspecies. Historical reporting of hybrid wild turkey distributions presumably relied upon morphological variation (plumage) in harvested birds, which is subjective, assumes that a genetic basis for such variation exists, and also assumes that hybrid individuals are intermediate phenotypically to their parents (Latch et al. 2006). There is an absence of broad ‐ scale (state level) published literature using molecular markers of wild turkeys that could quantify hybridization in areas where previous range maps suggested such occurred. Therefore, we chose to rely on a combination of historical range maps, published literature detailing genetic differences among subspecies (Mock et al. 2002), and information provided by members to generate a map that we believe more conservatively depicts the fact that wild turkeys traced back to several subspecies, exhibiting highly variable plumage characteristics, can be encountered in many states. Lastly, we did not include the suspected range for ocellated turkeys ( Meleagris ocellata ), as information used to estimate that range has not changed since Ericksen et al. (2015), so readers are encouraged to consult that source. Because F I G U R E 1 Geographic ranges of wild turkey subspecies as adapted from Schorger (1966). 4 of 19 | CHAMBERLAIN ET AL 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License of the generalities depicted in the range map (Figure 3), we advise it does not depict subspecies or hybridization ranges in a manner suitable for use in management or regulatory decisions. R E S U L T S Population estimates Eastern wild turkeys are the most common and widely distributed subspecies, followed by Rio Grande, Merriam's, Gould's ( M. g. mexicana ) and Florida wild turkeys (Figure 3). Member states estimated 4,996,127 to 5,001,127 wild turkeys across the species range, representing an estimated decrease of 18 to 20% since 2014 (Table 1). However, 12 states either did not submit or did not have 2019 data on population abundance that provided or had inferred abundances for the 2014 status update (Table 1, and see Ericksen et al. 2015). When comparing estimated abundance from states that provided information in both 2014 and 2019, abundance appeared to decline ~3%. From the states that reported information, Texas reported the largest estimated wild turkey population followed by Missouri, California (within a range of 100,000 birds), and Alabama. The greatest estimated increases in abundance occurred in Rhode Island (33%), Massachusetts (33%), and Maryland (21%). Conversely, greatest estimated declines in abundance were reported in Arkansas ( ≥ 23%), Louisiana ( ≥ 17%), F I G U R E 2 Estimated distribution of wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo ) across subspecies and ocellated turkeys ( Meleagris ocellata ) in 2014 based on survey data provided by state wildlife agencies (wild turkeys) and information detailed in Lafon and Schemnitz (1996, ocellated turkeys). Taken from Ericksen et al. (2015). STATUS OF WILD TURKEYS IN 2019 | 5 of 19 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Oklahoma ( ≥ 14%), and Georgia ( ≥ 10%). Since 2004 (see Table 3 in Tapley et al. 2005), reported population size of wild turkeys for states reporting data in 2004 and 2019 declined 9 – 16%. Distribution Wild turkeys are distributed widely across much of North America, with all contiguous states and Hawaii having established populations along with populations in Mexico and Canada. Member states estimated that 3,883,117 km 2 were occupied by wild turkeys across the United States during 2014, whereas estimated range decreased by 30% to 2,875,620 km 2 during 2019. However, the estimated decrease in range size during 2019 was entirely attributable to 19 states either not having or not reporting information on estimated occupied range (Table 2), so no management inferences should be made from the reported range decrease. Of the states