THE STATEMENT OF THE | PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND ee nc) y Cs UBMODOW [aluBq Aq oJ04g “warodiy ‘pueg_ 38 y1eq jeuoyeN uerpeueD ay} ur deoyg urequnoyw pity AYVNLONVS V NI advs ak 36 / Pus ¥u.5 JGII-19 aia 76 THE STATEMENT OF THE PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Pot ois 1919 VOLUME III BY WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, Sc. D., A.M. Campaigning Trustee NEW YORK \ ME hes | 2 S$ eZ / PUBLISHED BY THE FUND “os 9? © 4&3 NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL PARK eee JUNE, 1920 COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, TRUSTEE SPECIAL NOTICE The reproduction of any of the portraits in this volume is expressly forbidden. Only one hundred copies of this volume are available for sale. Price $3.00 per copy, post-paid. CLARK & FRITTS PRINTERS NEW YORK CONTENTS TABLETS IN MEMORIAM THEODORE ROOSEVELT Mrs. RUSSELL SAGE ANDREW CARNEGIE FREDERICK G. BOURNE Dr. C. GORDON HEWITT Dr. JOSEPH KALBFUS . W. AUSTIN WADSWORTH CHARLES E. BREWSTER MILES W. BURFORD PART I> THE.FUND. REPORT OF ACTIVITIES IN 1917, 1918 AND 1919 AMENDMENT TO OUR PLAN OF FOUNDATION LIST OF FOUNDERS AND SUBSCRIBERS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, 1917-1918, AND "1919 REPORT OF THE AUDITOR 3 : LIST OF SECURITIES MEDALS FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICES PART II. CAMPAIGN REPORTS AND PAPERS THE TRAGEDY OF NEW YORK’S “BUCK LAW’’ THE QUAIL TRAGEDY ON LONG ISLAND Two GREAT CAMPAIGNS FOR WILD LIFE SANCTUARIES SMOTHERING THE GAME SANCTUARY BILL IN CONGRESS NEW STATE SANCTUARIES FOR GAME MISSsourRI’S ATTACK, AND FINAL DEFEAT, ON THE Mr- GRATORY BIRD TREATY SUPREME COURT DECISION ON MIGRATORY Birp TREATY PROMOTION OF BIRD PROTECTION IN FRANCE THE PLUMAGE TRADE IN THE DUTCH EAST INDIES.— By P. G. van Tienhoven RESULTS OF THE AMERICAN PLUMAGE LAW THE CASE OF THE ALASKAN BROWN BEAR OUR MEDAL FROM ENGLAND E WILD LIFE PROTECTION LITERATURE > CONTENTS—Continued. ParT III. VARIOUS PAPERS. THE END OF GAME AND SPORT IN AMERICA? . . I2m THE RATIONAL USE OF GAME ANIMALS s : . 146 THE RESCUED FUR SEAL INDUSTRY . 158 How PENNSYLVANIA IS BRINGING BACK GAME AND SPORT.—By John M. Phillips . . 161 THE SAVING OF THE SEA BIRDS OF THE GULF OF Sr. | LAWRENCE.—By Dr. John M. Clarke . . at THE WORST INDICTMENT OF AMERICANS. . “Ee TEXAS TESTIMONY ON BIRD DESTRUCTION IN TEXAS . ~ het QUICK RESULT OF PROTECTING THE PRAIRIE CHICKEN 179 BIRD PROTECTION AND DESTRUCTION IN EGYPT . . 180 THE ITALIAN BIRD NET IN NEW JERSEY : . M3 CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT EVENTS IN WILD LIFE PROTECTION, 1917, 1918 AND 1919 : . 185 PART IV. BULLETIN SECTION. BULLETIN No. 6. A NEW GAME ACT FOR ALASKA At Hnd ILLUSTRATIONS SAFE IN A SANCTUARY : : ; . Frontispiece JOHN JAY PIERREPONT : ; : d ‘ 0 eel NELSON F. JONAS ; : 60 DIPLOMA FROM THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTEC- TION OF BIRDS ; 110 How LONG CAN THE BIRDS SURVIVE PRESENT BAG “LIMITS” ? ; 24 THE SUREST WAY TO EXTERMINATE DEER : 124 QUAIL SLAUGHTER IN TEXAS AND THE LOGICAL SE QUENCE, EVERYWHERE .. 126 THE LEGAL WAY TO EXTERMINATE THE GAME FISHES 128 Four DAYS HUNTING AT LAKE JOHNSON . : . 136 THE APPALLING BAG “LIMIT” IN ALASKA : . i134 THE FIRST MORNING’S BAG ; P E j) ih A PERFECTLY LEGAL BAG OF Ducks : ; Oe 2 522 BULLETIN NO. 6. THE WHITE MOUNTAIN SHEEP. . Frontispiece EARLY PROPAGANDA FOR ALASKAN GAME PROTECTION 10 THE GIANT MOOSE OF ALASKA ‘ ; ‘ : 16 ALASKAN BROWN BEAR : : : 24 ALASKAN CARIBOU, BARREN GROUND GRoUP : : ae MAPS. RESULTS OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR WILD LIFE SANCTU- ARIES : ; : 5 : : 70 SAVING THE BIRDS OF PARADISE . f ye PENNSYLVANIA STATE GAME SANCTUARIES 2 oi 162, Cahlets in Memoriam N these days of rush and turmoil, even the illus- trious dead are too quickly forgotten. It is Man's way to court the living, for aid and comfort, and all too quickly forget to recall those who have done good deeds and passed away. The gallant men and women who devote labor and fortunes to causes for the benefit of mankind at least deserve grateful and long remembrance. It would be wrong for the most devoted defend- ers of wild life to fall out of the ranks unnoticed by those of us who remain. There should be a Hall of Tablets, in which their names and their records might at least briefly be inscribed. It would inure to the benefit, not of the departed, but of those who live after them. Possibly the lapse of time will de- velop this obligation in concrete and inspiring form. Meanwhile, asa duty that we owe, we shall in this volume dedicate a few pages of appreciation in memory of men and women of the Army of Defense who have wrought and passed on, and about whom a memorial volume might well be written. Cheodore Roosevelt 1858-1919 HIS man of marvelous and well-nigh matchless loyalty to humanity, all-embracing breadth of vision, splendid devotion to ideals and boundless cour- age, also was a leader in the protection and perpetua- tion of wild life and forests. His great opportunities came when he was President of the United States. During his term of office, literally from its first hour to its last one, he wrought diligently for the twin causes of forests and wild life. The measures for the protection of wild life and forests that were either inagurated or finished by Col. Roosevelt during his term of office as President were alone sufficient to make a reign illustrious. The beneficial laws, the game preserves, the bird sanctuaries and the nationalized forests that were created under and through him are far too numerous to specify here. Always brave, and seldom cautious in conquests for causes, Theodore Roosevelt never ceased to strive with voice and pen for the protection of the wild creatures that could