2022-2023
ALABAMA
HUNTER HARVEST
ANNUAL REPORT
This study was conducted for the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources by Responsive Management
ALABAMA HUNTER HARVEST 2022-2023
2023
Responsive Management
Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director
Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate
Tom Beppler, Senior Research Associate
Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate
Andrea Criscione, Senior Research Associate
Patrick Doherty, Research Associate
Gregory L. Hughes, P.E., Research Associate
Amanda Center, Research Associate
Jeremiah Morris, Survey Center Manager
Alison Lanier, Business Manager
PO Box 1828
Harrisonburg, VA 22801-9500
540/432-1888
Email: [email protected]
www.responsivemanagement.com
Acknowledgment
Responsive Management would like to thank Amy Silvano of the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources for her input, support, and guidance on this project.
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Responsive Management conducted this study for the Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the Department) to determine Alabama
licensed hunters’ participation in hunting and harvest of various species, their method of game
check reporting, and other characteristics of their hunting in Alabama in the 2022-2023
seasons. This marks the sixth annual hunter harvest survey conducted by Responsive
Management for the Department, starting with the 2017-2018 hunting seasons. The study
entailed a scientific, probability-based telephone survey of Alabama licensed hunters.
The researchers chose to use telephones as the preferred sampling mode primarily because
Responsive Management’s past experience on harvest surveys has shown that license holders
who do not actively participate in hunting or who do not successfully harvest an animal are less
likely to respond to a mail or online survey than to a telephone survey, as there is more effort
involved in responding via mail or online. Mail and online surveys, therefore, obtain more avid
samples than do telephone surveys because hunters who did not hunt or harvest will readily
tell an interviewer verbally that they did not do so but are much less motivated to answer even
a single survey question on paper and mail it or go to a web address and respond online. Thus,
harvest surveys performed via mail or online have an inherent risk of overestimating harvest
because of the decreased response from those who did not hunt and/or harvest during the
season. Additional reasons are detailed in the body of the report.
Responsive Management, in collaboration with the Department, developed the telephone
survey questionnaire based on the aforementioned previous surveys conducted for the
Department from 2018 to 2022. Responsive Management computer coded the survey for its
computer-assisted telephone interviewing system.
The Department provided the sample of Alabama licensed hunters for this study. The sample
will not be used in any other way by Responsive Management; once surveys are completed,
Responsive Management does not keep and maintain license databases. The survey was
conducted in July and August 2023. Responsive Management obtained 3,242 completed
interviews with Alabama licensed hunters, 2,932 of whom went hunting.
ii Responsive Management
HUNTING DEER: PARTICIPATION, LOCATION, TYPES OF LAND, EQUIPMENT, DAYS, HARVEST,
AND REPORTING COMPLIANCE
There were more than 233,000 hunters who hunted deer during the 2022-2023 deer
seasons in Alabama.
These hunters went hunting for more than 5.4 million days seeking deer.
The harvest of deer numbered nearly 309,000 during the 2022-2023 seasons.
Deer Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Deer /
Equipment /
Land / Deer
Type
Number of
Hunters
Hunter-Days
Number
Harvested
Deer-All 233,450 5,439,545 308,729
Archery 100,021 1,574,418 66,931
Modern 208,853 3,704,334 231,965
Primitive 20,436 160,251 10,078
Private Land 4,952,426 292,181
WMAs 262,037 9,205
Other Public 213,060 7,342
Buck 141,749
Doe 160,313
WMAs refers to Wildlife Management Areas.
Overall, 87% of harvesters reported all of their deer. Further analysis shows that 87% of all
deer that were harvested by licensed hunters were reported.
Almost three quarters of those who harvested deer in 2022-2023 (72%) used a commercial
processor to process at least some of their deer in the past 3 years.
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 iii
HUNTING TURKEY: PARTICIPATION, LOCATION, SEASONS, EQUIPMENT, DAYS, HARVEST, AND
REPORTING COMPLIANCE
In Alabama in the 2022-2023 seasons, there were over 70,000 hunters who hunted turkey.
These turkey hunters spent nearly 753,000 days hunting turkey.
Turkey hunters harvested more than 47,000 turkeys in the 2022-2023 seasons in
Alabama.
Turkey Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Turkey /
Equipment /
Season /
Turkey Type
Number of Hunters Hunter-Days Number Harvested
Turkey-All 70,359 752,783 47,131
Archery 11,933
Modern 714,404
Primitive 26,446
Fall 1,963 17,975 47
Spring 68,756 734,808 47,084
Jakes 3,485
Gobblers 43,646
Overall, 92% of turkey harvesters reported all of their harvest. Further analysis shows that
91% of all turkeys that were harvested by licensed hunters were reported.
iv Responsive Management
TYPE OF GAME CHECK METHOD USED
Both deer and turkey hunters use the phone app option most commonly when they use
Alabama’s Game Check System to report their harvested deer or turkey: 85% of deer
harvesters and 89% of turkey harvesters did so in the 2022-2023 deer and turkey seasons.
HUNTING QUAIL: PARTICIPATION, TYPES OF QUAIL HUNTED, DAYS, AND HARVEST
More than 9,400 quail hunters, hunting for more than 55,000 days, harvested nearly
371,000 quail in the 2022-2023 season.
Quail Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Quail /
Quail Type
Number of
Hunters
Hunter-Days
Number
Harvested
Quail-All 9,427 55,350 370,665
Wild 2,765 13,252 27,640
Pen-Raised 6,662 42,098 343,026
85
5
8
4
89
5
6
3
0 20406080100
The phone app
The telephone other than the app
The website
Do not know / None of these
Percent
Multiple Responses Allowed
For the deer/turkey that you reported, tell me all the
game check methods you used. For any of the
deer/turkey, did you use...? (Among those
who harvested.)
Deer (n=1352)
Turkey (n=204)
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 v
HUNTING DOVE: PARTICIPATION, SPLIT HUNTED, DAYS, AND HARVEST
Dove hunters numbered nearly 66,000 in the 2022-2023 season, hunting about 263,000
days and harvesting nearly 1.5 million dove.
Dove Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Number of
Hunters
Hunter-Days
Number
Harvested
Dove-All 65,648 263,019 1,475,191
First Split 196,957 1,121,051
Remaining
Splits
58,856 322,819
Unknown
Splits
31,321
HUNTING OTHER SPECIES: PARTICIPATION, DAYS, AND HARVEST
Data regarding hunting of other species are shown in the tables below. The most popular of
these other species among hunters in the 2022-2023 seasons were wild hog, duck, coyote,
and squirrel, each hunted by over 20,000 hunters.
Small Game Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Species Number of Hunters Hunter-Days Number Harvested
Bobcat 3,337 3,233 2,451
Coot 1,469 4,455 12,838
Coyote 23,154 122,508 74,626
Duck 29,893 312,652 525,867
Fox 735 4,148 1,343
Goose 7,536 43,006 61,527
Opossum 2,461 4,851 8,363
Rabbit 10,043 57,629 47,438
Raccoon 6,622 89,079 35,047
Snipe 341 481 1,316
Squirrel 22,640 122,715 225,927
Wild hog 37,061 252,717 335,421
Woodcock 1,029 4,005 2,825
vi Responsive Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 1
Use of Telephones for the Survey ......................................................................................... 1
Questionnaire Design ........................................................................................................... 1
Survey Sample ...................................................................................................................... 2
Telephone Survey Data Collection and Quality Control ........................................................ 2
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4
Sampling Error ...................................................................................................................... 4
Hunting Deer: Participation, Location, Types of Land, Equipment, Days, Harvest, and
Reporting Compliance ............................................................................................................. 6
Hunting Turkey: Participation, Location, Seasons, Equipment, Days,
Harvest, and Reporting Compliance ...................................................................................... 11
Type of Game Check Method Used ............................................................................................. 14
Hunting Quail: Participation, Types of Quail Hunted, Days, and Harvest .................................... 15
Hunting Dove: Participation, Split Hunted, Days, Harvest, and Willingness to Travel ................. 16
Hunting Other Species: Participation, Types of Land, Days, and Harvest .................................... 17
Trapping ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Trends ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Demographic Data ...................................................................................................................... 29
About Responsive Management ................................................................................................. 30
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Responsive Management conducted this study for the Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the Department) to determine Alabama
licensed hunters’ participation in hunting and harvest of various species, their method of game
check reporting, and other characteristics of their hunting in Alabama in the 2022-2023
seasons. This marks the sixth annual hunter harvest survey conducted by Responsive
Management for the Department, starting with the 2017-2018 hunting seasons. The study
entailed a scientific, probability-based telephone survey of Alabama licensed hunters. Specific
aspects of the research methodology are discussed below.
