A Study of the Perceptions of aldeer Turkey Forum Members Regarding the Use of Chicken Litter and Wild Turkey Populations

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine the perceptions of members of the aldeer turkey forum regarding turkey populations on lands treated with chicken littler and lands not treated with chicken litter. There has been a growing belief among turkey hunters that there is a direct correlation between the increasing use of chicken litter as fertilizer and a decrease in nearby turkey populations. Numbers from the study cannot be extrapolated to the entire state because study participants were not chosen randomly. However, since other research organizations in the state appear unwilling to carry out a study that might anger Alabama's powerful poultry lobby, it is left to the brave Scientists of PCP Enterprises to provide valid research in this important area.


Methodology

All visitors to the turkey hunting forum of aldeer from 4/24 til 4/28 were given the opportunity to participate in the study. Participants were asked if the tracts of land they hunted had turkey populations that were either above normal, normal, below normal, or way below normal, and whether or not each tract was close to land that had been treated with chicken litter. Most participants hunted on more than one tract of land, and each response was recorded separately. It was left up to the participant to determine if chicken littler was close to the tract, and the turkey populations were only the perception of the participant. The participants are known to be avid turkey hunters, though many of these goobers are not able to follow directions at all. When it was seemingly apparent what the participant meant by the response, it was counted even when not in the requested format. When it was unclear what the participant was trying to say, the response was discarded. This is part of the difficulty of being a Scientist dealing with laymen, but the research must go on.


Results

This study proves beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a direct correlation between the use of chicken litter as fertilizer and the decline of wild turkey populations in nearby areas. 79% of the participants who hunted close to areas treated with chicken litter reported turkey populations that were below normal or way below normal. This figure breaks down to 50% reported below normal and 29% way below normal. Only 17% of those hunting near chicken litter reported normal turkey populations, and a mere 4% reported above normal populations.

In contrast, study participants who hunted in areas not treated with chicken litter reported that 69% of the areas hunted had normal or above normal turkey populations. This broke down to 53% perceiving normal populations, and 16% that were above normal. Respondents from untreated areas reported 21% of areas below normal and 10% way below normal.

The study found that 76% of the hunters reported their hunting being in areas free of chicken litter, while 24% said their areas were contaminated with chicken litter. Combining all responses, participants reported that 57% of the state is either normal or above normal. It is critical to note that a full 19% of the state is experiencing a decline in turkey numbers due to the use of chicken litter.


Conclusions

This study indicates that some declines in turkey population in AL can be blamed on chicken litter. The state should take immediate steps to put a stop to this toxic practice and pass laws requiring chicken manure to be burned on site. Hunters should become more politically active in demanding these changes. PCP Enterprises will be happy to provide scientific support; for a small fee, of course. We will conduct any study you want and guarantee the results you want in advance. Anyone quoting this study should refer to its publication in the "Scientific Journal of PCP Enterprises". It is in the April edition.

About Us

PCP Enterprises is an organization with many branches. Our Wild Turkey Research branch exists solely for the purpose of trying to keep the eggheads from ruining our turkey hunting history and culture. We believe, as did Charles Kelley, that the key to abundant wildlife is to give landowners the incentive to manage their land for wildlife, knowing that they will have the opportunity to reap the rewards for their hard work. The idea that you can regulate your way to more turkeys is a fallacy that we will continue to fight.

End of study



In all seriousness, it does appear that there might be a connection between chicken litter and the decline of turkey populations. Its something that deserves to be researched by a real organization. I'm not optimistic about it happening, but I would love to be proven wrong.

Good info! Seriously, with a few minor smart-azzed comments removed , this should be sent to the DCNR and AU. Maybe they can modify their to include looking at something that actually may be causing a decline in turkeys rather than stuff that has been looked at over and over for decades. They may be able to look at areas that actually reflect the State instead of overpressured and marginally managed State management areas as well!

I'm in my 3rd year raising turkeys and due to the lack of avian Drs I had to educate myself fast or lose my flock. The research has been done by people who raise them and its common knowledge your asking for trouble raising turkeys on the same ground as chickens. Without medication I would have lost all my birds. Its known there are diseases chickens carry that will kill turkeys, I assume they are just over looking this because they info is available fairly easy if researched but I figured they are just not wanting to speak due to saving the almighty dollar.

Thanks for the somewhat backhanded compliment.