not fend for themselves. We remember his strong and quick helping hand, and his generous “Well done!” with everlasting gratitude, and the loss of his inspiring spirit is greater than we can describe. Mrs. Russell Sage, Founder 1828-1918 T is impossible for a defender of wild life to write the name of Margaret Olivia Sage without a thrill of emotion. There are few persons whose names are entitled to stand beside hers, at the head of the pha- lanx of protectors. In the defense of wild life she knew that ‘money means power; and in times of greatest stress her helping hand was most often and most powertully in evidence. Mrs. Sage was a woman of remarkable judgment, perfect mental poise and unflagging generosity. For nearly twenty years she never halted in her support of wild life causes. Her activities embraced general education in bird lore, the promotion of better laws, law enforcement and the making of sanctuaries and preserves. The valuable Louisiana wild-fowl winter refuge and feeding-ground, known as Marsh Island, was her greatest single effort, and the purchase of the island, and its protection up to date, was accom- plished solely by her. Mrs. Sage's gifts to the poor and suffering, to science, and particularly to zoology, should be grate- fully remembered by successive generations of Amer- 1cans, as long as our country remains a nation. Andrew Carnegie, Founder 1835-1919 HEN Andrew Carnegie passed over the great divide the world lost the earthly ten- ement of one of its greatest souls. But his spirit lives, and the things he inspired and did will live forever to improve and uplift the millions of two great nations. Truly, his works do follow him, and throughout the next five hundred years he will be gratefully remembered by uncountable millions of people. Forty years ago it beeame known to the world that Andrew Carnegie s great purpose in life was to coin clean and honest gold into human happines, and lasting benefit to the human race. From that purpose he never swerved. It is hardly to be expected that his biographer will be able to set forth adequately the marvellously diversified character of his plans and his achievements for the benefit of humanity. With keen insight into human character, he demand- ed that in helping peoples and institutions they should develop power to help themselves. His kind hands swept the whole seale of humanity from the suffer- ing invalids on his pension list to great institutions, and cities, and even nations. Mr. Carnegie was the first subscriber to enter the list of Founders of this Fund: but he did so by saying: “T will dive the Jast $5,000!" He was annoy- ed, pained and at times horrified by the destruction of wild life, and it seemed to dive him real satisfaction to participate in a foundation that would work perpetu- ally for the better protection of wild creatures. Andrew Carnegie belongs to the ages. Hrederick G. Bourne, Founder 1851-1919 HROUGHOUT his busy life, Mr. Bourne represented a line of men who for half a century have pumped life blood into the veins of New York's institutions, and received in return only the most meagre appreciation from the public. Although not keenly interested in sport with the gun and rod, or in the study of wild life as a special diversion, Mr. Bourne was very sympathetic and helpful to those who were zoologically minded. He was an ardent and generous member of the Board of Managers of the Zoological - Society, a Founder in perpetuity, and when he was invited to become a Founder of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund he responded promptly and graciously. The idea of becoming a perpetual helper of the wild life cause appealed to his love for humanity and practi- cal usefulness. In times like these the world can ill afford to lose such men as Mr. Bourne, because the events and the new impulses of the present period do not tend to encourage or promote the further development of the broad and generous spirit of philanthropy and hv- manitarianism that reached its zenith in New York in the year 1919. Charles Gordon Kemitt 1885-1920 VEN taking into account all Canada’s resources in men, it remains impossible to calculate the full extent of the loss to Canada and all America of Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt. In the difficult business of con- serving game, and at the same time conserving the good will of sportsmen, he was particularly gifted. Equipped with the educated and finely-finished mind of a Scotch scientist, he quickly grasped facts and essential details, recognized their logical conclu- sions, and then fearlessly proposed action. Although educated, trained and at work as the Dominion Entomologist, his broad mind reached out and grasped the whole vertebrate fauna of the vast region em- braced in the Canadian Dominion. Dr. Hewitt's most monumental single service was in the active promotion of the international mi- gratory bird treaty, in the course of which he visited all the provinces of Canada, to smooth out difficulties. For this he received the Gold Medal of the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. His next greatest work was in helping to frame Canada's really great new Northwest Game Act, and in the creation of great preserves for the musk-ox and caribou. One month before his most untimely death he finished the three-year task of writing a book on the “Conserva- tion of Wild Life in Canada.” May heaven send to wild life more men like him. Joseph Kalbtus 1852-1919 OR twenty years Dr. Kalbfus was a prominent factor in wild life protection in the eastern United States. He entered upon his career as Secretary of the Pennsylvania State Game Commission at a time when wild life protection in that state was literally in its infancy. He worked, and