USE OF TELEPHONES FOR THE SURVEY
The researchers chose to use telephones as the preferred sampling mode for several reasons.
Responsive Management’s past experience on harvest surveys has shown that license holders
who do not actively participate in hunting or who do not successfully harvest an animal are less
likely to respond to a mail or online survey than to a telephone survey, as there is more effort
involved in responding via mail or online. Mail and online surveys, therefore, obtain more avid
samples than do telephone surveys because hunters who did not hunt or harvest will readily
tell an interviewer verbally that they did not do so but are much less motivated to answer even
a single survey question on paper and mail it or go to a web address and respond online. Thus,
harvest surveys performed via mail or online have an inherent risk of overestimating harvest
because of the decreased response from those who did not hunt and/or harvest during the
season.
Another important reason for choosing telephones as the preferred survey mode is that mail
and online surveys systematically exclude those who have difficulty reading. In 2016, the U.S.
Department of Education’s National Institute of Literacy estimated that 43% of the general
population of the United States cannot read beyond a “basic level,” suggesting that many might
be reticent to complete a mail or online survey they must read to themselves. Additionally,
people with poor or limited internet service or who are not comfortable with technology may
be hesitant to complete a survey online. However, telephone surveys allow respondents who
cannot or will not respond to a mail or online survey to participate. In a telephone survey, a live
interviewer reads the survey questions, clarifies them if necessary, and assists the respondent
with completing the survey, making it an excellent option to reduce bias and increase response
to the survey.
The last reason that the researchers chose to use telephones for this survey is because
telephone surveys have fewer negative effects on the environment than do mail surveys
because of the reduced use of paper, reduced energy consumption for delivering and returning
the questionnaires, and reduced quantity of material to be disposed of after the survey.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Responsive Management, in collaboration with the Department, developed the telephone
survey questionnaire based on the aforementioned previous surveys conducted for the
Department from 2018 to 2022. Responsive Management computer coded the survey for its
2 Responsive Management
computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system. An important aspect of this CATI
system is that the computer controls which questions are asked, but each telephone survey is
administered by a live interviewer. Responsive Management conducted pre-tests of the
questionnaire to ensure proper wording, flow, and logic in the survey and to ensure that the
survey was updated for the 2022-2023 hunting seasons.
Responsive Management also developed an online version of the questionnaire that was given
to those who had cell phones and who could not be reached after repeated call attempts, as
explained further on. This version was the same as the telephone version with slight wording
adjustments to account for the online mode. Note that the online survey was closed, meaning it
was available only to respondents who were specifically selected for the survey; it was offered
only to those who were in the telephone sample.
Responsive Management conducted pre-tests of the questionnaires to ensure proper wording,
flow, and logic in the survey. The survey included screener questions to confirm that hunters
were 16 years old or older and were licensed to hunt in the 2022-2023 seasons. A further
question asked if they had hunted in Alabama during the 2022-2023 hunting seasons to
determine the participation rate, and those who had hunted were then given the full survey.
SURVEY SAMPLE
The Department provided the sample of Alabama licensed hunters for this study. The sample
will not be used in any other way by Responsive Management; once surveys are completed,
Responsive Management does not keep and maintain license databases. The sample was
stratified based on residents/nonresidents and by lifetime license holders/non-lifetime license
holders (i.e., lifetime versus any other type of hunting license). Within each of these
sub-samples, a probability-based selection process ensured that each eligible hunter had an
equal chance of being selected for the survey. All groups were then proportioned properly
during the data analyses, using the proportions in the entire dataset of license holders
(resident vs. non-resident, and lifetime license holder vs. any other license holder).
TELEPHONE SURVEY DATA COLLECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL
The interviews were conducted using Responsive Management’s CATI system, which utilizes
software for telephone data collection. The survey data were entered into the computer as
each interview was being conducted, eliminating manual data entry after the completion of the
survey and the concomitant data entry errors that may occur with manual data entry. The
survey instrument was programmed so that the CATI system branched, coded, and substituted
phrases in the survey based on previous responses to ensure the integrity and consistency of
the data collection. The software also allowed for error checks during the interview to help
ensure that the data were accurate and valid.
For quality control of the telephone surveys, Survey Center Managers monitored interviews in
real time and provided feedback to the interviewers. To ensure that the data collected by
telephone are of the highest quality, the interviewers are trained through lectures, role-playing,
and video training, according to the standards established by the American Association for
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 3
Public Opinion Research. The Survey Center Managers conducted briefings with the
interviewers prior to the administration of this survey. Interviewers were instructed on type of
study, study goals and objectives, handling of survey questions, interview length, termination
points and qualifiers for participation, interviewer instructions within the survey questionnaire,
reading of the survey questions, skip patterns, and probing and clarifying techniques necessary
for specific questions on the survey questionnaires, thereby ensuring the integrity of the data.
Telephone surveying times were Monday through Friday from noon to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday
from noon to 7:00 p.m., local time. A five-callback design was used to maintain the
representativeness of the sample, to avoid bias toward people easy to reach by telephone, and
to provide an equal opportunity for all hunters to participate. When a hunter could not be
reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of the week and at
different times of the day.
When potential cell phone respondents could not be reached after repeated call attempts, they
were sent a text message from an Alabama number inviting them to take the survey online as a
self-administered survey. The text provided a link to the online survey that had an introduction
with more information and instructions to begin the survey. This helped to raise the response
rate. A copy of the text and online introduction are shown below.
Text Message Sent to Cell Phone Nonrespondents to Encourage Participation in the Survey
Hello [name]. My name is Amanda with Responsive Management. Alabama Division of Wildlife and
Freshwater Fisheries would like your opinion on your hunting in Alabama. Please consider taking this
survey: [survey link].
Online Survey Introduction for Cell Phone Nonrespondents Who Were Provided the Link
The Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries is conducting its annual hunting study to get
feedback from hunters in order to better understand hunting participation, experiences, preferences,
and opinions in the state.
As one of the hunters selected to participate in the study, your answers are very important to this study
and to future management decisions.
Your answers will be kept completely confidential and will not be associated with your name or contact
information in any way. The survey will only take 5-10 minutes, based on your level of activity.
Responsive Management, an independent research firm that specializes in natural resource and fish and
wildlife issues, has been contracted by the Division to conduct this study. If you need technical
assistance with the survey, please contact Responsive Management via email at
Thank you for your time and willingness to participate.
Please click "Next" or the arrow below to begin the survey.
4 Responsive Management
The survey was conducted in July and August 2023. After the surveys were obtained, the Survey
Center Managers and statisticians checked each completed survey to ensure clarity and
completeness. Responsive Management obtained 3,242 completed interviews with Alabama
licensed hunters, 2,932 of whom went hunting.