My lack of credentials kept me from reporting it in a totally serious manner; didn't wanta appear that there wasn't a bit of hyperbole involved. So instead of me cleaning it up and sending it to the dcnr or maybe even the turkey committee, why don't you do it? You have my permission to leave PCP Enterprises out of it completely and report it as all yours. It couldn't be completely ignored if you did it. Or maybe it could.

I couldn't resist making the offer to conduct research and guarantee the desired results; I strongly suspect that a lot of research is like that, but just isn't so blatantly obvious as my offer. The research done by the nice tobacco companies that proves smoking is good for you comes to mind. So does some of the climate research when the researchers were caught intentionally messing with the data. So I have to admit that I share your cynicism regarding some of the current turkey research. I do truly hope that I am wrong. However, I offer the following to indicate why I have my doubts about it.

1) I've heard for several years that AL and SC were under pressure to reduce their limits. It wasn't long after I first heard this that SC did reduce theirs. The NWTF strongly supported the required legislation and openly lobbied to pass it:

>>>�We applaud the intent of these bills, which are not only designed to simplify regulations but also establish an equitable season length statewide and allow more turkey hunters to share in the harvest,� said Becky Humphries, NWTF executive vice president of conservation. �Reducing the bag limit while expanding the season work together to protect our wild turkey resource.�<<<

http://www.edgefieldadvertiser.com/2014/03/nwtf-supports-changes-to-south-carolina-turkey-season/

I have been assured by an NWTF official that they are not taking a position on the regs in AL, and believe this to be true. I remain a member of the NWTF and encourage others to join. They do have a representative on the study committee, so I would assume that their rep will have to take a position one way or the other when all data is in.

2) Former director Corky Pugh is on record as being willing to support whatever changes are recommended by the study committee. He even said we ought to support any changes recommended without the study even being completed:

>>>>Effective problem-solving requires that we identify causes. Pitfalls include confusing symptoms with causes, jumping to conclusions and waiting until all data is available before making a decision. If we wait until all data is complete, all the turkeys may be gone.<<<

The possibility of the wild turkey becoming extinct in AL before this study is complete if we don't act now seems rather remote to me. Changing a system that has been successful for over 60 years without any new data also seems unwise to me. I believe that somebody has been talking to Mr. Pugh that already has a plan for the future. He also said:

>>>If the professional turkey biologists in the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division believe a reduction is needed until the problem is addressed, then as hunters we should support their recommendation.<<<

Both quotes from here:

http://www.alafarmnews.com/index.php/arc...r-turkeys-going

He obviously has a great deal of confidence in this committee. I know there are great biologists on the committee, but I can't help but wonder if they will have complete freedom in making their recommendations? I wonder if the Deer Committee a few years back had any restrictions placed on their final recommendations?

3) Director Sykes declared the 2014 season a "disappointment" for most hunters. I read somewhere that he said he killed only 2 turkeys in 2014. He wrote this in an April publication:

>>>Last season was a disappointment for most hunters, me included. For the most part, the weather was lousy and turkeys didn�t gobble. Lack of gobbling yields lack of harvest, reducing hunter satisfaction, or at least it does at my house. I don�t necessarily have to harvest a bird to be happy. But, I can guarantee you that going day after day and not hearing or being able to at least work a bird makes me extremely unpleasant to be around.<<<

http://www.alafarmnews.com/index.php/from-wildlife-and-freshwater-fisheries

I understand his feeling, but it wasn't a disappointment for everyone. I killed 4 the first week and thought it was a great season. I get the feeling that column may have been written before the current season, and maybe even before the February CAB meeting. There was certainly a lot of talk around that the 2014 season was really bad. My issue with that is that the research conducted by his own department did not support that idea at all. The hunter survey showed the harvest to be down only about 5%, but the number of hunters declined by around 7%. Perhaps the most disappointing development of all was that the hunter survey that showed the 2014 season was not the disaster many thought was not released to the public in September as it normally is. It was held until after the February CAB meeting and finally released just before the end of the month. It was almost like somebody didn't want that information to get in the way of the well-publicized idea that 2014 was a terrible year for turkey hunting in AL. Here's the survey:

http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/Mail-Survey-2014-2015-Season.pdf

4) Director Sykes and an NWTF representative appeared on a radio program together on March 5. They discussed the CAB meeting at length and the status of the wild turkey in AL. One point Director Sykes made that I found interesting, and I am paraphrasing here, "One fact we know is that AL is the only state with a 5 bird limit". One could read a lot into that comment that might not be correct, but it reminded me of the people who constantly point out that AL has the lowest property taxes in the nation and that is obviously a very bad thing. I don't think our director was pointing this out as a good thing. I may be a tinfoil hat guy, but it sure looks like to me that he has his mind made up as to what should be done about turkey hunting in AL.