that reported occupied range figures for both 2014 and 2019, 11 reported increases, 12 reported no change, and 6 reported decreases. F I G U R E 3 Generalized range map for wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo ) during 2019, with colors representing states where eastern (blue), Rio Grande (red), Merriam's (purple), and Florida (orange) wild turkeys are the dominant subspecies occurring within each state. Gould's (yellow) wild turkeys in the United States occur only in portions of New Mexico and Arizona. Colored circles represent the recognized presence of turkeys in some states exhibiting plumage characteristics indicative of subspecies other than the dominant subspecies in a state. The location of circles within states is not intended to represent specific locations where turkeys of a particular subspecies may be encountered, but may generalize where evidence of a specific subspecies is available. States with a gray background that contain colored circles represent states where turkeys with highly variable plumage characteristics occur, suggesting that multiple subspecies may occur. 6 of 19 | CHAMBERLAIN ET AL 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License T A B L E 1 Estimated abundance (population size) of wild turkeys by state across the United States, 2014 and 2019, based on information provided by state wildlife agencies. State Subspecies 2014 2019 % change Alabama Eastern 400 – 450,000 368,000 − 8 to − 18 Arizona Rio Grande 200 500 +150 Merriam's 30,000 25,000 – 30,000 − 17 to 0 Gould's 1,200 1,500 +25 Hybrid 200 N/A a N/A Arkansas Eastern 130 – 140,000 100,000 − 23 to − 28 California Rio Grande N/A 300, 000 – 400,000 b N/A Merriam's Hybrid Colorado Rio Grande 3,500 30,000 – 35,000 b − 2 to +15 Merriam's 27,000 Connecticut Eastern 35,000 30,000 – 35,000 − 14 to 0 Delaware Eastern 6,000 6,000 0 Florida b Eastern 37,885 N/A N/A Osceola 114,649 Georgia Eastern 335,000 250,000 – 300,000 − 25 to − 10 Hawaii Rio Grande N/A N/A N/A Idaho Merriam's/Hybrid 30,000 30,000 0 Illinois Eastern 103,153 N/A N/A Indiana Eastern 110,000 120,000 +9 Iowa Eastern 150,000 110,000 – 150,000 − 27 to 0 Kansas Eastern 87,500 N/A N/A Rio Grande 175,000 Hybrid 87,500 Kentucky Eastern 220,000 250,000 – 400,000 +14 to +82 Louisiana Eastern 60,000 40,000 – 50,000 − 33 to − 17 Maine Eastern 50 – 60,000 70,000 +17 to +40 Maryland Eastern 33,000 40,000 +21 Massachusetts Eastern 30,000 40,000 +33 Michigan Eastern 200,000 200,000 0 Minnesota Eastern 85,000 N/A N/A Mississippi Eastern 225 – 275,000 225,000 – 275,000 0 Missouri Eastern 416,000 d 390,000 − 6 Montana Merriam's 120,000 N/A N/A (Continues) STATUS OF WILD TURKEYS IN 2019 | 7 of 19 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License T A B L E 1 (Continued) State Subspecies 2014 2019 % change Nebraska Merriam's/Hybrid 144,733 N/A N/A Nevada Rio Grande 1,200 N/A N/A New Hampshire Eastern 35,000 40,000 +14 New Jersey Eastern 23,000 20,000 – 25,000 − 13 to +9 New Mexico Rio Grande N/A 3,000 – 6,000 N/A Merriam's 14,458 25,000 – 30,000 +73 to 107 Gould's N/A N/A N/A Hybrid N/A N/A N/A New York Eastern 180,000 180,000 0 North Carolina Eastern 260,000 265,000 +2 North Dakota Eastern N/A N/A N/A Merriam's Hybrid Ohio Eastern 165,000 190,000 +15 Oklahoma Eastern 19,000 12,013 − 37 Rio Grande 117,000 100,189 − 14 Oregon Rio Grande 35,000 46,000 b +15 Hybrid 5,000 Pennsylvania Eastern 210,235 212,175 +1 Rhode Island Eastern 3,000 4,000 +33 South Carolina Eastern 120,000 120,000 0 South Dakota b Eastern 13,126 N/A N/A Rio Grande N/A Merriam's 32,136 Hybrid N/A Tennessee b Eastern 248,748 250,000 +<1 Texas Eastern 8,000 10,000 +25 Rio Grande 500,000 500,000 0 Merriam's 500 500 0 Utah Rio Grande 10,350 25,000 – 35,000 c +9 to +52 Merriam's 7,590 Hybrid 5,060 Vermont Eastern 30 – 50,000 45,000 – 60,000 +20 to +50 Virginia Eastern 175,000 175,000 0 Washington c Eastern 229 N/A N/A 8 of 19 | CHAMBERLAIN ET AL 