Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
fishermusk

Sick Turkey

11 posts in this topic

Yesterday I came upon a turkey with a real short beard, that appeared to be sick. I was able to walk right up to it within a foot , and when it ran off it ran into some brush literaly. I didn't see the spurs but the bird appeared to be old, do there beards get short in there old age or do you think it was a jake. Any idea what might have been wrong with it, it looked sleepy while i was watching it it kept closing its eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure hate to hear that. There could be any number of things wrong with it. Maybe someone shot at it and it got a pellet into it's internal organs. (most likely IMO considering it's turkey season) Maybe it's very old. (unlikely with hunting pressure these days). Maybe it has some sort of disease. Some birds are very susceptible to salmonella, though I'm not sure if the wild turkey is one of them. I've seen birds with this disease and that is how they act.

Beard length also can vary for many reasons. I wouldn't read too much into that.

Anyone else have an idea???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that it could have been shot in one of the early seasons and is now dying a slow death. maybe also a disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short beard could be due to beard rot. But that would not explain the other behavior. Donbo ha some good possible explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info, the weight of this turkey was low aswell, he may have been suffering from some shot. This was in Carlos Avery and they only allow 25 permits per season I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you shoot it then or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MN bird that filled my tag this year acted healthy but cleaning him he obviously had been shot earlier. Shot on the last day of E season. He had pellets smaller than the 6 shot I hit him with on the other side, one leg was green. So, I'm not sure how old the wounds were. But one thing is certain, whom ever shot at it before me did not do so legally. The shot size was not legal.

I've seen gimping hens in the fall too before there was even a spring season for the zone. So, it seems turkeys are subject to a lot of pressure beyond what we permit holders apply.

Your bird may have barely escaped a legal hit or survived a pot-shot by someone less ethical.

Like AC777 asked, did you shoot it, clean it, what did you find?

Some hunters also have difficulty waiting for birds to seperate so they shoot just one end up wounding others too.

Then again, that disease that kills the crows, etc, could be a cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't have a tag for that permit area, and even if i did I would not have wasted it on that bird. The coyotes will take care of that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaddog,

The regs changes in MN a couple years ago and now states fine shot #4 or smaller. So it it's smaller than #6 shot it would still be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Injured birds will head for heavy cover so will birds that have had a lot of pressure.

My brother shot a tom from blind this year. It flopped and stopped. We gathered our stuff for a few minutes and climbed form the blind. Half way to the bird I could see his red head up against his chest as I looked back to see my brother didn't have his gun. He fixed that error and as we approached that bird it acted as you descriped. Got up took a few steps. He knocked down with the gun barrel and I stepped on the head.

I felt good about taking my tom after having missed one a few days earlier. Later I saw my empty shell. The crimp was part open, some not, some shot off. Guess I didn't get the pattern I'd expected. Anyway, after that mistake (mine and/or Federal's)it felt good to clean up someone else's mistake. But, I did get to watch him fly from the roost and come around a deadfall to find me. Yep, a coyote will eat well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, not just 4, 5 or 6? I read the regs often, guess since I've patterned my gun I've been skipping that part. Thanks for clearing that up. Can't see using 7 1/2 though! Thought maybe it was a youngster with 20ga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Rather than the concepts of teams I think it more appropriate to think in terms of philosophies. Each "team" has a philosophical way of dealing with certain issues: tax codes, immigration, war on drugs etc,  So even though your candidate may be weak you are going to vote, not for them, but for that teams way of dealing with those issues.   A simple example would be tax codes.  The democrats think individual taxes for the top 10%'s should be increased where the republicans believe that reducing taxes on that same 10% will stimulate growth through trickle down economics.   So in essence, you're not voting for a particular candidate, you're voting for the team that will deal with these issues in a way you feel is best. 
    • Like Obabma, he sets up a straw man false premise and then proceeds to attack said straw man.      He is deceived by the fact that the most polarized folks are the ones making the noise, thereby creating a false impression.    You persist in wanting to discuss this article.  Why is that?      
    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
  • Our Sponsors