I really, really, hope that I am wrong, but I am greatly concerned that the turkey committee is likely to report back when their work is complete and say, Well what do you know! Director Sykes was right all along and all we need to do is reduce the limit and shorten the season and our worries will be over!

I hope that I am way off base and the committee will be able to work totally free of politics, and that they might even be able to examine things like the impact of chicken litter. If genuine research shows that we need to change turkey season, then I will certainly support it. I will not support someone's political agenda that has nothing to do with helping turkeys.

So gobbler, please, clean up my report and send it to the proper people.

Good hunting to all!

As always, Great stuff and a good read Mr Steve!

Here you go Preach... I made it visual...

Well said preacher. I have been thinking about this quite a bit this week and one thought keeps popping up. If litter is indeed spreading disease into the turkey population (which I truly believe it is), then how far does said disease spread once introduced? Does it stop with turkeys that only come into direct contact with litter, or is it passed on to others the infected turkeys are in close proximity with? If the latter is the case then a lot more of the population declines might be attributed to it than we currently think.

I thought this was a who likes fried turkey vs. fried chicken poll. Dangit preacher, don't get my taste buds up like that.

arKic, that was outstanding work! You oughta do as gobbler suggested and remove the "smart-azzed" comments and then pass it around. I'll turn my ground-breaking research over to you and gobbler to dessiminate. Doesn't appear to be any money in it for me.

All great questions that need to be answered!

Just a note, the Director also stated on a radio interview that if there is a decline, it is caused by weather, habitat or predators. It won't matter one whit if the limit is 1 or 21, the turkeys will continue to decline.

One of the members once posted on here:

I will NOT say anything negative about the committee, I know some of them and some well and they are smart, great guys, with the turkeys' best interest in mind. While I cannot deny they are passionate, I also know some of them are far from veteran wildlife biologists and hard core turkey killers can certainly be debated knowing how many some of them killed this year and last .

Here is the list:
Matt Brock (ADCNR)
Joel Glover (ADCNR)
Justin Brock (ADCNR)
Adam Pritchett (ADCNR)
Steve Barnett (ADCNR)
Kyle Marable (AWF)

While I am glad they have degrees, several of them earned their wildlife degrees less than 10 years ago - FAR from a Veteran wildlife biologist . I may be wrong and certainly could be corrected, but the only Masters degree in the group that I know of is Kyle Marable. My other issue with the committee (NOT the guys on it) is that it is heavily composed of ADCNR employees. Does anyone here think that if they disagree with the departments position on limits or seasons, that they will go up against the political power of the department, who signs their checks and employs them - seriously?? That is why the deer committee was made up of several and various interest groups - the way to select a committee IMO.

Here's who the committee out to be made of:
PCP- Prez
BrentM-vice prez
T123winters-house maj leader
CrenshawCo- head of the house committee
Gobbler- treasurer
Daggerz- Secretary of State

They're the real killers and biologist

Fix it up a little arKic and I can get it to the right people. I think PCP (among others!) is on to something here.

I have done as suggested and removed all the smart-azzed comments that I had in the original. If arKic could clean up his excellent graphics page and if gobbler will send it to real researchers, then maybe somebody will take note and do an actual study. I believe that such a study might shed a lot of light on why we have seen so many "Feast or Famine" situations among the hunters here. We have seen everything from worn out old men to teenagers posting limits here, and we've also seen veteran hunters killing nothing. I don't believe the answer for why that is could be simple, but it looks possible that chicken litter could cause a whole lot of it. I was certainly surprised to find out 24% of our tracts of turkey land are contaminated with litter.

Here is is; gobbler and arkic, please run with it!



A Study of the Perceptions of aldeer Turkey Forum Members Regarding the Use of Chicken Litter and Wild Turkey Populations

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine the perceptions of members of the aldeer turkey forum regarding turkey populations on lands treated with chicken littler and lands not treated with chicken litter. There has been a growing belief among turkey hunters that there is a direct correlation between the increasing use of chicken litter as fertilizer and a decrease in nearby turkey populations. Numbers from the study cannot be extrapolated to the entire state because study participants were not chosen randomly. The study authors recognize that findings of the study cannot be considered scientific, but do believe that it indicates the need for serious research on this subject.