DATA ANALYSIS
The data were collected and weighted by license type. The sample was divided into three
distinct groups:
Lifetime license holders.
Resident non-lifetime license holders.
Nonresident non-lifetime license holders.
Survey interviews from these groups were then obtained in their proper proportions. Once the
data were collected, response rates were computed for each of these groups individually, and
these were used to estimate the total number of participants and to weight the final data, as
lifetime licensees had a considerably lower rate of participation in hunting than the other
license categories.
The analysis of the data was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics as well as proprietary software
developed by Responsive Management. The results were weighted by the aforementioned
stratification variables so that the overall sample was representative of Alabama licensed
hunters as a whole. As indicated, residents and nonresidents were in their proper proportions,
as were lifetime license holders and non-lifetime license holders.
The data analysis for this survey included a trends analysis, in which the results of this survey
are shown alongside those from the previous surveys for comparison. It is important to note
that an additional license, the Resident Bait Privilege License, was added to the database of
licensed Alabama hunters in the 2021 survey (for the 2020-2021 seasons) and subsequent
years. Because this additional license added nearly 30,000 hunters to the overall sample,
comparisons of hunting and harvest numbers before and after this addition should take the
change into consideration.
SAMPLING ERROR
Throughout this report, findings of the telephone survey are reported at a 95% confidence
interval. For the entire sample of Alabama licensed hunters, the sampling error is at most plus
or minus 1.71 percentage points. This means that if the survey were conducted 100 times on
different samples that were selected in the same way, the findings of 95 out of the 100 surveys
would fall within plus or minus 1.71 percentage points of each other. Sampling error was
calculated using the standard formula described on the following page, with a sample size of
3,242 and an estimated population size of 305,135 Alabama licensed hunters.
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 5
Sampling Error Equation
96.1
1
25.
25.
p
s
p
N
N
N
B
Derived from formula: p. 206 in Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Note: This is a simplified version of the formula that calculates the maximum sampling error using a 50:50 split
(the most conservative calculation because a 50:50 split would give maximum variation).
Where: B = maximum sampling error (as decimal)
N
P
= population size (i.e., total number who could be surveyed)
N
S
= sample size (i.e., total number of respondents surveyed)
6 Responsive Management
HUNTING DEER: PARTICIPATION, LOCATION, TYPES OF LAND,
EQUIPMENT, DAYS, HARVEST, AND REPORTING COMPLIANCE
There were more than 233,000 hunters who hunted deer during the 2022-2023 deer
seasons in Alabama.
These hunters went hunting for more than 5.4 million days seeking deer.
The harvest of deer numbered nearly 309,000 during the 2022-2023 seasons.
Hunters most commonly hunted deer with modern firearms: this weapon type
accounted for the most deer hunters, days, and harvest. This was followed, at about half
the number of hunters, by archery equipment, with primitive firearms being the least
used.
Most deer hunting and harvest was on private lands.
o County data are shown, as well.
Deer Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Deer /
Equipment /
Land / Deer
Type
Number of Hunters Hunter-Days Number Harvested
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Deer-All 233,450 230,493 236,407 5,439,545 5,194,895 5,684,195 308,729 291,311 326,147
Archery 100,021 95,413 104,630 1,574,418 1,445,821 1,703,016 66,931 53,893 79,969
Modern 208,853 205,038 212,668 3,704,334 3,524,788 3,883,880 231,965 218,145 245,786
Primitive 20,436 17,892 22,980 160,251 118,502 202,000 10,078 241 19,915
Private Land 4,952,426 4,719,555 5,185,297 292,181 275,193 309,169
WMAs 262,037 207,942 316,131 9,205 0 18,856
Other Public 213,060 162,182 263,938 7,342 0 15,566
Buck 141,749 132,517 150,982
Doe 160,313 147,783 172,842
WMAs refers to Wildlife Management Areas.
Deer Hunting: Mean Days, Deer Harvest per Hunter, Days per Harvest, and Buck-Doe
Percentages (2022-2023)
Mean Days
per Hunter
Deer Harvest
per Hunter
Days per
Harvest
Percentage
Deer Overall 23.3 1.32 17.6
Archery 0.67 16.0
Modern 1.11 23.5
Primitive 0.49 15.9
Buck 45.9
Doe 54.1
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 7
Deer Hunting: Harvest of Bucks, Does, and Fawns by County (2022-2023)
County
Harvest of Bucks Harvest of Does Harvest of Fawns
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Autauga 2,852 1,638 4,066 3,248 1,413 5,083 140 0 360
Baldwin 2,575 1,410 3,740 6,400 3,500 9,301 338 0 723
Barbour 6,258 4,280 8,235 5,309 2,937 7,681 47 0 173
Bibb 3,199 1,768 4,631 2,033 750 3,316 200 0 463
Blount 1,002 261 1,743 1,291 279 2,303 47 0 173
Bullock 3,144 1,457 4,830 6,288 3,195 9,381 147 0 372
Butler 3,544 2,042 5,046 2,549 1,126 3,973 47 0 173
Calhoun 1,231 465 1,996 1,215 298 2,133 185 0 585
Chambers 2,860 1,557 4,163 3,717 1,832 5,602 590 140 1,039
Cherokee 842 165 1,518 594 72 1,116 94 0 273
Chilton 1,091 310 1,872 2,184 1,032 3,335 100 0 286
Choctaw 1,311 486 2,136 1,389 296 2,482 0 0 0
Clarke 2,919 1,573 4,265 2,438 997 3,879 294 0 706
Clay 1,113 220 2,007 922 29 1,815 341 0 807
Cleburne 1,490 208 2,771 541 6 1,076 0 0 0
Coffee 2,562 1,365 3,760 2,389 410 4,369 0 0 0
Colbert 1,305 408 2,201 1,029 203 1,855 100 0 286
Conecuh 1,879 882 2,876 3,544 1,267 5,822 0 0 0
Coosa 1,817 772 2,862 2,707 1,303 4,111 100 0 286
Covington 3,168 1,724 4,611 2,309 782 3,835 140 0 424
Crenshaw 2,917 1,689 4,144 4,883 2,548 7,217 47 0 173
Cullman 2,590 1,395 3,785 1,144 417 1,871 0 0 0
Dale 3,537 1,894 5,180 2,162 752 3,572 0 0 0
Dallas 1,371 593 2,150 3,489 1,640 5,337 0 0 0
DeKalb 1,360 487 2,234 1,880 790 2,970 100 0 286
Elmore 3,448 1,286 5,610 3,093 1,160 5,025 100 0 286
Escambia 1,884 770 2,999 2,276 901 3,651 0 0 0
Etowah 937 148 1,727 1,131 79 2,183 0 0 0
Fayette 1,236 343 2,129 546 -24 1,115 0 0 0
Franklin 1,603 282 2,924 1,280 546 2,014 94 0 347
Geneva 1,834 876 2,793 1,399 332 2,466 0 0 0
Greene 1,436 0 2,874 1,106 372 1,840 0 0 0
Hale 546 113 978 1,347 275 2,419 100 0 286
Henry 2,113 875 3,350 1,905 572 3,238 441 0 1,003
