That writer OBVIOUSLY had an agenda and scraped so far through the bottom of the barrel to find supporting evidence that he drained the barrel. He offered that there were fewer turkey predators in urban and suburban areas which allowed the turkey population to explode and cause greater damage to "THE FOREST." So, "the forest" in urban and suburban areas had more damage from turkeys. What forest is there in urban and suburban areas?
Anti-hunters have very consistent, and asinine, views of wildlife that are becoming more and more obvious. They are universally in favor of establishing large populations of predators that prey upon, and reduce the numbers of game animals. They are, likewise, universally opposed to any measures that promote the expansion of numbers of game animals like turkeys. These people should be exposed for the charlatans that they are. The two chaps from Pittsburgh were described as "scientists," not wildlife management professionals. That terminology chosen by the article writer says a lot both about the degree of credibility that should be given to the Pittsburgh chaps and to the motives of the writer.