Methodology

All visitors to the turkey hunting forum of aldeer from 4/24 til 4/28 were given the opportunity to participate in the study. Participants were asked if the tracts of land they hunted had turkey populations that were either above normal, normal, below normal, or way below normal, and whether or not each tract was close to land that had been treated with chicken litter. Most participants hunted on more than one tract of land, and each response was recorded separately. It was left up to the participant to determine if chicken littler was close to the tract, and the turkey populations were only the perception of the participant. Many participants are known to be avid turkey hunters, but some did not follow the requested format. When it was seemingly apparent what the participant meant by the response, it was counted even when not in the requested format. When it was unclear what the participant was trying to say, the response was discarded.

Results

This study strongly indicates that there is a direct correlation between the use of chicken litter as fertilizer and the decline of wild turkey populations in nearby areas. 79% of the participants who hunted close to areas treated with chicken litter reported turkey populations that were below normal or way below normal. This figure breaks down to 50% reported below normal and 29% way below normal. Only 17% of those hunting near chicken litter reported normal turkey populations, and a mere 4% reported above normal populations.

In contrast, study participants who hunted in areas not treated with chicken litter reported that 69% of the areas hunted had normal or above normal turkey populations. This broke down to 53% perceiving normal populations, and 16% that were above normal. Respondents from untreated areas reported 21% of areas below normal and 10% way below normal.

The study found that 76% of the hunters reported their hunting being in areas free of chicken litter, while 24% said their areas were contaminated with chicken litter. Combining all responses, participants reported that 57% of the state is either normal or above normal. It is critical to note that a full 19% of the state is experiencing a decline in turkey numbers that might be attributed to the use of chicken litter.


Conclusions

This study indicates that at least some declines in the turkey population in AL can be attributed to the use of chicken litter on nearby land. Findings show that 19% of the state may be experiencing a decline in turkey numbers in areas close to chicken litter, and this is a very significant amount of land. If these numbers can be verified by additional study, then it becomes imperative for the state to take the responsibility of ending this practice. The Poultry Industry is very important to Alabama, but it does not have the right to wipe out population of the wild turkey. If the state does not address this issue immediately, it seems likely that lawsuits will be filed by certain environmental groups to force them to do so. This is an issue that must be handled soon, or we may see the complete collapse of turkey numbers in large areas of the state.

You got it buddy

PCP, while I agree with most everything you've stated, you appear to be opposed to the lower limit (without supporting data). In full disclosure, I must put myself in the group that would accept lower limits until the real issue can be identified and solved. So my question to you is this: if a study actually has data that suggests a higher gobbler survival rate leads to an overall population increase, would you support lower limits? My real question to you is, what type of study and/or results would you accept? I speculate that any study and results brought forth will be ripped to shreds if they even hint that a lower limit leads to more birds. That's just my gut feeling. There are too many variables in wildlife study. You guys will find one that was the least accounted for in the study and use that as a foundation to claim the study hogwash.

Yelp Softly, that's a fair question. I am certainly against changing the limit and believe it could even prove counter productive to producing more turkeys in the long run. I don't even believe there is any "real issue" to be solved. I've had the unique experience of hunting part of every season for the past 52 years on our farm in Perry County. There have been peaks and valleys in the population, but its generally been about the same all those years. The places I hunt in Coosa and Tallapoosa are the same - good habitat attracts turkeys; poor habitat does not. Reducing the limit would completely change the AL system that has made us the best turkey hunting state in the nation. I don't think it would have any effect on the overall turkey population in the short term. So no, I am not in favor of destroying that for no reason.

As to what kind of study I would accept - short answer is I will see what gobbler says about it. I think he is immune to political pressure on this issue, and is qualified to interpret any research. The average hunter will not have access to the research; we will have to depend on those who do .

But I think a study that proves a lower spring gobbler limit will benefit the population would have to prove wrong most of what we now believe of the biology of the wild turkey. That is apparently what the committee is examining, so perhaps they will do this. I'd have to see some evidence that gobblers have a role in turkey reproduction beyond that of breeding the hens. Common sense will tell you they become expendable after carrying out their one function if that is really the way it works. If they find they have another role, then perhaps changes are in order in some places.

But even with such evidence, there is no reason to change regulations in areas that have had healthy populations for 50 years and still have them. Whatever changes need to be made need to be made in areas that are having problems. A shorter season will actually reduce the harvest; changing the limit would just be a feel-good measure. Controlling the harvest in different areas by season length is the method AL has used in modern history. I would not object to a shorter season anywhere it is needed.