many times fought, for ad- equate game laws, their enforcement and the pun-~ ishment of offenders. He was chiefly responsible for the enactment of the law prohibiting aliens in Pennsylvania from own- ing or carrying firearms, and he helped to fight for the integrity of that law until the United States Supreme Court declared it constitutional. He worked diligently and successfully for the laws that rendered Pennsylvania one of the foremost of protective states. lhe most notable of these causes were the hunter's license law, the game preserve law, the prohibitory plumage law, the vermin law, the automatic shotgun law, and the buck law. Dr. Kalbfus was a man fearless in the defense of wild life, absolutely tireless asa worker, true and devoted in his friendships, and generous in apprecia- tion of the merits of others. His untimely death was a severe blow to the cause of wild life protection, but the results he accomplished will live for a century. W. Austin Wadsworth 1847-1918 i old school gentleman of the most distinguished pattern, a lover of manly sports and the sincere friend and protector of wild life, Major W adsworth left the world far better than he found it. His chivalrous championship of wild life causes was equal- ed only by his high patriotism, and his devotion to the humane ideals. For many years while President of the Boone and Crockett Club, Mr. Wadsworth worked actively for the creation of game preserves, the more perfect preservation of the antelope and elk, and the promo- tion of the federal migratory bird law and treaty. It was Mr. Wadsworth and the members of his family who first colonized old-world pheasants in New York State, at Mount Morris, and planted the seed that successfully took root and ran wild over a large area of western New York. For many years he was a member of the Board of Managers of the New York Zoological Society and took an active part in its various activities. His life was well rounded out, and the memory of it suggests a perfect Corinthian column of stainless white marble. Charles £. Grewster 1858-1918 EW men are endowed by Nature with the de- tective temperament and the fighting spirit that must unite in one man in order to produce an effective human engine for the detection and punishment of crime. For many years Mr. Brewster was a diligent and successful detector and prosecutor of crimes against the bird laws of the nation. Mr. Brewster was one of the most energetic game protectionists of his time of activity, and he was in the work continuously for thirty years. He collected much of the evidence which was used in the great Silz case, both in New York and New Jer- sey, he broke up the quail shipping traffic in Kentucky and southwestern Virginia, he took a hand in checking the duck traffic from Big Lake, and took an active part in game protective work in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Texas. His work went far beyond the credit that he received for it from the public. His most celebrated case was that against August Silz, the New York game dealer, and the many wild ducks netted by him in Virginia, and finally sold in New York, contrary to law. The chain of evidence was so complete and unanswerable that the defendant elected to settle the case out of court by the payment of the unprecedented fine of $20,000. The loss of so vigorous a field agent for the detection and conviction of dame-law violators is a loss of strength that is felt all along the line. Miles W. Burford 1873-1917 AR to the southwest, at the northern edge of the Sonoran region, in the year 1915 a gallant young spirit enlisted in the newly-developed New Mexican army of wild life defenders. Miles W. Burford, from Indianapolis, Indiana, took up his share of the new white mans burden, and bore it bravely down to the day of his death. He was the first president of the New Mexico Game Protective Association, which was the firm amalgamation of all the local associations of sportsmen in that state into one harmonious and powertul body. From the day of its birth, that Association set upa line of high ideals, and from 1915 down to the present hour it has not for a moment lost sigat of any one of them. It became a model and a pace-set— ter for other states, and justice demands the statement that it owes much of its success to its first President. Asa tribute to his memory, and a lasting me-~ morial, by petition of the sportsmen of New Mexico the most famous wild-fowl resort in that state was officially rechristened Lake Burford. i } i ‘ Ui en ae: hi, te y i i “a a a 4 7 i | i t , . “He i 4 N , v * - PART I.—THE FUND THIRD STATEMENT OF THE PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND REPORT OF ACTIVITIES IN 1917, 1918 AND 1919 HE year 1917 was a year of universal war distraction and unrest. For us it was full of activities for pre- paredness, and war relief, Red Cross work and anti-German propaganda. The year 1918 was America’s second year of war en- grossments, and the whole nation remained all that year on a war footing, and in lines marshalled for service. Those two years were not good years in which to inaugu- rate and promote new measures for the protection of wild life. The time of people who work for wild life without pay was greatly curtailed, and their efforts were impera- tively demanded by more urgent causes. The relief of human suffering enlisted a mighty army of men and women who in peace times gave freely of their time and strength to the wild life cause. But, notwithstanding the war’s distractions and exac- tions, the welfare of the wild creatures has all along been jealously guarded. This was strikingly manifested in 1917 when efforts were made by hysterical and thoughtless per- sons to “let down the bars” of protection, and permit the