Houston 837 170 1,505 1,383 325 2,441 187 0 497
Jackson 5,434 3,216 7,652 4,015 2,054 5,975 0 0 0
Jefferson 1,002 216 1,788 902 138 1,666 100 0 286
Lamar 995 190 1,800 1,932 585 3,279 0 0 0
Lauderdale 1,383 500 2,266 2,770 1,063 4,477 100 0 286
Lawrence 1,671 832 2,509 788 153 1,423 489 42 936
Lee 3,433 1,575 5,290 2,431 1,281 3,581 147 0 372
Limestone 993 254 1,732 2,238 836 3,639 200 0 463
Lowndes 2,999 1,641 4,357 2,462 1,294 3,630 94 0 347
Macon 1,990 983 2,997 4,018 1,510 6,525 0 0 0
Madison 3,248 764 5,733 2,640 1,193 4,088 0 0 0
Marengo 1,961 996 2,925 2,885 1,394 4,376 0 0 0
Marion 1,291 486 2,096 3,318 1,379 5,256 96 0 277
Marshall 966 240 1,693 688 108 1,268 0 0 0
Mobile 2,199 814 3,584 2,094 1,002 3,186 0 0 0
Monroe 2,714 1,329 4,099 2,672 1,141 4,203 47 0 173
Montgomery 2,908 1,490 4,325 3,609 1,769 5,449 0 0 0
Morgan 1,349 575 2,123 795 103 1,487 0 0 0
Perry 3,007 1,632 4,383 2,553 1,130 3,976 0 0 0
Pickens 888 278 1,499 1,507 366 2,649 0 0 0
Pike 2,694 1,408 3,980 2,515 1,256 3,775 147 0 372
Randolph 2,085 1,092 3,078 2,132 944 3,320 94 0 273
Russell 2,733 1,543 3,924 5,053 2,670 7,437 194 0 451
8 Responsive Management
Deer Hunting: Harvest of Bucks, Does, and Fawns by County (2022-2023) (continued)
County
Harvest of Bucks Harvest of Does Harvest of Fawns
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
St. Clair 501 11 991 401 30 772 47 0 173
Shelby 1,196 456 1,935 1,944 925 2,963 200 0 571
Sumter 1,084 199 1,969 1,037 185 1,890 0 0 0
Talladega 793 272 1,314 893 131 1,655 47 0 173
Tallapoosa 2,146 979 3,314 4,272 2,336 6,207 100 0 286
Tuscaloosa 2,605 1,271 3,939 2,552 1,224 3,879 100 0 286
Walker 1,596 583 2,610 2,092 684 3,501 200 0 463
Washington 1,650 697 2,602 2,233 1,006 3,461 0 0 0
Wilcox 2,084 1,099 3,068 3,370 1,412 5,329 147 0 372
Winston 1,977 906 3,048 3,141 1,127 5,155 0 0 0
Unknown 3,812 2,359 5,266 3,053 1,656 4,450 341 0 682
Deer Hunting: Days by County (2022-2023)
County
Days
Estimate Lower Bound Upper Bound
Autauga 129,899 88,946 170,853
Baldwin 162,278 117,118 207,437
Barbour 166,819 114,889 218,750
Bibb 89,309 47,366 131,251
Blount 41,766 18,881 64,650
Bullock 99,686 64,816 134,555
Butler 79,686 49,352 110,020
Calhoun 89,102 42,921 135,282
Chambers 111,084 75,943 146,225
Cherokee 45,961 23,552 68,370
Chilton 67,105 37,290 96,919
Choctaw 58,020 25,923 90,117
Clarke 99,898 63,462 136,334
Clay 49,188 22,112 76,265
Cleburne 81,146 32,580 129,712
Coffee 86,641 53,133 120,148
Colbert 53,415 27,471 79,358
Conecuh 81,085 44,703 117,466
Coosa 91,016 50,690 131,342
Covington 122,668 80,144 165,193
Crenshaw 90,151 55,055 125,247
Cullman 86,332 47,397 125,268
Dale 108,026 70,141 145,911
Dallas 68,154 44,641 91,666
DeKalb 76,941 31,632 122,251
Elmore 97,506 61,531 133,481
Escambia 71,436 41,165 101,708
Etowah 51,108 24,080 78,136
Fayette 32,717 12,055 53,380
Franklin 61,206 30,991 91,420
Geneva 43,882 25,341 62,423
Greene 39,299 17,230 61,369
Hale 34,921 15,496 54,345
Henry 77,069 41,663 112,475
Houston 47,184 23,265 71,103
Jackson 166,418 106,624 226,211
Jefferson 59,053 36,089 82,017
Lamar 33,432 14,201 52,662
Lauderdale 96,687 50,432 142,943
Lawrence 68,954 38,600 99,308
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 9
Deer Hunting: Days by County (2022-2023) (continued)
County
Days
Estimate Lower Bound Upper Bound
Lee 120,139 78,488 161,791
Limestone 70,586 34,926 106,246
Lowndes 67,331 41,223 93,438
Macon 110,049 57,305 162,794
Madison 72,465 43,233 101,697
Marengo 70,806 41,833 99,778
Marion 63,854 35,268 92,440
Marshall 49,155 22,661 75,649
Mobile 89,014 50,283 127,746
Monroe 94,417 53,888 134,946
Montgomery 99,065 61,271 136,860
Morgan 58,519 33,438 83,599
Perry 61,433 37,652 85,215
Pickens 45,275 13,816 76,733
Pike 105,149 65,435 144,862
Randolph 86,172 48,603 123,740
Russell 114,670 79,196 150,144
St. Clair 30,872 13,440 48,305
Shelby 77,946 51,964 103,927
Sumter 44,058 21,842 66,274
Talladega 46,802 24,097 69,506
Tallapoosa 116,230 74,430 158,030
Tuscaloosa 80,414 45,122 115,706
Walker 88,321 52,638 124,005
Washington 119,259 54,551 183,967
Wilcox 98,565 60,436 136,694
Winston 107,839 64,688 150,990
Unknown 94,607 67,649 121,564
The matrix below and the graph on the following page show compliance data among those
who harvested deer; note that “do not know” responses were excluded. Overall, 87% of
harvesters reported all of their deer, as represented by the green-shaded cells and the
green bar on the graph. Further analysis shows that 87% of all deer that were harvested by
licensed hunters were reported.
Compliance With Deer Reporting Requirements (Cells Show Percentage Out of All Those Who
Harvested Excluding “Do Not Know” Responses)
Deer Reported 0 Reported 1 Reported 2 Reported 3 Reported 4 Reported 5 Reported 6
Harvested 1 1.7 43.6
Harvested 2 0.6 1.8 20.9
Harvested 3 0.6 1.0 1.0 11.7
Harvested 4 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.7 5.8
Harvested 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 2.1
Harvested 6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8
Reported none Reported some Reported all
Harvested
More Than 6
0.1 1.8 2.2
10 Responsive Management
Almost three quarters of those who harvested deer in 2022-2023 (72%) used a commercial
processor to process at least some of their deer in the past 3 years. (The question has a
3-year timeframe but was asked only of those who harvested in 2022-2023 so as to ensure
that the respondent had harvested some deer before being asked the question.)
87
10
3
0 20406080100
Percentage of harvesters who
checked all
Percentage of harvesters who
checked some
Percentage of harvesters who
checked none
Percent (n=1495)
How many of the deer you harvested during the
season did you report using the Alabama Game Check
System? (Of those who harvested deer.)
72
27
1
0 20406080100
Yes
No
Do not know
Percent (n=1563)
Did you use a commercial processor to process any deer you
harvested in the past 3 years? (Of those who harvested deer
in 2022-2023.)
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 11
HUNTING TURKEY: PARTICIPATION, LOCATION, SEASONS, EQUIPMENT,
DAYS, HARVEST, AND REPORTING COMPLIANCE
In Alabama in the 2022-2023 seasons, there were over 70,000 hunters who hunted turkey.
These turkey hunters spent nearly 753,000 days hunting turkey.
Turkey hunters harvested more than 47,000 turkeys in the 2022-2023 seasons in
Alabama.
Modern firearms were the most popular way to hunt turkey, accounting for most of the
days of turkey hunting.
o Among turkey hunters who used archery equipment, 30% used a crossbow.