I self imposed a 3 bird limit for myself this season, so I have no problem if it becomes reality. But at the same time, I feel research needs to be studied on the effects of chicken litter and disease with turkeys.

Hell if the government pays for studies on Shrimp running treadmills or in Alabama to spend 1 million bucks Catfish Genome "to identify genes that convey virulent traits, to identify pathogens and to identify factors that influence expression of traits in catfish.� (might be in the wild turkey as well)

Or even $500,000 for Alabama Wildlife Federation Conservation Education Center - for"hands-on education about a variety of ecosystems and how they can be conserved. The center will teach environmental responsibility while understanding the opportunities and uses of our natural resources.�

It think there is some merit to the Chicken Litter "Conspiracy" we owe it to the conservation of our turkeys to find out if it's bad or not...

Good work PCP

PCP, as always, you've produced a logical response to my question. I do not have 52 years of experience behind me to see it through the same focus you do. I also don't have the luxury of hunting multiple spots each and every year, 2-3 maximum.

The main point to my original question was about how to fashion such a study. I do not profess to be a biologist but I have decent reading comprehension and have read many articles on all kinds of scientific research. I began to think about how one would go about proving that higher gobbler survival would lead to increased production. I can't even begin to contemplate all the factors that must be accounted for to ensure a sound conclusion on such a study. Would it be possible to survey two similar properties, one that's hunted and one that's not, and compare the reproductive rates of both? I doubt it. Such a study would be criticized as having a sample size too small.

I think there is still much we don't fully understand about all species of wildlife. I think turkeys are some of the least understood of all of them. I certainly hope your belief that a problem doesn't exist is correct. I fully believe the populations are cyclical. But the experts at the NWTF have voiced the opinion that there is an unexplained 25% reduction in population across the southeastern US and my personal observations support a decrease, although I couldn't begin to quantify it.

Yelp Softly, I sure don't know how to set up such a study. I'm just an old Ag teacher and timber farmer. The only research I've ever been involved in was at Auburn in the 70s, and it all related to Vocational Education and most of the work I did was grunt work. I have had a graduate level course in statistics, and do think I know a little about the scientific method. But I'm in no way qualified to examine a wildlife study and make any pronouncements about it. That's the reason I said I will listen to gobbler.

I don't doubt that there is a decline across the SE. Here is my opinion - I think that turkeys were relocated to many areas in the SE that simply are not turkey habitat anymore. They probably supported turkeys in the old days, but the impact of humans have made them incapable of supporting healthy populations now. They survived, and even prospered for a few years, but the poor habitat eventually catches up with it. I suspect the primary reason is a lack of suitable nesting habitat makes hens vulnerable to predators, and the predators learn how to kill them.

I've seen it happen in several places where the population really takes off when turkeys are first introduced, but then it gradually starts down as the predators learn how to ambush this new meal. There is no "issue" that can be solved by new regulations. Many areas just can't support turkeys. But many can, and will in the future as long as landowners have the incentive to manage their land for turkeys. There is a reason that gobbler sees and hears a whole lot of turkeys on a whole lot of properties - they are intensively managed for turkeys.

If the state really wants to produce more turkeys, it needs to provide landowner incentive to manage for turkey habitat, and especially nesting habitat. The CRP program did wonders for the pheasant population of the midwest; helped a lot of other wildlife as well. Programs like this are expensive and I'm not saying the state should do it; just saying that's one way to more turkeys that really works.

Good stuff and I hope you are right. I can buy that theory. I kind of see it similar to some of the lakes made out of old phosphate pits. They say the best fishing will be had in the few short years after that lake is stocked. The fish flourish and many grow big very fast. After the population of big fish reaches a peak after a few years, things start winding down and fewer big fish are caught because the ecosystem can't support the old growth rate with the new amount of fish that are present.

At the same time, I think we were fortunate to have such a resource that was in abundant supply. I think our turkeys flourished despite our 5 bird limit, certainly not because of it. Just because a 5 bird limit saw periods of growth in the past doesn't mean it's the right prescription for the future. Either way, I think we're all in agreement that more data holds the true answer. I hope their efforts bear fruit.

To all, that is great. Thanks, lets hope it helps.

I think PCP, (as always) stated the case AGAINST lowering the limit succinctly . At this time I am adamantly opposed to lowering the limit in the region I hunt and work. I see too many places that are "normal or above" populations (nearly all on well managed places but NOT all!). I certainly can be convinced otherwise if there were to be a legitimate .
The problem is how do you get that study done. You could have 2 large properties with nearly identical habitat and management practices and "treat" one with heavy gobbler harvest (I want to be a researcher on that one :D) and compare it to a "control" study site with no or little harvest, and follow those populations over a few years. The problem is variables like weather, so they would need to be close. Close properties trade turkeys so they would have to be separated from immigration and emigration - a SEVERE limitation.