killing of “more game” as a war measure, to provide an additional food supply for the nation. Those demands were made in various states, and they met an immediate response. The wild life conservationists of all-America rose against them in one compact mass! This 22, WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND opposition took its most definite form in a hastily called “conference of the powers” wherein the heads of the half- dozen great protective organizations centering in New York met, briefly discussed the situation, and unanimously de- clared war on all proposals for the killing of any wild life with “the war as an excuse.” In Washington this action met with a quick and wholly sympathetic response from Mr. Frederic C. Walcott, who spoke for Mr. Herbert Hoover, the National Food Adminis- trator. The National Food Administration declared most strongly against any relaxation of the game laws, anywhere, on account of the war. After that the special game-killing proposals nevermore were heard of, until the Sulzer bill ap- peared from Fairbanks, Alaska, in 1918. That demand promptly shared the fate of all the former ones, in complete extinguishment. It was definitely established, as a fundamental principle, that the American people never will permit the destruction of their paltry remnants of wild game as war measures to increase the food supply of 107,000,000 people. It was de- clared that the consumption of all the wild game of the United States would not make the slightest visible impres- sion on the daily needs of the American people, and that the possible food increase so gained would be less than one- tenth of one per cent of the whole amount required to feed the nation. With the exception of the international treaty for the pro- tection of migratory birds, and a very few other measures of smaller importance, the efforts of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund were directed chiefly toward the hold- ing of gains already made, and the prevention of backward steps. Even the migratory bird treaty called for very little effort outside of Congress. Having fully ratified the treaty, it became the bounden duty of Congress and the President to take all the steps that were necessary to carry its provis- ions into effect! Naturally, this relieved the wild life cam- THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 23 paigners of much responsibility, and of what otherwise wise would have constituted a serious burden of work. The activities put forth under the auspices of this Fund during the years 1917, 1918 and 1919 now will be reported upon. Through diminished activities the expenditures called for have been much more moderate than usual, and our savings during the past two years now amount to a substan- tial sum. These savings of the past rather quiet years will now enable us to carry into effect certain plans for the in- auguration of important protective movements in Alaska and in France, where outside help is greatly needed. As the Founders and Subscribers are aware, we recently put to a vote by them the question whether the activities of this Fund should not now be extended beyond the shores of North America, and internationalized. There now seem to be good reasons for such a step, particularly in France, in promoting the protection of food crops. Ail save four of the Founders and Subscribers who voted on this matter voted for internationalization, and this we accept as our authorization for the change proposed in our plan of foundation. It goes without saying, however, that we propose to waste nothing abroad, and that our activities abroad always will be secondary to the needs of our own country and its possessions. Although it has been our hope that from time to time voluntary contributions will be made to the endowment of the Permanent Fund, that hope has not been realized during the past two years, save for a bequest entered in the wili of one of the Subscribers. Unquestionably the time will come when an income of $10,000 a year will be needed for active campaign work, and we still hope that our endow- ment fund will not always remain at the irreducible mini- mum of $100,000 that originally was named in 1913. This report will cover the whole of the three years 1917, 1918 and 1919. Its publication in the spring of 1919 was 24 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND prevented by the duties that were laid upon us by the Ameri- can Defense Society in its struggle against the rising tide of Bolshevism and red socialism in America, and the effort to arouse the American people to the dangers threatening our nation from red sources. It is a satisfaction to be able to state that in the fight against Bolshevism in America, our campaign began in April, 1918, and it continued without interruption or relaxation down to the great national move- ment against the reds that began in November, 1919. Then it seemed to us that the nation was awake, and our work. was finished. As an exhibit of our reasons why we have not accom- plished more for wild life causes since the war began, the Campaigning Trustee offers the following list of titles which will suggest the character of his activities during the war. 1914. Oct. to June, 1915.—Belgian Civilian Relief Fund. 1915. “The United States a Fool’s Paradise.” 1916. ‘‘National Defenses or a National Licking.” 1917. “A Searchlight on Germany.” “The American Guardian (Boycott) Journal.” 1918. “Awake! America.”’ “A Democracy of Crocodiles.” 