By far, the spring season accounted for most of the hunters, days, and harvest of
turkeys.
o County data are also shown.
Turkey Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Turkey /
Equipment /
Season /
Turkey Type
Number of Hunters Hunter-Days Number Harvested
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Turkey-All 70,359 66,154 74,563 752,783 679,498 826,068 47,131 40,936 53,326
Archery 11,933 3,523 20,344
Modern 714,404 643,534 785,274
Primitive 26,446 10,296 42,595
Fall 1,963 1,145 2,781 17,975 7,349 28,601 47 0 2,602
Spring 68,756 64,583 72,930 734,808 662,268 807,348 47,084 39,544 54,624
Jakes 3,485 1,956 5,013
Gobblers 43,646 38,026 49,266
Turkey Hunting: Mean Days, Turkey Harvest per
Hunter, and Days per Harvest (2022-2023)
Mean Days
per Hunter
Turkey Harvest
per Hunter
Days per
Harvest
Turkey Overall 10.7 0.67 16.0
Fall 9.2 0.02 * 384.4
Spring 10.7 0.68 15.6
* The relatively low number of hunters hunting in the fall
combined with their low success rate produces a relatively
large number of days per harvest.
30
70
0 20406080100
Yes
No
Percent (n=21)
You said you hunted turkey with
archery equipment during the
2022-2023 season. Did you hunt
with a crossbow?
12 Responsive Management
Turkey Hunting: Harvest and Days by County (2022-2023)
County
Harvest of Turkeys Days of Turkey Hunting
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Autauga 1,957 706 3,209 17,106 6,853 27,359
Baldwin 394 0 880 29,350 15,850 42,849
Barbour 4,479 1,892 7,066 23,110 12,258 33,962
Bibb 0 0 0 1,680 340 3,020
Blount 334 0 888 4,074 0 9,175
Bullock 1,275 284 2,266 13,700 5,536 21,864
Butler 719 104 1,334 10,517 2,947 18,087
Calhoun 701 0 1,551 10,420 0 22,025
Chambers 588 9 1,166 13,075 5,759 20,392
Cherokee 701 0 1,551 10,347 2,217 18,476
Chilton 882 0 1,837 15,037 3,791 26,282
Choctaw 748 0 1,883 5,825 1,546 10,103
Clarke 1,137 224 2,050 22,153 4,128 40,178
Clay 394 0 846 7,415 232 14,597
Cleburne 200 0 463 8,527 0 17,277
Coffee 568 0 1,286 9,414 2,105 16,722
Colbert 883 125 1,641 15,566 4,662 26,470
Conecuh 1,126 317 1,935 8,054 2,018 14,090
Coosa 2,216 887 3,544 28,013 13,825 42,202
Covington 1,215 297 2,133 12,499 3,778 21,220
Crenshaw 232 0 566 4,872 867 8,877
Cullman 541 0 1,133 10,958 4,104 17,812
Dale 1,409 456 2,362 22,705 11,223 34,188
Dallas 240 0 528 10,462 2,557 18,366
DeKalb 140 0 520 7,014 0 15,050
Elmore 775 122 1,427 10,574 1,790 19,358
Escambia 401 0 855 6,318 1,561 11,075
Etowah 0 0 0 2,705 0 5,510
Fayette 0 0 0 1,703 0 3,776
Franklin 701 87 1,316 11,148 3,494 18,802
Geneva 147 0 372 3,135 686 5,583
Greene 792 55 1,528 14,326 3,000 25,652
Hale 301 0 715 7,851 1,083 14,618
Henry 574 0 1,274 10,305 2,335 18,276
Houston 47 0 173 2,852 0 6,616
Jackson 937 42 1,833 27,889 9,310 46,469
Jefferson 648 0 1,302 11,088 2,305 19,871
Lamar 0 0 0 1,293 0 3,192
Lauderdale 476 0 1,016 5,887 972 10,801
Lawrence 347 0 781 10,217 4,292 16,142
Lee 427 5 850 14,635 6,793 22,477
Limestone 100 0 286 4,612 1,478 7,747
Lowndes 240 0 528 10,880 5,325 16,434
Macon 1,313 509 2,117 19,267 9,646 28,888
Madison 835 137 1,533 10,634 4,185 17,082
Marengo 628 15 1,241 13,899 2,802 24,997
Marion 539 0 1,189 10,306 1,433 19,180
Marshall 301 0 622 6,613 1,471 11,754
Mobile 200 0 463 4,108 0 8,735
Monroe 483 2 964 16,537 5,518 27,556
Montgomery 1,234 248 2,220 13,929 4,845 23,013
Morgan 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perry 147 0 372 7,221 0 14,986
Pickens 200 0 571 759 0 1,823
Pike 788 206 1,370 16,219 6,460 25,979
Randolph 701 33 1,370 10,407 1,629 19,185
Russell 977 346 1,608 19,878 11,002 28,754
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 13
Turkey Hunting: Harvest and Days by County (2022-2023) (continued)
County
Harvest of Turkeys Days of Turkey Hunting
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
St. Clair 100 0 286 1,603 0 3,766
Shelby 394 0 803 13,869 5,888 21,849
Sumter 441 0 910 1,512 213 2,811
Talladega 191 0 553 3,005 0 6,874
Tallapoosa 1,336 389 2,283 16,869 8,386 25,352
Tuscaloosa 641 21 1,262 14,060 3,511 24,608
Walker 743 239 1,248 16,539 6,666 26,413
Washington 802 0 1,631 11,111 3,077 19,146
Wilcox 2,118 541 3,694 16,110 7,229 24,991
Winston 1,095 49 2,142 21,394 3,568 39,221
The turkey harvest reporting compliance data are shown in the matrix and graph below; the
matrix and graph exclude “do not know” responses. Overall, 92% of turkey harvesters
reported all of their harvest, as represented by the green-shaded cells and the green bar on
the graph. Further analysis shows that 91% of all turkeys that were harvested by licensed
hunters were reported.
Compliance With Turkey Reporting Requirements (Cells Show Percentage Out of All Those
Who Harvested Excluding “Do Not Know” Responses)
Reported 0 Reported 1 Reported 2 Reported 3 Reported 4
Harvested 1 1.8 54.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Harvested 2 0.7 1.5 21.8 0.0 0.0
Harvested 3 0.7 0.4 0.4 8.9 0.0
Harvested 4 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.4 7.0
92
5
3
0 20406080100
Percentage of harvesters
who checked all
Percentage of harvesters
who checked some
Percentage of harvesters
who checked none
Percent (n=295)
How many of the turkeys you harvested during the season did
you report using the Alabama Game Check System? (Of those
who harvested turkey.)
14 Responsive Management
TYPE OF GAME CHECK METHOD USED
Both deer and turkey hunters use the phone app option most commonly when they use
Alabama’s Game Check System to report their harvested deer or turkey: 85% of deer
harvesters and 89% of turkey harvesters did so in the 2022-2023 deer and turkey seasons.
85
5
8
4
89
5
6
3
0 20406080100
The phone app
The telephone other than the app
The website
Do not know / None of these
Percent
Multiple Responses Allowed
For the deer/turkey that you reported, tell me all
the game check methods you used. For any of
the deer/turkey, did you use...? (Among those
who harvested.)
Deer (n=1352)
Turkey (n=204)
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 15
HUNTING QUAIL: PARTICIPATION, TYPES OF QUAIL HUNTED, DAYS,
AND HARVEST
More than 9,400 quail hunters, hunting for more than 55,000 days, harvested nearly
371,000 quail in the 2022-2023 season.
