I'm a lifelong hunter profoundly interested in the tradition.
As this goes, the journals of John James Audubon (1785-1851) contain some interesting reading for the sportsman, historian, and naturalist. His enthusiastic entries there hold plenty of hunting and shooting at all manner of wild game, including songbirds, which he later painted, and even dined on. This might come as a shock to some of us in the 21st century looking back in time. One need to look no further than Audubon's coverage of the wild turkey, and the many 19th century tactics readily employed to secure gobblers and hens.
At the time, taking a nesting female was not uncommon (at one point Audubon expresses concern for this in his writing), nor was roost shooting, baiting, or even chasing them on horseback. It's clear that wildlife was once perceived as abundant, widespread, and there for the taking. Things are different now. Time always stands still though in my mind, and we can neither assign blame for those hunting approaches, nor affirm them in today's modern world. It is what it is. Bear in mind, modern wildlife management had yet to emerge, and only in my lifetime (1958- ) are things coming together for the better.
Indeed, times have never been more positive as wild turkey management goes, and we turkey hunters now enjoy the benefits of conservation efforts and ongoing concern for the species. Sportsman dollars facilitate much of it, though it's rare that we garner credit in outside circles. Mostly we preach to the choir. This year forward, let's spread the word a little better, eh.
I do have one question though: Is Audubon's gobbler painting incomplete? Note the head. The feathering. I've always puzzled over this. Why does the image seem slightly off and sub-par? (Audubon's brood hen painting with poults, some of you likely know, sports a thin wispy beard--accurate for 8-10% of wild hens, biology tells us. I've seen enough in the field over the years to confirm this.)
--Steve Hickoff
