No offense to the bald eagle, but Ben Franklin was right when he suggested more than 223 years ago that the wild turkey should be the national symbol.
When the eagle was chosen to be the country’s symbol, Franklin criticized the choice because he felt the eagle “is a bird of bad moral character” and “does not get his living honestly.”
Franklin was alluding to his observations of an eagle stealing fish from a hawk.
He also questioned the eagle’s courage, stating that birds no bigger than a sparrow attack and drive the eagle out of its habitat.
I do feel the eagle commands and deserves our respect. And although the wild turkey gobbler would be a better national symbol (for reasons I will mention later), I really don’t agree with the Franklin’s harsh assessment of the eagle.
As far as the “bad moral character” that Franklin referred to, show me an animal with strong ethics and principles and I’ll change my tune.
Franklin’s accusation that the eagle makes a dishonest living depends on how you view the natural world. Sure, the eagle’s actions against the hawk can be taken as theft, but when it comes to surviving in an unforgiving environment, the eagle’s actions allow it to persevere. I view the eagle more as an opportunist than a thief.
And frankly (no pun intended), I think Franklin’s charge that the eagle is a coward because it flees from much smaller birds isn’t accurate. I don’t blame the eagle for flying away from those pesty birds, and the eagle is not the only one to do so. I’ve seen crows drive away hawks and owls many times. And when we’re put in a similar position we react the same way. How many times have you seen someone flee and panic at the sight of a little bee or a diminutive spider?
Still, despite my disagreement with Franklin’s criticisms of the eagle, I do agree that the wild turkey would make a suitable national symbol.
Here’s Franklin’s case for the turkey, contained in a letter he wrote on Jan. 26, 1784: “For the truth the Turkey is in comparison a much more respectable bird, and withal a true original native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a bird of courage, and would not hesitate to attack a grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his farm yard with a red coat on.”
When I started hunting turkeys years ago, I was impressed with its cunning eyesight and smarts. They rely on safety in numbers (flocks) and a secret code to warn of danger (calls). All of these characteristics are worthy of a national symbol.
But the real reason I think the wild turkey is deserving of the honor can be found on its head.
Last Wednesday I watched two gobblers passing through a Rice Township forest. They were unaware of my presence and, considering the time of year, both birds were on the lookout for hens.
Their long beards swung from their chests, and their tails fanned as they strutted. But it was the vibrant colors – red, white and blue, on their heads that made me think they would be a suitable national symbol.
Aside from a few songbirds, there is no other animal in Pennsylvania that puts on as colorful a display as a turkey gobbler in the spring. Their heads – bright white on the top, blue on the sides and a deep red going down the neck, reek of patriotism.
Being our national symbol has helped raise public concern for the eagle when its numbers were dwindling, and I don’t want to see its population decline again.
But I hate to see the turkey overlooked. Maybe a compromise is in order and we can make the case for co-national symbols.
Previously published in the Times Leader, April 29, 2007.