Quail Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Quail /
Quail Type
Number of Hunters Hunter-Days Number Harvested
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate Lower Bound Upper Bound Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Quail-All 9,427 7,660 11,194 55,350 38,139 72,562 370,665 0 746,340
Wild 2,765 1,796 3,734 13,252 4,985 21,519 27,640 10,572 44,708
Pen-Raised 6,662 5,169 8,156 42,098 28,021 56,175 343,026 182,986 503,065
Quail Hunting: Mean Days and Days per
Harvest (2022-2023)
Quail
Mean Days per Hunter Days per Harvest
5.9 0.15
16 Responsive Management
HUNTING DOVE: PARTICIPATION, SPLIT HUNTED, DAYS, HARVEST, AND
WILLINGNESS TO TRAVEL
Dove hunters numbered nearly 66,000 in the 2022-2023 season, hunting about 263,000
days and harvesting nearly 1.5 million dove.
Dove Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Dove / Split
Number of Hunters Hunter-Days Number Harvested
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Dove-All 65,648 61,537 69,759 263,019 228,253 297,784 1,475,191 1,307,978 1,642,404
First Split 196,957 166,999 226,915 1,121,051 996,215 1,245,887
Remaining
Splits
58,856 46,219 71,492 322,819 253,388 392,249
Unknown
Splits
31,321 16,338 46,303
Dove Hunting: Mean Days and Days per Harvest (2022-2023)
Dove
Mean Days per Hunter Days per Harvest
4.0 0.18
The graph below shows the acceptable travel distances among dove hunters to participate
in a public lands limited quota dove hunt: 76% would be willing to travel more than
30 minutes.
16
29
20
27
8
0 20406080100
30 minutes or less
31 to 60 minutes
61 to 90 minutes
More than 90 minutes
Do not know
Percent (n=727)
How long, in minutes, would you be willing to travel to
participate in a public lands limited quota dove hunt? Would
you be willing to travel…? (Asked of those who hunted dove.)
76%
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 17
HUNTING OTHER SPECIES: PARTICIPATION, TYPES OF LAND, DAYS, AND
HARVEST
Data regarding hunting of other species are shown in the tables below. The most popular of
these other species among hunters in the 2022-2023 seasons were wild hog, duck, coyote,
and squirrel, each hunted by over 20,000 hunters.
Small Game Hunting: Hunters, Days, and Harvest (2022-2023)
Species
Number of Hunters Hunter-Days Number Harvested
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Bobcat 3,337 2,273 4,402 3,233 633 5,834 2,451 1,353 3,549
Coot 1,469 761 2,178 4,455 54 8,856 12,838 2,094 23,582
Coyote 23,154 20,461 25,848 122,508 90,127 154,890 74,626 52,375 96,877
Duck 29,893 26,876 32,910 312,652 262,965 362,338 525,867 395,743 655,991
Fox 735 233 1,237 4,148 0 10,152 1,343 81 2,604
Goose 7,536 5,950 9,122 43,006 26,821 59,190 61,527 36,248 86,807
Opossum 2,461 1,546 3,377 4,851 1,648 8,054 8,363 3,499 13,227
Rabbit 10,043 8,221 11,865 57,629 36,049 79,208 47,438 31,078 63,798
Raccoon 6,622 5,133 8,112 89,079 41,698 136,461 35,047 23,408 46,685
Snipe 341 0 683 481 0 1,076 1,316 0 3,611
Squirrel 22,640 19,974 25,306 122,715 90,195 155,234 225,927 155,004 296,851
Wild hog 37,061 33,755 40,368 252,717 196,483 308,950 335,421 235,769 435,073
Woodcock 1,029 435 1,622 4,005 758 7,253 2,825 309 5,342
Small Game Hunting: Mean Days
and Days per Harvest (2022-2023)
Species
Mean Days per
Hunter
Days per Harvest
Bobcat 1.0 1.32
Coot 3.0 0.35
Coyote 5.3 1.64
Duck 10.5 0.59
Fox 5.6 3.09
Goose 5.7 0.70
Opossum 2.0 0.58
Rabbit 5.7 1.21
Raccoon 13.5 2.54
Snipe 1.4 0.37
Squirrel 5.4 0.54
Wild hog 6.8 0.75
Woodcock 3.9 1.42
As shown on the following page, 35% of small game hunters hunt small game on public land
(assuming that 6% are responding that they do not know their public land locations, not
that they do not know if they hunted on public land—excluding the “do not know”
responses, 29% definitely indicate hunting on public land): 12% do so primarily on Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs), 9% do so primarily on other public lands, and 7% hunt both
about equally.
18 Responsive Management
7
5
7
4
5
6
65
0 20406080100
Exclusively on WMAs (100% on WMA
land)
Mostly on WMAs (More than 50% on
WMAs)
Both about equally
Mostly on other public land (More than
50% on other public land)
Exclusively on other public land (100%
on other public land)
Do not know
Do not typically hunt small game on
public land
Percent (n=980)
In a typical year, if you hunt small game on public land, would
you say your small game hunting in general on public land
occurs...? (Asked of those who hunted small game.)
21%
15%
19%
13%
14%
18%
Breakdown of WMA versus other public land
small game hunting. (Among those who
typically hunt small game on public land.)
Exclusively on WMAs
Mostly on WMAs
Both about equally
Mostly on other public land
Exclusively on other public land
Do not know
12%
9%
35% *
* Rounding on
graph causes
apparent
discrepancy in
sum; calculation
made on
unrounded
numbers.
29% *
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 19
Waterfowl hunters were also asked about WMA hunting: 63% of waterfowl hunters hunt
waterfowl on public land (with the same assumption above about “do not know”
responses—excluding the “do not know” responses, 56% definitely indicate hunting
waterfowl on public land): 26% do so primarily on WMAs, 21% do so primarily on other
public lands, and 10% hunt both about equally.
14
12
10
7
13
7
37
0 20406080100
Exclusively on WMAs (100% on WMA land)
Mostly on WMAs (More than 50% on WMAs)
Both about equally
Mostly on other public land (More than 50% on
other public land)
Exclusively on other public land (100% on
other public land)
Do not know
Do not typically hunt waterfowl on public land
Percent (n=339)
In a typical year, if you hunt waterfowl on public land, would you
say your waterfowl hunting in general on public land occurs...?
(Asked of those who hunted waterfowl.)
22%
20%
15%
12%
21%
10%
Breakdown of WMA versus other public land
waterfowl hunting. (Among those who typically
hunt waterfowl on public land.)
Exclusively on WMAs
Mostly on WMAs
Both about equally
Mostly on other public land
Exclusively on other public land
Do not know
63%
56%
26%
21% *
* Rounding on graph
causes apparent
discrepancy in sum;
calculation made on
unrounded numbers.
20 Responsive Management
TRAPPING
As shown in the accompanying graph, raccoon was the most popular species to trap. (One
decimal place was used so that most of the species did not round to 0 at the integer level.)
94.1
2.7
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
1.6
0 20406080100
No, did not trap
Raccoon
Coyote
Opossum
Feral Swine
Beaver
Bobcat
Fox
Otter
Skunk
Muskrat
Mink
Nutria
Other
Do not know
Percent (n=2932)
Multiple Responses Allowed
Did you participate in trapping or purchase a
trapping license this season? If yes, for what
species?
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 21
TRENDS
The trend tables below show a fairly stable number of deer hunters in the current year
compared to the previous year, which leads to fairly stable numbers of days hunted and
harvest.
