Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wild Turkey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory council hears support and opposition to proposed wild‑turkey control vouchers; some urge more study before allowing sales
Summary
Division recommended mostly beardless control vouchers and expanded free landowner permits to address turkey depredation; the National Wild Turkey Federation urged caution and opposed commodifying vouchers, while local sportsmen supported the proposed changes.
Division staff explained the rationale for the proposed changes to wild‑turkey control permits: vouchers and control permits are intended to address material damage, will be offered principally in the fall and are being designed to be largely beardless (largely hen permits) so landowners lack an incentive to harbor birds for resale. The division also proposed increasing free landowner control permits from two to five (non‑transferable, for immediate family and full‑time employees) and allowing vouchers up to 15 or 10% of offending animals (whichever is less), depending on the case.
At the public-comment portion, Chuck Carpenter, representing the National Wild Turkey Federation, said the federation “supports all the proposed changes that Heather and the division are proposing except for the commodification of the vouchers” and urged the division to let recent incremental rule changes (conservation easement compensation, expanded control tags) be evaluated before allowing voucher sales. He said some landowners already allow public hunters to harvest depredating birds and worried monetizing vouchers could encourage intolerance of turkeys.
Chris Carling, representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, told the council his organization "approve[s] and support[s] the recommendations as presented by the division." Several council members said they favor moving birds to spread populations, noted depredation complaints in the region are low and expressed interest in monitoring outcomes and coordinating implementation with land managers.
Why it matters: the rule changes change how private landowners and communities can manage nuisance turkeys and aim to balance private-property relief and conservation objectives. Council members requested the division continue outreach, watch depredation reports and evaluate results before further changes.
What happens next: Because the council lacked a quorum the advisory body could only offer opinions; the full wildlife board will consider final adoption and any implementation details. Division staff will continue voluntary survey collection and track voucher/permit usage and complaints.