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Harvest Total estimated harvest during 2018 – 2019 was 646,740, and across states that reported numbers for both 2014 and 2019, total harvest decreased by 13% during this period (Table 3). Spring harvest during 2019 was estimated at 584,421, a 12% decrease from 2014 across states that reported numbers during both 2014 and 2019; all states with a spring hunting season provided estimates of spring harvest. From 2014 to 2019, spring harvest decreased in 22 states, increased in 24 states, and was unchanged in one state. Louisiana (68%) and Georgia (61%) reported the greatest percentage decreases in spring harvest from 2014 – 2019. Rhode Island (139%) and Washington (56%) reported the greatest percentage increases, but the estimated increases provided only accounted for 2,243 birds across both states combined. Since 2004 (see Table 6 in Tapley et al. 2005), estimated spring harvest of wild turkeys as reported by states declined by 19%. Estimated fall harvest during 2018 was 62,319, and across states that reported fall harvest for both 2013 and 2018, harvest decreased by 31%. We also note that 10 states either did not have or did not report fall harvest data for 2018 that did so during 2013. Those 10 states accounted for 16,139 turkeys harvested during fall of 2013, which was 16% of the total estimated fall harvest nationwide. Hence, it appears that fall harvest declined across the species range from 2013 to 2018, despite the lack of harvest data from the aforementioned states. Collectively, 6 states (Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina) did not allow fall turkey hunting during 2018 – 2019, whereas all states where turkeys occur allow spring hunting. Hunter numbers Member states estimated the number of turkey hunters during fall 2018 and spring 2019 hunting seasons at 2,182,532, which is an estimated 18% decrease from 2014 (Table 4). Across states that reported numbers of turkey hunters during both 2013 – 2014 and 2018 – 2019, total numbers of hunters decreased by 9%. However, total number of hunters is likely overestimated as hunters could participate in both fall and spring seasons, and therefore be T A B L E 1 (Continued) State Subspecies 2014 2019 % change Rio Grande 8,397 Merriam's 19,847 Hybrid N/A West Virginia Eastern 90,000 112,250 +25 Wisconsin Eastern 350,000 350,000 0 Wyoming Rio Grande 2,700 N/A N/A Merriam's 10,800 Hybrid 1,500 Total 6,072,984 to 6,212,984 4,996,127 to 5,001,127 − 18 to − 20% e a Data either not available or not reported. b Estimate across all subspecies. c Data unavailable; estimates in 2014 status inferred from data collected in other states, Tennessee data provided in 2019 but inferred in 2014. d Estimate revised from that reported in Ericksen et al. (2015) using data provided by Missouri Department of Conservation. e Data across all states, including those who did not provide data for either 2014 or 2019. STATUS OF WILD TURKEYS IN 2019 | 9 of 19 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License T A B L E 2 Estimated occupied range by wild turkeys by state in the United States, 2014 and 2019, based on survey data submitted by state wildlife agencies. State 2014 a Km 2 2014 a Mile 2 2019 Km 2 2019 Mile 2 Alabama 101,010 39,000 101,010 39,000 Arizona 33,346 12,875 N/A b N/A Arkansas 76,041 29,360 76,041 29,360 California 104,149 40,212 75,544 29,168 Colorado 68,189 26,328 N/A N/A Connecticut 9,420 3,637 N/A N/A Delaware 4,144 1,600 4,144 1,600 Florida 81,942 31,638 N/A N/A Georgia 98,777 38,138 98,149 38,000 Hawaii 4,197 1,621 N/A N/A Idaho 38,850 15,000 N/A N/A Illinois 117,172 45,240 N/A N/A Indiana 84,788 32,737 77,699 30,000 Iowa 72,024 27,809 145,150 56,043 Kansas 213,096 82,277 213,096 82,277 Kentucky 102,268 39,486 104,658 40,409 Louisiana 45,675 17,670 N/A N/A Maine 37,440 15,228 77,700 30,000 Maryland 11,655 4,500 11,500 4,440 Massachusetts 12,497 4,825 12,497 