As stated in another thread, I think the best study site is Georgia vs Alabama. If lower limits result in higher turkey populations than why doesn't GA have higher turkey populations? Very similar states. I would take AL turkey populations every day and I have hunted several areas in GA for years. Alabama's turkeys flourished not because of NOR despite the higher limits. We were simply allowed to harvest a good number of birds. As the Director noted, and I also believe, our turkey numbers would NOT change if we had a 1 bird limit or a 21 bird limit. I believe the populations would be exactly the same. Why should we succumb to what other states (with less turkeys than AL) are doing.

I see NO area of study design in the current HUGE turkey study of management area turkey populations that will address whether lowering the limit will result in higher turkey populations. NONE. If there is I would love someone to explain it to me.

One of the members of the turkey committee once asked what would happen if a group of Alabama turkey hunters were set loose across Kansas. My experience tells me that there would be carnage the first year, the second year turkeys would be more wary and the third year Kansas turkey hunting would be just like Alabama with wary birds and just as many turkeys.

My real issue is that it seems that those wanting to lower the limit want to say 1) there is a population decline without knowing what the population is or was 2) want to say that the decline is caused by weather, predators, and habitat, yet want to lower the gobbler limit, and 3) are nearly totally focusing on computer models the drop data in (some virtually made up) and see what the un-understandable model spits out - inevitably, lower limits result in more gobblers. However, the Director himself said that "the population decline won't be changed one whit regardless of whether the limit was 1 or 21". He's a biologist that agrees with me.

Gobbler, that's about as good a case as any could make for leaving the limit alone. Not only has Director Sykes said that turkey numbers would be the same with a 1 bird or 21 bird limit, he also said on a radio program that reducing the limit would be "symbolic". He didn't explain that; I suppose I shouldn't guess at exactly what he meant.

But if he meant that it wouldn't affect 98% of the hunters, then he is right. It would not be merely symbolic to the few of us that have made turkey hunting and management our primary hobby, while still trying to follow the law.

I meant to include a link to this radio program earlier, but I see I left it out. Scroll down to the 3/05 program if anyone has time to kill. There are actually 2 hours of programming with a separate link for each hour:

http://www.gettinoutdoorsradio.com/2016-shows.html

Do away with the daily bag limit.

One important question PCP. How many responses did you get - Im too lazy to count it up!

You better not be too lazy to double check the responses in your true turkey kill thread. Too many folks posting at the same time. The math is all boogered up.

Yea, I saw that! Ill readd Hope these guys can simply add to 5 It was close to 15 off at one point!

48 different people responded and actually answered the question. That produced replies on 101 tracts of land.

Bumped by request

I enjoyed the read pcp..i cant say for sure,BUT..i grew up in a place in marshall county that had some of if not the highest turkey population in our county. From the 70's all the way to the mid to late 90's, we had tons of birds. My daddy used to kill 2 or 3 a year and youd see droves of 50 in the winter. On average youd hear 5 to 10 turkeys gobbling around that was not uncommon. I saw the last turkey in 2002...the only one i ever got to see. My daddt remembered when the gentlemen up the road built his chicken houses and began selling to the local cattle owners. That was early 90's.....in about 5 years you couldnt buy a turkey..they were just gone....i remember daddy sayin "you know what..i ai t seen a turkey all year" then it was 2, then 3....they wer gone before we even realized there was a problem....it could have been prevented..and i know what happened. You dont just go from a thriving turkey population to complete extrapation in 5 years..UNLESS....the common denominator..CHICKEN LITTER!! Alright state of alabama dcnr magic wand wavers...i want my dang turkeys back...PLEASEEEEEEEEEE.....i never got to enjoy them...i want them back dangit....

This was interesting to read. Never really thought of this to be a problem before. We use the chicken litter in our fall plots and we don’t plant in the summer at the one place I hunt. We saw 16 turkeys in our big field a couple weeks ago. Idk if that’s a low number or not. I’m not an avid turkey hunter but wish I was. I’m trying to learn more and hopefully can bag my first long beard this year.

Id put the hiatus on that crap like yesterday...

It’s not my land and the only reason they use it is because of my uncles chicken houses. It sure makes the food plots look good.

Thread bumped for Semo.

Thank you