All I can say about hens in AL with any certainty is that the ratio of hens with no poults in our surveys has increased. Not sure if they are losing nests or not attempting to lay. We won't know until more data is collected from our research with AU.

How much disturbance does it take for a hen to abandon a nest? Will a single occurrence of bumping a bird off nest cause it or is it more of a constant or repetitive action that causes it.

A single occurrence can cause them to permanently leave. Others return.

The issue, in my mind anyway, isn't about hunter related disturbance. It's about infertility. The theory is that it's possible some hens are not getting bred in mid March due to heavy harvests of gobblers that first week. In areas with higher densities that's obviously not an issue. It very well could be in areas with lower densities and already struggling populations, especially if the hunter density is high.

Shifting the season would not be an effort to reduce disturbance on the nest. It would be an effort to promote breeding.

Yea, I had to dig way back but I was interested to see what we all were discussing about the limit issue back in 2016. Some of us have changed or shifted positions and some of us have doggedly stayed the same.
Matt, you may not want to comment here but I have a high regard for your opinions and realize the position you were in back then. I would be interested in what you think of the limits/seasons/dominant gobbler theory/AU project now that it is all in the past and your on your own. Our Department bought in whole heartedly to the Chamberlain theory. I thought this post was interesting since it appears that there, indeed, was an agenda in the Grand/Zena study and they specifically pushed for lower limits and shortened seasons in the discussion even though the data didn't indicate any reason for it. Also, in light of the "Model" that was populated with data like "based solely on expert judgement", "so experts assumed", "We assumed that 50% of harvest was additive to natural mortality.", "The experts we consulted believed that turkey productivity was density-dependent,", expert consensus was that α would increase by 11%, if the opening date of the spring hunting season is moved 10-days later from 15 March to 25 March, and by 25%, if the spring hunting season is closed", "Experts reviewed data elicited by ADCNR from hunters in 2015-2016 (ADCNR 2015, 2016), and estimated that reducing the bag limit from 5 males to 3 males per season would reduce the overall harvest rate by 9%, because 9% of hunters reported harvesting more than 3 turkeys.". And FINALLY this DANDY "Thus, estimates of the effects of later opening dates and closed seasons on turkey recruitment rates are based solely on expert judgement." Actually a quote of the published "scientific" model for setting limits and seasons in Alabama - Comparing harvest management alternatives for Eastern Wild Turkeys in Alabama, Grand et.al.

Again, not calling you out and have a ton of respect for your defense of the department you worked for. Just curious what your thoughts are on all of this now.

At the time Gobbler, I was willing to entertain the idea of the DGT and accept the models could be right, but needed more information and research to draw a conclusion. I really didn’t support or refute the idea. I simply wanted to wait it out and see, yet support the agency. I really had no choice but to support agency decisions being made then publicly, although I disagreed with a lot privately. When it got to the point I could no longer, with a clear conscience, continue to support the administration I found something else to do. There’s a lot of decisions being made that have no factual based science behind them. Sadly, I don’t see that changing. It’s not only AL. There’s several states all in on Chamberlains theory, even though the information gathered is not showing a shred of evidence to even slightly support it.

As for agendas, I do believe looking back on it now, they had already made up their minds to decrease the bag, and needed science to back it up. That’s really what they were trying to conclude. The problem was with the study methods. The proposal was to catch “x” amount of birds at each location using methods that were not going to result in the numbers they wanted. I told them that, repeatedly. There was one person on that committee in the agency that had been involved in turkey capture, transport and relocation. It was me. They simply would not accept they had unrealistic expectations on capture/marking success using the methods they had in that study. While all this was occurring in the same time frame, I got transferred to the deer committee, to which led to my resignation. They’re not willing to let their biologist do their jobs. I got tired of being asked opinions on matters pertaining to seasons/bags/structures etc and the exact opposite occurring from admin. Why have biologists represent districts with specific data and represent hunters in that particular region, if you’re not going to listen to them and do the opposite of their recommendations? I could not keep defending poor decision making that I very strongly disagreed with. I’m having a far greater impact on wildlife and sportsmen as a consultant/manager now than I did then.

As for my opinion now, I’ve grown a lot since then in maturity as a professional and as a person. If we don’t start promoting better habitat stewardship on a landscape level (and this pertains to AL DCNR too) then seasons and bags are completely irrelevant. The focus should be on education, and rather than educate, this admin had rather chase wild theories with no factual evidence and continue to look down and belittle the hunters in this state. It’s quite sad really. If people only knew how they viewed the common everyday AL hunter and landowner it would change everything. There was a glimpse in the latest FB thread taking a jab at hunters claiming turkeys have “gobbled out” in May. Now I admit, I get their sarcasm, but there’s a much more professional way to handle how you educate people in their position. Taking shots at your license buyers is no way to go about it. I know I sound bitter, but I know the side most don’t know, and until this state has a transformation from the top down it’s not going to get better. I know that’s a lot of rambling, but it’s quite complex and goes back several years. I think the DGT is complete hogwash. I do think in some areas turkey populations have declined. I think some agencies have really jumped the gun and it will be hard to reverse. IMO, the agencies are going to have a much more difficult time regaining trust as leaders in science based decisions than hunters/managers are going to have managing turkey populations. People will figure that out on their own eventually. The states have a wonderful opportunity to be the mouthpiece to drive it if they’ll use it.

Matt, thanks for a really great answer! I especially liked this statement:

>>>If we don’t start promoting better habitat stewardship on a landscape level (and this pertains to AL DCNR too) then seasons and bags are completely irrelevant. The focus should be on education, and rather than educate, this admin had rather chase wild theories with no factual evidence<<<

That says very well what I've been trying to communicate for the past 20 years, and in no way was it my idea. This was simply the approach of the AL dcnr for all of my life prior to the Sykes administration. There used to be a consistent message from the department that for game populations to prosper, there has to be a partnership of the state with the private landowners and leaseholders. I don't know that I've ever read anything from Sykes that would even hint that he believes that. His attitude from the beginning has been that he would make the rules and we would follow them and like it.

Well said Matt! You are making a bigger impact now than then for sure! Keep up the good work!
I read through the whole 9 pages last night (bored!) It is interesting to see the old discussions!

A common thing in many states, unfortunately, and little to no way for the landowners, hunters and anglers to get positive changes made.

A glimpse into the view was evident back during the quietly done, private "Avid" hunter meetings with only those hunters who had x-number of days afield. The rest? Pffffttt. Peons with no insights worth hearing and who need to follow what the real "avid" hunters and decision-makers believe. And don't forget about the field trialers being belittled and described as not paying their fair share.

However, this isn't a new thing. Elites, moneyed and those in power have been doing this kind of thing for decades. It's just more visible now.