Deer Hunting: Number of Hunters Trends
Equipment
Number of Hunters
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Deer-All 202,540 191,054 198,924 228,015 237,878 233,450
Archery 80,979 75,815 80,300 89,664 97,580 100,021
Modern 179,102 171,293 180,746 201,464 216,348 208,853
Primitive 20,454 16,895 16,909 21,627 22,773 20,436
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Deer Hunting: Days Trends
Equipment / Land
Type
Hunter-Days
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Deer-All 4,749,691 4,093,081 4,494,715 4,909,537 5,377,945 5,439,545
Archery 1,370,848 1,121,685 1,210,213 1,361,344 1,487,788 1,574,418
Modern 3,201,076 2,848,141 3,154,406 3,468,873 3,694,619 3,704,334
Primitive 177,767 123,254 130,095 190,393 196,225 160,251
Private Land 4,438,114 3,731,519 4,089,566 4,461,649 4,932,552 4,952,426
WMAs 205,341 217,415 211,673 238,625 226,059 262,037
Other Public 106,238 144,147 193,475 243,304 219,335 213,060
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
WMAs refers to Wildlife Management Areas.
Deer Hunting: Harvest Trends
Equipment / Land /
Deer Type
Number Harvested
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Deer-All 212,444 203,040 218,358 272,731 301,122 308,729
Archery 49,206 39,086 42,221 55,352 63,367 66,931
Modern 154,746 157,433 169,497 209,699 228,129 231,965
Primitive 8,460 6,522 6,640 8,154 10,005 10,078
Private Land 201,433 192,142 205,620 253,511 286,179 292,181
WMAs 6,433 6,650 6,161 6,765 7,697 9,205
Other Public 4,549 4,248 6,433 12,456 7,246 7,342
Buck 94,471 83,162 94,034 123,561 134,113 141,749
Doe 114,116 114,553 118,418 141,850 160,172 160,313
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
WMAs refers to Wildlife Management Areas.
22 Responsive Management
Deer Hunting: Mean Days per Hunter Trends
Mean Days per Hunter
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Deer Overall 23.5 21.4 22.6 21.5 22.6 23.3
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Deer Hunting: Deer Harvest per Hunter Trends
Equipment Type
Mean Deer Harvest per Hunter
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Deer Overall 1.05 1.06 1.10 1.20 1.27 1.32
Archery 0.61 0.52 0.53 0.62 0.65 0.67
Modern 0.86 0.92 0.94 1.04 1.05 1.11
Primitive 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.44 0.49
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Deer Hunting: Days per Harvest Trends
Equipment Type
Mean Days per Harvest
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Deer Overall 22.4 20.2 20.6 18.0 17.9 17.6
Archery 20.7 18.1 18.6 16.5 16.2 16.0
Modern 27.9 28.7 28.7 24.6 23.5 23.5
Primitive 21.0 18.9 19.6 23.4 19.6 15.9
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Deer Hunting: Buck-Doe Percentage Trends
Deer Type
Percentage
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Buck 44.5 41.0 43.1 45.3 44.5 45.9
Doe 55.5 59.0 56.9 54.7 55.5 54.1
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 23
The trends for other species are shown below.
Turkey Hunting: Number of Hunters Trends
Season Type
Number of Hunters
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Turkey-All 48,626 49,878 61,224 59,988 72,332 70,359
Fall 1,563 1,833 1,616 2,837 1,779 1,963
Spring 47,488 48,194 59,946 57,567 70,750 68,756
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Turkey Hunting: Days Trends
Equipment /
Season Type
Hunter-Days
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Turkey-All 510,907 521,678 711,202 548,417 710,374 752,783
Archery 17,858 14,700 22,759 11,604 11,684 11,933
Modern 477,067 494,233 684,115 534,370 682,702 714,404
Primitive 15,982 12,744 4,328 2,443 15,988 26,446
Fall 11,645 9,497 6,621 14,644 12,897 17,975
Spring 499,261 512,181 690,156 533,773 697,477 734,808
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Turkey Hunting: Harvest Trends
Season / Turkey
Type
Number Harvested
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Turkey-All 28,093 25,750 34,882 25,468 35,997 47,131
Fall 619 98 217 472 257 47
Spring 27,474 25,652 34,666 24,995 35,740 47,084
Jakes 2,236 1,208 1,760 1,928 3,644 3,485
Gobblers 25,858 24,542 33,122 23,540 32,354 43,646
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Turkey Hunting: Mean Days per Hunter Trends
Season
Mean Days per Hunter
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Turkey Overall 10.5 10.5 11.6 9.1 9.8 10.7
Fall 7.4 5.2 4.1 5.2 7.3 9.2
Spring 10.5 10.6 11.5 9.3 9.9 10.7
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
24 Responsive Management
Turkey Hunting: Harvest per Hunter Trends
Season
Turkey Harvest per Hunter
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Turkey Overall 0.58 0.52 0.57 0.42 0.50 0.67
Fall 0.40 ** 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.02
Spring 0.58 0.53 0.58 0.43 0.51 0.68
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
** Sample size too small for calculations.
Turkey Hunting: Days per Harvest Trends
Season
Mean Days per Harvest
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Turkey Overall 18.2 20.3 20.4 21.5 19.7 16.0
Fall 18.8 ** 30.6 31.0 50.1 *** 384.4
Spring 18.2 20.0 19.9 21.4 19.5 15.6
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
** Sample size too small for calculations.
*** The relatively low number of hunters hunting in the fall combined with their low success rate produces a
relatively large number of days per harvest.
Quail Hunting: Number of Hunters Trends
Quail Type
Number of Hunters
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Quail-All 8,821 8,953 7,796 6,696 8,470 9,427
Wild 3,004 2,144 2,903 2,093 2,566 2,765
Pen-Raised 8,094 8,087 6,218 5,477 7,465 6,662
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Quail Hunting: Days Trends
Quail Type
Hunter-Days
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Quail-All ** 52,336 39,541 40,046 36,323 55,350
Wild 39,696 12,710 11,491 13,021 8,383 13,252
Pen-Raised 53,740 39,603 27,019 27,009 27,940 42,098
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
** Not determined for the 2017-2018 season.
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 25
Quail Hunting: Harvest Trends
Quail Type
Number Harvested
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Quail-All 347,308 321,589 154,063 253,176 282,450 370,665
Wild 67,889 37,851 21,662 27,234 22,068 27,640
Pen-Raised 279,418 283,738 132,379 225,942 260,381 343,026
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Quail Hunting: Mean Days per Hunter Trends
Mean Days per Hunter
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Quail-All 10.6 5.8 5.1 6.0 4.3 5.9
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Quail Hunting: Mean Days per Harvest Trends
Mean Days per Harvest
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Quail-All 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Dove Hunting: Number of Hunters Trends
Number of Hunters
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Dove-All 38,837 35,955 55,800 49,990 60,309 65,648
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Dove Hunting: Days Trends
Split
Hunter-Days
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Dove-All 213,107 194,068 233,234 207,038 218,995 263,019
First Split 153,102 143,766 162,116 146,306 145,872 196,957
Remaining Splits 59,747 49,601 57,688 53,930 61,251 58,856
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
26 Responsive Management
Dove Hunting: Harvest Trends
Split
Number Harvested
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Dove-All 1,567,042 1,257,006 1,345,741 1,159,243 1,370,878 1,475,191
First Split 1,118,151 884,211 967,728 814,933 973,791 1,121,051
Remaining Splits 397,517 317,444 323,922 313,903 318,697 322,819
Unknown Splits 51,375 55,351 54,116 30,440 78,389 31,321
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Dove Hunting: Mean Days per Hunter Trends
Mean Days per Hunter
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Dove-All 5.5 5.4 4.2 4.1 3.6 4.0
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Dove Hunting: Mean Days per Harvest Trends
Mean Days per Harvest
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Dove-All 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Small Game Hunting: Number of Hunters Trends
Species
Number of Hunters
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Bobcat 2,760 2,594 3,339 2,375 2,050 3,337
Coot 649 895 1,009 704 726 1,469
Coyote 15,667 14,117 19,721 14,340 14,287 23,154
Duck 27,114 22,421 23,603 20,323 27,258 29,893
Fox 893 296 1,009 880 984 735
Goose 5,277 4,927 6,444 3,959 5,726 7,536
Opossum 487 718 1,087 704 1,156 2,461
Rabbit 5,439 4,527 8,774 7,478 7,847 10,043
Raccoon 5,601 4,199 5,668 3,783 5,901 6,622
Snipe 81 148 388 264 172 341
Squirrel 17,210 14,549 21,429 16,892 17,704 22,640
Wild hog 28,737 27,076 35,094 30,968 32,330 37,061
Woodcock 162 74 311 352 258 1,029
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 27
Small Game Hunting: Days Trends
Species
Hunter-Days
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Bobcat 11,365 14,493 4,037 4,399 1,435 3,233
Coot 2,029 7,053 543 1,320 3,609 4,455
Coyote 114,299 60,219 85,173 108,036 46,601 122,508
Duck 307,016 227,003 237,273 192,758 334,067 312,652
Fox 893 2,296 5,124 6,422 1,031 4,148
Goose 32,796 25,653 34,939 11,525 30,471 43,006
Opossum 649 1,163 17,547 5,543 4,210 4,851
Rabbit 34,988 41,386 55,980 56,041 43,554 57,629
Raccoon 98,469 74,479 144,336 124,224 130,374 89,079
Snipe 244 1,628 311 264 258 481
Squirrel 122,417 90,910 108,466 112,171 108,845 122,715
Wild hog 241,343 174,767 190,067 211,849 206,354 252,717
Woodcock 2,029 **0 543 1,672 430 4,005
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
**No hunters in the survey specifically hunted woodcock (i.e., 0 days hunting woodcock) but there was reported
harvest in that season.