1919. “The Lying Lure of Bolshevism.” Within the limits of this introductory statement of causes and activities it is impossible to set forth in detail the ef- forts and the results of the last three years. The most im- portant items will be treated separately in the following pages. The Second Biennial Statement recorded very fully the results of our western campaigns to save the sage grouse and other upland game birds of the West that really were achieved in 1917. In order to bring the work of the Fund as far as possible down to date, we thus forestalled the mcst important records of one of the years covered by this vol- ume, and of course we will not duplicate that publication THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 25 here. And in any event, the report of those results fairly belonged with the records of the campaign work done in 1916. The chief causes that have occupied our attention during 1917, 1918 and 1919, other than the Grouse campaign, were as follows :— The game sanctuary bill. The migratory bird treaty. The buck law in New York. The Sulzer bill for the sale of game in Alaska. A new game act for Alaska. The encouragement of new bird protection in France. Aid in the creation of 6,468 Wild Life Sanctuaries. A contribution to Game Utilization in Canada. Attempt to start an organization in Texas. Further support of Iowa’s quail defenders. Opposition to the sale of seized plumage. We are now to report.upon the activities of the past three years and upon conditions affecting wild life as they exist today. Briefly epitomized, the situation of wild life in America is today as follows: Our songbirds are on the whole very well protected. Our waterfowl have been and still are, rapidly increasing. The business of sanctuary-making is prosperous and promising. The American people are not awake to the necessity of providing millions of fruit trees and shrubs, and widespread protection for upland game birds against the elements and their natural enemies. The game laws look ten times better than they are. All species of killable game birds save waterfowl are being ex- terminated “‘according to law.” The sportsmen of America are exterminating their own sport; and this, too, at a very rapid rate. 26 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND The total put-back of game through game farms and re- stocking is as yet infinitesimally small, and as a factor in the ultimate preservation of sport it is limited. In Alaska the game situation has been getting away from us, and now requires immediate and thoughtful attention. France, Italy and Belgium need the active help of America in the protection of their insectivorous birds, and in the re- storation of their game. Finally, the republics of Mexico, Central and South America need to be awakened to the necessity of now enter- ing seriously upon the business of conserving their wild life. It is perfectly evident that the people of the United States now are facing the most serious economic crisis of the past fifty years. The orgy of luxury and unstable high prices in which we have been wallowing will in all probability come to a sudden end in empty storerooms and dinner pails. No one can predict with certainty what the future has in store for the wild life of North America, except that further as- saults upon it are bound to occur, all along the line. It is now more than ever the duty of all wild life defenders to redouble their diligence for the protection and perpetual preservation of the remnant, on a continuing basis. The sportsmen of America seem to be bent upon destroying the killable game and also their own sport by the lawful meth- ods of extravagantly liberal game bags and open seasons. Whether the sportsmen will heed the warning which we now are giving them in this volume remains to be seen; and [I confess that there is little reason to hope that they will do so to a substantial degree. During the past three years we have carefully husbanded our resources in expendable funds for the troublous times of the near future, and we have stored up a fair reserve of am- munition for emergency use hereafter. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT eof Our article in this volume entitled ‘“‘The End of Game and Sport in America?” will arouse severe criticism among thoughtless sportsmen who hunt from year to year under the delusion that whatever the law permits is necessarily right, and safe for the future. Already in certain quarters our efforts to preserve sport with the gun and rod from ex- tinction in America have led a few sportsmen to call the Campaigning Trustee “‘the bitterest enemy of sportsmen”; but this is to be regarded merely as part of the day’s work. AMENDMENT TO OUR PLAN OF FOUNDATION O foundation designed to be permanent, and perform important functions in the uplift of humanitarian causes, can be regarded either as perfect or beyond im- provement. When this Fund was planned for the benefit of the wild life of North America, no one dreamed of such world devastation as the last war speedily wrought. The time came when Duty called upon us to cooperate in the revivifying of wild life protection activities in France and elsewhere abroad. The facts in the new situation were laid before all founders and subscribers to this Fund in the following letter, coupled with a request for a general vote on the question submitted: NEW YORK, July 25, 1919. To all Founders and Subscribers of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund: When the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund was founded tthe world was at peace, and all nations with which we had close relations in the protection of wild life were prosperous, and abundantly able to finance their own campaign work. It was on that basis that we proposed to make the work of the Fund national in its scope instead of international, and to limit our financial support to the protection and increase of the wild life a America, and especially North America and the United tates. But the war has overturned and destroyed the peace- ful and prosperous conditions abroad which once ren- dered financial aid from America unnecessary. Today America stands in the position of the helper of the world, financially and otherwise. The “impossible” things that have happened have caused the American people to aban- don the most of their previous precedents, and formu- late new policies. These new conditions now affect the protection of wild life. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT In the view of the undersigned it has now become a duty and a necessity that the scope of the operations of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund should be made international, with a view to helping any wild life protection cause in a foreign country whenever our duty in the matter seems clear and imperative. At the present moment our Fund is in a position to render great aid in the organization and promotion, in France, of a great national movement for the increase and protection of the wild bird life of that nation. There never was a time when crop-protecting birds were so much needed in France as now, and the need to promote the protection of ‘these birds is imperative as a protective measure for the field industries of France. We are already in close touch with the bird protec- tors of France, and particularly the Ligue Francaise pour la Protection des Oiseaux, having its headquarters in Paris and existing as a branch society of the French National Society d’Acclimatation. A comparatively small amount of financial help from the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, subscribed annually for the next three years, would greatly assist the League, not only in the actual payment of the costs of propaganda but also in encouraging the bird protectionists of France through the helping hand of America. The funds for current expenses now in the hands of the Campaigning Trus- tee are ample for the needs of America, and sufficient to justify the giving of some financial aid to our col- leagues in France. It is entirely possible that ere long it will be found desirable to extend aid to Italy of a similar kind, and for similar purposes. The American people do not need to be told that the people of France and England now have mighty little money to spend on such causes as the protection and increase of bird life; nor is it necessary to point out further that the successful protection of birds means a corresponding increase in the food supply of nations. In view of all these facts I respectfully propose to the Founders and Subscribers of the Permanent Fund the granting of authority to the Campaigning Trustee to extend the scope of the work of the Fund by making it international. There is no thought or intention of asking for further funds, and it is not our expectation that any large sums from our annual income would be devoted to foreign work. We have in view those special occasions wherein a comparatively small sum bestowed judicially at a critical moment helps to accomplish a great | result. 29 30 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND In order that we may know your views in regard to this question, will you kindly sign the enclosed card, and by means of an erasure mark it to indicate your wishes. Respectfully submitted, W. T. HorRNapbay, Campaigning Trustee. The replies to the above letter represented about two- thirds of the founders and subscribers, and all votes save four were in favor of making the work of the Fund inter- national. This policy has been inaugurated by our par- ticipation in the renewal of bird protection in France, through the most important and responsible agency existing there, the French League for the Protection of Birds. A brief notice of this activity appears elsewhere. = IAEA KINI | e| UNAM AAAAATAAAAT JOHN JAY PIERREPONT mM = EAA TAA INNA FOUNDERS AND SUBSCRIBERS TO THE PER- MANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND COMPLETE TO APRIL 1, 1920. ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS PAID IN FULL FOUNDERS. “Mes. RUSSELL SAGE, New York.................2:.2.2.... $25,000 GEORGE EASTMAN, Rochester, N. Y.........2.............. 6,000 MRS. FREDERICK FERRIS THOMPSON, Canandaigua, N. Y. 5,000 Feeney Porp, Detroit, Miche... eco ee 5,000 MeetsAM P. Clypr, New York ......050:. 00.22 5,000 SJ0HN D. ARCHBOLD, New York._.........2.22:-22..4....:: 5,000 ALEXANDER SMITH COCHRAN, New York....-...-... 5,000 oorrrAm 1. NICHOLS, New York:2..........0...5.. 5,000 sempnew CARNEGIE, New Yorkie... 0: 5,000 ieerce F BAKER, New York. .2)..0:5.00. 5,000 eee Meo PRATT, New YOrn 22.06 Jawa sl 3,000 GEORGE HEWITT MYERS, Washington, D. = rape. 3,000 Miss HELOISE MEYER, Lenox, Mass...........2........ 2,000 EDWARD S. HARKNESS, New York Eo dees SOP 1,200 MAX C. FLEISCHMANN, Cinemmnati, Ohio... :...... 1,000 mes. J. 5. KENNEDY, New Y ork:..)--2.20.2.... 1,000 EMERSON MCMILLIN, New York............................ 1,000 *F'REDERICK G. BOURNE, New York........................ - 1,000 MORTIMER L. SCHIFF, New York............................ 1,000 BoAeVUnT THORNE, New York:.....02) 2 eo cene 1,000 ANTHONY R. KUSER, Bernardsville, N. J............ 1,000 JOHN DRYDEN KUSER, Bernardsville, N. J........ 1,000 FREDERICK F. BREWSTER, New Haven, Conn his 1,000 - FREDERIC C. WALCOTT, New Grit EE oe a 1,000 Mrs. WILLIAM H. BLISS, New York .<.0-..0) 1,000 Mrs. R. T. AUCHMUTY, New York... 1,000 HOWARD MELVILLE HANNA, Cleveland, Ohio........ 1,000 EDMUND C. CONVERSE, New See, Benes We 1,000 *Deceased 34 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND ETHEL RANDOLPH THAYER, In Memoriam, Bos- bom, IWS Si a eee Ae oe WATSON B. DICKERMAN, Mamaroneck,N. Y......... JOHN J. PIERREPONT, Brooklyn, N. Y................. SUBSCRIBERS. HENRY A. EDWARDS, Albany, N. Y...........20.002..