4,825 Michigan 150,515 58,114 150,515 58,114 Minnesota 160,320 61,900 N/A N/A Mississippi 12,148 47,934 125,000 48,262 Missouri 176,596 68,184 176,596 68,184 Montana 51,800 20,000 51,800 20,000 Nebraska 105,466 40,721 N/A N/A Nevada 2,598 1,003 N/A N/A New Hampshire 18,130 7,000 19,567 7,555 New Jersey 6,967 2,690 8,000 3,088 New Mexico 77,409 29,888 76,404 29,500 New York 69,930 27,000 121,494 46,909 North Carolina 116,827 45,107 116,827 45,107 North Dakota 28,703 11,082 N/A N/A Ohio 82,340 31,792 116,096 44,825 10 of 19 | CHAMBERLAIN ET AL 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License double ‐ counted. We also note that 8 states either did not have or did not provide data on hunter numbers reported in 2014. During 2014, those states that either did not have or did not provide data in 2019 (Connecticut, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia) accounted for 350,768 estimated turkey hunters, which was 13% of the total hunter effort. Since 2004 (see Table 7 in Tapley et al. 2005), reported number of turkey hunters across states that provided data during both 2003 – 2004 and 2018 – 2019 has declined by 22%. For states that reported spring turkey hunter numbers in both 2014 and 2019, numbers of hunters increased in 19 states and decreased in 19 states (Table 4). The greatest number of spring turkey hunters was reported in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, whereas Nevada reported the fewest. Nevada reported the greatest increase in spring turkey hunters, whereas Louisiana reported the greatest decrease. For states that reported fall turkey hunter numbers in both 2014 and 2019, numbers of hunters increased in 12 states and decreased in 12 states (Table 4). The greatest number of fall turkey hunters was reported in Pennsylvania, whereas Mississippi reported the fewest. Illinois reported the greatest increase (84%) in fall turkey hunters, whereas Pennsylvania reported the greatest decrease (64%). D I S C U S S I O N Post ‐ restoration, Tapley et al. (2005) documented increasing numbers of turkeys and turkey hunters, and concomitant increases in harvest of males during spring seasons. However, Tapley et al. (2011) reported that wild turkey abundance, as well as spring and fall harvests, had declined between 2004 and 2009. Ericksen et al. (2015) T A B L E 2 (Continued) State 2014 a Km 2 2014 a Mile 2 2019 Km 2 2019 Mile 2 Oklahoma 156,604 60,465 156,544 60,442 Oregon 99,579 38,448 N/A N/A Pennsylvania 117,332 45,302 117,332 45,302 Rhode Island 1,813 700 2,753 1,063 South Carolina 56,980 22,000 56,980 22,000 South Dakota 54,871 21,186 N/A N/A Tennessee 103,600 40,000 N/A N/A Texas 373,129 144,066 403,259 155,699 Utah 30,839 11,907 N/A N/A Vermont 24,308 9,385 N/A N/A Virginia 92,890 35,865 92,890 35,865 Washington 48,496 18,724 N/A N/A West Virginia 58,534 22,600 62,755 24,230 Wisconsin 126,909 49,000 N/A N/A Wyoming 46,715 18,037 23,309 9,000 Total 3,883,117 1,499,280 2,875,620 1,110,267 a Taken from Ericksen et al. 2015. b Data either not available or not reported. STATUS OF WILD TURKEYS IN 2019 | 11 of 19 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License T A B L E 3 Estimated number of wild turkeys harvested in spring and fall hunting seasons by state in the United States, 2013 – 2014 and 2018 – 2019, based on survey data submitted from state wildlife agencies. State 2013 – 2014 2018 – 2019 % change Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Alabama N/A a 40,600 N/A N/A 25,652 25,652 N/A − 37 N/A Arizona 1,007 740 1,747 N/A 1,000 1,000 N/A +35 N/A Arkansas NS b 9,122 9,122 NS 8,240 8,240 NS − 10 − 10 California N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Colorado 700 4,100 4,800 N/A 5,200 5,200 N/A +27 N/A Connecticut 107 1,118 1,225 N/A 1,324 1,324 N/A +18 N/A Delaware NS 687 687 NS 565 565 NS − 18 − 18 Florida N/A 19,982 19,982 N/A 20,312 20,312 N/A +2 +2 Georgia NS 44,106 44,106 NS 17,073 17,073 NS − 