Small Game Hunting: Harvest Trends
Species
Number Harvested
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Bobcat 3,071 3,109 3,028 2,364 1,900 2,451
Coot 5,070 24,660 10,249 4,650 2,578 12,838
Coyote 61,108 65,668 56,523 60,154 49,139 74,626
Duck 674,362 540,023 431,067 373,242 598,518 525,867
Fox 943 148 1,553 1,074 1,203 1,343
Goose 47,012 40,148 41,849 17,299 35,840 61,527
Opossum 1,418 2,194 11,025 4,644 2,835 8,363
Rabbit 41,897 45,403 73,139 55,675 49,458 47,438
Raccoon 80,732 37,783 65,685 31,936 49,482 35,047
Snipe 884 2,222 466 709 1,031 1,316
Squirrel 240,929 179,245 276,172 240,401 226,875 225,927
Wild hog 344,407 258,924 255,364 295,418 340,697 335,421
Woodcock 534 222 621 946 601 2,825
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
28 Responsive Management
Small Game Hunting: Mean Days per Hunter Trends
Species
Mean Days per Hunter
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Bobcat 4.1 5.6 1.2 1.9 0.7 1.0
Coot 3.1 7.9 0.5 1.9 5.0 3.0
Coyote 7.3 4.3 4.3 7.5 3.3 5.3
Duck 11.3 10.1 10.1 9.5 12.3 10.5
Fox 1.0 7.8 5.1 7.3 1.0 5.6
Goose 6.2 5.2 5.4 3.9 5.3 5.7
Opossum 1.3 1.6 16.1 7.9 3.6 2.0
Rabbit 6.4 9.1 6.4 7.5 5.6 5.7
Raccoon 17.6 17.7 25.5 32.8 22.1 13.5
Snipe 3.0 11.0 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.4
Squirrel 7.1 6.2 5.1 6.6 6.1 5.4
Wild hog 8.4 6.5 5.4 6.8 6.4 6.8
Woodcock 12.5 0.0 1.8 4.8 1.7 3.9
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
Small Game Hunting: Days per Harvest Trends
Species
Mean Days per Harvest
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 *2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Bobcat 3.7 4.7 1.3 1.9 0.8 1.3
Coot 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.3
Coyote 1.9 0.9 1.5 1.8 0.9 1.6
Duck 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6
Fox 0.9 15.5 3.3 6.0 0.9 3.1
Goose 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7
Opossum 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.2 1.5 0.6
Rabbit 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2
Raccoon 1.2 2.0 2.2 3.9 2.6 2.5
Snipe 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4
Squirrel 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
Wild hog 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7
Woodcock 3.8 ** 0.9 1.8 0.7 1.4
* The Resident Bait Privilege License was added in 2020-2021 and all subsequent years, so use comparisons with
caution.
**No hunters in the survey specifically hunted woodcock (i.e., 0 days hunting woodcock) but there was reported
harvest.
Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022-2023 29
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
The below graphs show the age and gender of Alabama licensed hunters in the 2022-2023
seasons. The overwhelming majority of hunters are male; the median age is 43 years. The
graphs are only of those licensed hunters who hunted in 2022-2023 and were given the full
survey.
95
5
0 20406080100
Male
Female
Percent (n=2932)
Respondent's gender.
9
15
18
16
17
13
1
11
0 20406080100
65 years old or older
55-64 years old
45-54 years old
35-44 years old
25-34 years old
18-24 years old
Under 18 years old
Don't know / refused
Percent (n=2932)
May I ask your age?
Mean: 43.1
Median: 43
30 Responsive Management
ABOUT RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT
Responsive Management is an internationally recognized survey research firm specializing in natural
resource and outdoor recreation issues. Our mission is to help natural resource and outdoor recreation
agencies, businesses, and organizations better understand and work with their constituents, customers,
and the public.
Focusing only on natural resource and outdoor recreation issues, Responsive Management has
conducted telephone, mail, and online surveys, as well as multi-modal surveys, on-site intercepts, focus
groups, public meetings, personal interviews, needs assessments, program evaluations, marketing and
communication plans, and other forms of human dimensions research measuring how people relate to
the natural world for more than 30 years. Utilizing our in-house, full-service survey facilities with 75
professional interviewers, we have conducted studies in all 50 states and 15 countries worldwide,
totaling more than 1,000 human dimensions projects only on natural resource and outdoor recreation
issues.
Responsive Management has conducted research for every state fish and wildlife agency and every
federal natural resource agency, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service,
the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Additionally, we have also provided research for all the major conservation NGOs
including the Archery Trade Association, the American Sportfishing Association, the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, Dallas Safari Club, Ducks Unlimited, Environmental Defense Fund, the Izaak
Walton League of America, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the
National Wildlife Federation, the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Safari Club International, the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, and the Wildlife Management
Institute.
Other nonprofit and NGO clients include the American Museum of Natural History, the BoatUS
Foundation, the National Association of Conservation Law Enforcement Chiefs, the National Association
of State Boating Law Administrators, and the Ocean Conservancy. As well, Responsive Management
conducts market research and product testing for numerous outdoor recreation manufacturers and
industry leaders, such as Winchester Ammunition, Vista Outdoor (whose brands include Federal
Premium, CamelBak, Bushnell, Primos, and more), Trijicon, Yamaha, and others.
Responsive Management also provides data collection for the nation’s top universities, including Auburn
University, Clemson University, Colorado State University, Duke University, George Mason University,
Michigan State University, Mississippi State University, North Carolina State University, Oregon State
University, Penn State University, Rutgers University, Stanford University, Texas Tech, University of
California-Davis, University of Florida, University of Montana, University of New Hampshire, University
of Southern California, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Tech, West Virginia University, Yale
University, and many more.
Our research has been upheld in U.S. Courts, used in peer-reviewed journals, and presented at major
wildlife and natural resource conferences around the world. Responsive Management’s research has
also been featured in many of the nation’s top media, including Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, The
New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, and on the front pages of The Washington Post and USA
Today.
responsivemanagement.com