- CLEVELAND H. DopGE, New York.......................- JAMES SPEYER, New York..." 2 ee ee JAMES B. FORD, New York....2.02 2.2223 FRIEND OF WILD LIFE, Berkeley, Calif._............... Mrs. ETHEL R. THAYER, Boston, Mass................ MISS ELIZABETH 8. EDWARDS, Albany, N. Y..... HOMER E. SARGENT, Chicago; Ill 222 *ROBERT B. WOODWARD, Brooklyn, N. Y............. CHARLES A. DEAN, Boston, Mass......................... WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, New York.......................- JOHN M. PHILLIPS, Pittsburgh, Pa.............00.2....... JOHN C. PHILLIPS, Wenham, Mass......................--- aCoW. Post Battle Creek, Mich... oes COLEMAN RANDOLPH, Morristown, N. J............. A. BARTON HEPBURN, New York......................-...-- *ZENAS CRANE, Dalton, Mass.................-0.02.02.--2..-. Z. MARSHALL CRANE, Dalton, Mass......................... MIss EMILY TREVOR, Yonkers, N. Y..................... NORMAN JAMES, Baltimore, Md............................. HENRY W. SHOEMAKER, New York.................... GUSTAVUS D. POPE, Detroit, Mich................. so ARTHUR .B. LEACH, New Yorkie!) 2) 233 JOHN MARKLE, New -York)2. 000%... yo es CAMP-FIRE CLUB OF MICHIGAN, Detroit................ J. ERNEST ROTH, Pittsburgh, Pa... 72... W.-J. HOLLAND, Pittsburgh, Pas. ARTHUR W. ELTING, Albany, N. Y......-.-..2...0.22..-- JOHN FH. EAGUR New eV Ore =e a ee EVERSLEY CHILDS, New York..............00200......2..--- WILLIAM C. BRADBURY, Denver, Colo...................-- R. W. EVERETT, Pisgah Forest, N. C....................- Mrs. HARRIET WILLIAMS MYERS, Los ANGELES, Calif. ALEXANDER V. FRASER, New York...............-.------- AUDUBON SOCIETIES OF PASADENA AND Los ANGELES, Calif. * Deceased THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT oo PerinAm EK. CorpPminy New) -Y orkc.. nc... 25 CHARLES WILLIS WARD, Eureka, Calif............... 25 Dr. EMILY G. HUNT, Pasadena, Calif................. 25 J. WILLIAM GREENWOOD, Brooklyn, N. Y............ 25 ALFRED COLLINS, Philadelphia, Pa: -.:.............. 25 *RICHARD HARDING DAVIS, Mt. Kisco, N. Y......... 20 ALAINE C. WHITE, Litchfield, Conn.._...........02... 20 HNC) DR Re SA Oe Wn, Sale GA Oe Rae eee Ba $103,770 SPECIAL SUBSCRIPTIONS TO CURRENT EXPENSE FUND. To April 1, 1920. fovin Parley, Brooklyn; N: Y_............22 024.5...) $5.00 Connecticut Chapter, D. A. R., through Miss Cor- neha. B-Smith, Litchfield, Gonna. 4). 5.00 seoncaries Hallock, Washington D.C... 5.00 money A. Mdwards, Albany, N. Y.............:......2 13.00 $28.00 *Deceased FORM OF BEQUEST TO THIS FUND. I hereby give and bequeath to the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund of New York, founded by William T. Horn- aday, Clark Williams and A. Barton Hepburn, as Trustees, and payable to them or their successors, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars. TRUSTEES’ REPORT Permanent Wild Lite Protection Hund January 1, 1917, to December 31, 1918 Principal Account RECEIPTS Balance, Columbia Trust Co., Jan. 1, MOM cin oe Satie Sale $10,000 Dominion of Canada 5% INGO EES ts | eo eae et hs Subscriptions: Watson B. Dicker- HED, Fp eee Be Oi neal ok ee 6 $500.00 Henry A. Edwards ........ 150.00 IR. W. Bwerettiin so. os. 24.97 DISBURSEMENTS $10,000 Norfolk & Western Con. 4’s__.. $ 1,000 U. S. First Liberty Loan Con. AUS same AE ote et ee WE tea age Mg $ 2,000 Union Pacific R. R. 1st Ref. 4’s Balance on Deposit Columbia Trust Co. mats Te. POU Bee i, Fs) $1,023.43 10,000.00 674.97 $11,698.40 $8,387.50 1,000.00 1,572.50 10,960.00 $ 738.40 THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 37 Incone Account January 1, 1917, to December 31, 1918. RECEIPTS Balance, Columbia Trust Co., Jan. 1, «oJ lige: RICE eS AO ee ee WR edie 8 $ 25.62 meome from. Investments -.............:..- 10,648.98 Bicerest on Dalances 22. 228.26 oe Ateoc, LO.T21-92 DISBURSEMENTS Transferred to W. T. H. “Drawing Account” Income on Investments $10,538.18 Interest on balances ...... 47.32 10,585.50 Transferred to Col. Trust Co. Commis- So PDD Ss Ce eee eee nt ks eee eae 27.09 Accrued Interest Paid ........2......2.. 109.38 10,721.92 CAMPAIGNING TRUSTEE’S STATEMENT OF DRAWING ACCOUNT PERMANENT WILD LIEE PROTECTION FUND January 1, 1917, to December 31, 1918 RECEIPTS Jan. 1, 1917, Balance in Columbia Atavist "CO. 1.5 ar oe oe ee See eee $120.12 Less checks nos. 212 and 218 not presented up to Dec. 31, 1916...._... 18.00 102.12 Income from Investments...__........._..... $10,538.18 Interest on deposits —_........---2..------.--.- 75.65 Transfer of accrued interest from Col. AR UIS CGO oe Ba ae ert tees ah ee 47.32 Refund account check No. 242...._..._... 62.50 Sale of “Statement” __............. $16.45 Less exchange................--..---. 1 16.34 Cash subscriptions to current exp....... 28.00 $10,767.99 $10,870.11 EXPENDITURES TOS UAC Crt. 5. tend een et ee eae $359.19 Melee rans. se ee es SN ence 107.58 PES Gy. a= 55. ee Sree ee eee Oe ae 10.46 Subscriptions to Organization Work.. 1,137.77 Field Agents’ Expenses -.........-------- 612.62 Carried Fovword 22.622 eee $2,220 1102 THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT rong. 1 OTIUdEE. ee o2,22 1.02 Picid Agents’ Services si... 100.00 Miscellaneous Services ..........-....----------- 211.50 Mmutmeraphn Letters 5°) oes 34.15 eave! and Subsistence: 7.12. tf 285.02 Boeuks and Periodicals... 2.02... fm ewes: meeORENSTIRGD | «4PM Ute. EAE nh ig ts 1,930.90 SESS C1 as ea ct ee ae eee 43.32 Office Equipment and Supplies -.......... 67.15 PSS OINGS an bee Li Ree WOIy: lg. aie Uh ee re 147.55 Photographs, Drawings and Slides .... 52.50 Medals and Certificates of Award........ 753.00 Prizes for Wild Life Protection............ 