61 − 61 Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA N/A N/A N/A Idaho 2,000 3,100 5,100 2,562 5,263 7,825 +28 +70 +53 Illinois 1,191 13,513 14,704 1,007 15,190 16,197 − 15 +12 +10 Indiana 615 10,872 11,487 512 12,014 12,526 − 17 +11 +9 Iowa 703 11,401 12,104 440 11,387 11,827 − 37 0 − 2 Kansas 3,600 31,400 35,000 1,275 23,296 24,571 − 65 − 26 − 30 Kentucky 2,678 29,924 32,602 N/A 29,500 29,500 N/A − 1 N/A Louisiana NS 10,100 10,100 NS 3,200 3,200 NS − 68 − 68 Maine 2,182 6,553 8,735 1,780 6,612 8,392 − 18 +1 − 4 Maryland 157 3,334 3,491 91 4,002 4,093 − 42 +20 +17 Massachusetts 200 2,750 2,950 200 2,700 2,900 0 − 2 − 2 Michigan 6,064 31,377 37,441 4,300 30,000 34,300 − 29 − 4 − 8 Minnesota 1,078 11,447 12,525 N/A 10,699 10,699 N/A − 7 N/A Mississippi 50 27,483 27,533 30 25,513 25,543 − 40 − 8 − 7 Missouri 8,477 47,603 56,080 1,952 38,800 40,752 − 77 − 18 − 27 Montana 1,833 2,629 4,462 2,631 3,266 5,897 − 44 − 24 +32 Nebraska 6,748 18,960 25,708 N/A 18,131 18,131 N/A − 4 − 29 Nevada NS 61 61 NS 73 73 NS +20 +20 New Hampshire 855 3,885 4,740 N/A 5,073 5,073 N/A +31 +7 New Jersey 130 3,046 3,176 77 2,763 2,840 − 41 − 9 − 11 New Mexico 335 1,896 2,231 1,249 2,789 4,038 +273 +47 +81 New York 3,300 15,900 19,200 1,549 17,078 18,627 − 53 +7 − 3 North Carolina NS 16,912 16,912 NS 18,730 18,730 NS +11 +11 North Dakota 1,012 1,947 2,959 1,078 1,876 2,954 +7 − 4 0 Ohio 1,037 16,568 17,605 1,054 19,088 20,142 +2 +15 +14 Oklahoma 3,385 22,394 25,779 3,764 21,425 25,189 +11 − 4 − 2 12 of 19 | CHAMBERLAIN ET AL 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License subsequently reported continued declines in wild turkey abundance, with corresponding declines in spring harvest, and a significant reduction in participation in spring hunting. We used the same approach as previous status updates, and found that spring and fall harvest estimates have continued to decline since 2014. Likewise, hunter effort appeared to have declined, but not at a rate commensurate with percentage declines in harvest. Declines in hunter effort and harvest could be explained by changes in season structure and opportunity (i.e., reduced bag limits and season lengths) across some states, but we did not conduct such an analysis as part of this update. We also documented a population decline of ~3% between 2014 and 2019 for consistently reporting states, but 24% of states either did not have or did not provide information in 2019. Despite suggestions that standardization of monitoring methods across states would facilitate more consistent inferences about wild turkey abundance (Byrne et al. 2015), we offer that further progress towards regional or national standardization is needed. Likewise, we strongly encourage continued efforts to ensure consistency and standardization in collection and reporting of hunter effort and harvest data across states or ecoregions. The lack of accurate and reliable methods to estimate and monitor changes in wild turkey abundance has been widely recognized for decades as a factor contributing to uncertainty in management programs (Bailey 1980, Williams and Austin 1988, Healy and Powell 2000). Likewise, the lack of rigorous methods to estimate wild turkey abundance confounds attempts to estimate occupied range because of uncertainties in how wild turkeys disperse and structure themselves across landscapes (Boone and Rhodes 1996, Latch and Rhodes 2005). Indeed, previous authors noted that lack of rigorous abundance data would eventually become problematic as agencies moved beyond restoration efforts, and particularly if populations exhibited declines (Porter et al. 2011). In fact, wild turkey populations have exhibited long ‐ term declines in productivity and abundance, especially in the eastern U.S. (as detailed herein, Byrne et al. 2015, Casalena et al. 2015, Ericksen et al. 2015). These ongoing declines further T A B L E 3 (Continued) State 2013 – 2014 2018 – 2019 % change Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Oregon 692 3,878 4,570 928 5,596 6,524 +34 +44 +43 Pennsylvania 16,755 41,260 58,015 9,219 37,286 46,505 − 45 − 10 − 20 Rhode Island 8 113 121 N/A 270 270 N/A +139 N/A South Carolina NS 19,211 19,211 NS 17,374 17,374 NS − 10 − 10 South Dakota 2,350 5,884 8,234 N/A 5,350 5,350 N/A − 9 N/A Tennessee 1,811 32,586 34,397 360 31,193 31,553 − 80 − 4 − 8 Texas 19,066 19,941 39,007 13,144 18,004 31,148 − 31 − 10 − 20 Utah NS 2,295 2,295 1,678 3,067 4,745 N/A +34 +107 Vermont 608 5,157 5,765 N/A 5,479 5,479 N/A +6 − 5 Virginia 5,351 17,582 22,933 2,363 17,929 20,292 − 56 +2 − 12 Washington 1,150 3,730 4,880 3,093 5,824 8,917 +169 +56 +83 West Virginia 1,014 9,014 10,028 1,113 11,215 12,328 +10 +24 +23 Wisconsin 4,633 37,804 42,437 3,774 38,576 42,350 − 19 +2 0 Wyoming 815 1,963 2,778 1,078 2,506 3,584 +32 +28 +29 Total 103,697 665,928 769,625 62,319 584,421 646,740 − 40 − 12 − 16 a data either not available or not reported. b no season. STATUS OF WILD TURKEYS IN 2019 | 13 of 19 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License T A B L E 4 Estimated number of wild turkey hunters by state in the United States, 2013 – 2014 and 2018 – 2019, based on survey data submitted by state wildlife agencies. State 2013 – 2014 2018 – 2019 % change Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Alabama N/A a 53,100 55,700 N/A 48,194 48,194 N/A − 9 − 13 Arizona 4,104 5,315 9,419 5,000 5,700 10,700 +22 +7 +14 Arkansas NS b 75,000 75,000 NS 117,852 117,852 NS +57 +57 California N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Colorado 5,103 18,307 23,410 N/A 20,000 20,000 N/A +9 − 15 Connecticut 3,849 8,850 12,699 N/A N/A NA N/A N/A N/A Delaware NS 3,117 3,117 NS 3,852 3,852 NS +24 +24 Florida N/A 35,403 35,403 N/A 32,769 32,769 N/A +7 +7 Georgia NS 69,380 69,380 NS 46,995 46,995 NS − 32 − 32 Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA N/A N/A N/A Idaho 4,300 9,800 14,100 4,212 14,792 19,004 − 2 +51 +35 Illinois 34,504 54,436 88,940 63,351 58,580 148,931 +84 +8 +67 Indiana 9,366 59,237 68,603 8,900 60,000 68,900 − 5 +1 0 Iowa 8,272 50,966 69,238 7,500 47,423 54,923 − 9 − 7 − 21 Kansas 8,188 45,415 53,603 4,230 35,436 39,666 − 48 − 22 − 26 Kentucky 2,678 29,924 32,602 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Louisiana NS 26,000 26,000 NS 10,800 10,800 NS − 58 − 58 Maine 19,000 19,000 19,000 N/A 17,000 17,000 N/A − 11 − 11 Maryland 1,700 9,900 11,600 1,400 9,700 11,100 − 18 − 2 − 4 Massachusetts N/A 21,000 21,000 N/A 18,000 18,000 N/A − 14 − 14 Michigan 32,394 103,969 136,363 29,000 85,000 114,000 − 10 − 18 − 16 Minnesota 8,200 56,404 64,604 N/A 46,424 46,424 N/A − 18 − 28 Mississippi 200 47,251 47,451 150 50,000 50,150 − 25 +6 +6 Missouri 14,898 148,913 163,811 9,195 93,742 102,937 − 38 − 37 − 37 Montana 4,359 5,749 10,108 4,619 5,537 10,156 +6 − 4 +1 Nebraska 10,836 34,430 45,266 N/A 21,784 21,784 N/A − 37 − 52 Nevada NS 117 117 NS 189 189 NS +62 +62 New Hampshire 10,000 19,000 29,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New Jersey 870 11,900 12,770 1,000 10,200 11,200 +14 − 14 − 12 New Mexico 2,989 9,284 12,273 3,534 9,532 13,066 +17 − 3 +6 New York 40,000 75,000 115,000 30,000 75,500 105,500 − 29 +1 − 8 North Carolina N/A 67,700 67,700 NS 71,113 71,113 NS +5 +5 North Dakota 2,583 4,535 7,118 2,544 4,755 7,299 − 1 +5 +3 Ohio 8,023 68,959 76,982 9,500 63,604 73,104 +17 − 8 − 5 Oklahoma 16,927 49,331 66,258 17,793 49,651 67,444 +5 +1 +2 14 of 19 | CHAMBERLAIN ET AL 23285540, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1287 by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License highlight the need for continued research that will assist managers with understanding abundance ‐ habitat ‐ harvest relationships at various spatial scales. To illustrate the need to understand wild turkey abundance at meaningful spatial scales across subspecies so that agencies can better manage turkey p