95.00 Invested Funds, 3rd and 4th Liberty Loans, all coupons attached...._....... Unexpended cash balance on hand cee ON eh ee ee Less Check No. 360 not presented up to EEL 3 Bae] 2 [Se eae ee oe ee ey i ee Jan. 1, 1919, Balance in Columbia Pens Company (4) fee 39 6,050.63 3,100.00 8.00 9,158.65 50.00 $9,108.63 $1,761.48 $10,870.11 CAMPAIGNING TRUSTEE’S STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY CAUSES Jan. 1, 1917, to December 31, 1913. General Campai@ny 2 s:<:..5 :5 SLIT National Educators Conservation Society ........ 100.00 Missouri Fish and Game League ______...._____...... 100.00 Sage Grouse and Quail Campaign _.............._-_.._. 651.17 Game Sanctuary Campaien) 225.2 3.3) ee 204.88 Texas+CAampaien= 5.05 5 ee ee 120.00 Cahitornia Campaign 22) 05 ee es ee 75.00 New York State Campaiens 2202.28 ese 176.34 Migratory Bird Law, Treaty and Enabling Act 77.09 Connecticut Campaten (2.2.5. = ea 50.00 BEC SACU MALES. af ia Ses NI lc oie ae 464.00 Heather Witlinewy Wor eee eee 45.00 Alaska Campaign—sSulzer Bill -............2..2220222022.... 52.05 District of Columbia—Non-sale of Game........ 25.00 Ligue Francaise pour la Protection des Oiseaux, PUG he A eh eR ee dec ce 262.77 Societe Nationale d’Acclimatation de France, Paris: 20 oe ee eee 500.00 Second Biennial “Statement” of the P. W. L. | peau les (cod! ad 0-2 0 oy) Wea mente eRe nes ee Tot 2,019.56 6,050.63 ‘Invested Funds, 3rd and 4th Liberty Loans, all coupons attached 8 3,100.00 $9,150.63 REPORT OF THE AUDITOR OF THE PERMA- NENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Examination of the records submitted by Dr. Hornaday relating to the “Drawing Account” of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, and of the records at the Columbia Trust Company relating to the “Principal” and ‘Income’’ Accounts, shows transactions in these three accounts for a period of two years following the date of the last audit, Dec. 31, 1916. The expenditures itemized are supported by proper re- ceipted vouchers. All canceled checks are accounted for, and the balances shown on deposit with the Columbia Trust Co. are in agreement with the amounts reported by the Trust Co. The $3,100 Liberty Bonds, with all coupons attached, in possession of Dr. Hornaday, were examined and found in order. The list of securities held in trust by the Columbia Trust Company for safe keeping, as of December 31, 1918, ap- pearing elsewhere in this report, has been verified by the Columbia Trust Co. Respectfully submitted, H. A. STINGLEY, Auditor. New York, Oct. 31, 1919. CAMPAIGNING TRUSTEE’S STATEMENT OF DRAWING ACCOUNT PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Jan. 1, 1919, to December 31, 1919. RECEIPTS Jan. 1, °19, Balance in Columbia Trust C0 eee eae RRR ee aS Eo BU a RP, $1,761.48 Less check No. 360 not presented up LOUD SCS dy 1 ONS neem ee aie ati 9 50.00 $1,711.48 Income from investments _.............- $5,280.00 Interest. om deposits: <....00.) 222.213. 86.69 Transfer of accrued interest from Col. A sb (Al © 0 Ia en eee are ee SC Sie ee 10.50 sale.of “Statement. o>. 22 1.00 5,378.19 $7,089.67 EXPENDITURES POSstaee: i Sane 2 60.05 Peleomaniss: toe Us lena ee os tee al 11.08 Subscriptions to Organization Work _.. 500.00 Field Agent’s Expenses ................--..---- 250.00 Miscellaneous Services ................-------- 399.00 Multierapl Weetters 220 4st ee Bn. 5.31 Traveling and Subsistence -............... 245.85 Periodicals: and Books ......2.../2 16.50 PPG: 5 oe ok i ec pee ene . 9280 Carried Forward: ..42 2s: 6 Se $1,497.59 THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT Prandin FGTWATE .. 5 ek Bees hIneS: ee ee SGU Se os re gee Photographs, Drawings and Slides .... Sertiticates of Award °.{..60005 <2. Organization membership ............--..---. Less— Unexpended cash bal. on hand Reser a ee Check No. 400 not presented up meme ate 1919 i! eee Gs san, 1, 1920, Balance in Columbia rast Company. 2.6 $1,497.59 4.28 23.10 1.10 1.00 25.00 8.00 100.00 43 1,552.07 108.00 $1,444.07 _ $5,645.60 CAMPAIGNING TRUSTEE’S STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY CAUSES | INCOME ACCOUNT Jan. 1, 1919, to December 31, 1919. General Campaign 2222233. ee $638.99 Quail: Campaigneim-lowa- = ee 250.68 New York State Campaign: 222 252... (eee 56.85 Bird Sanchwaries- S.A. hae eo kee 25.55 Beather aWhilbmery” 25 262s Soe ieee 30.00 Ligue Francaise pour la Protection des Oiseaux 500.00 Third Biennial “Statement” of the P. W. L. P. F. (gl I 2 7 Es Be eee meme nn ee eee ae (ye Eada ie ea A” 50.00 $1,552.07 AUDITOR’S REPORT I have checked the items appearing in the foregoing state- ment of receipts and disbursements covering the period from Jan. 1, 1919, to Jan. 1, 1920, and have found all disburse- ments to be supported by proper receipted vouchers and canceled checks. The amount shown on deposit with the Columbia Trust Company on January 1, 1920, namely $5,- 645.60, is in agreement with the Columbia Trust Company’s statement of that date. All canceled checks are accounted for. Respectfully submitted, H. A. STINGLEY, New York, March 31, 1920. Auditor. LIST OF SECURITIES HELD BY THE COLUM- BIA TRUST COMPANY IN SAFEKEEPING FOR ACCOUNT PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTEC- TION FUND, AS OF DECEMBER 81, 1918 $10,000.—p.v. 6% Debentures of the TEXAS OIL COMPANY, interest payable January and July lst, due 1931. 10,000.—p.v. Gen‘l] Mtge. 4% Bonds of the NEw YorK & WESTCHESTER LIGHTING Co., interest payable January and July 1st, due 2004. 11,000.—p.v. Collateral Trust 4% Bonds of the AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH Co., interest payable January and July 1st, due 1929. 11,000.—p.v. First and Refunding 5% Bonds of the INTER- BOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT Co., interest payable January and July first, due 1966. 15,350.—p.v. 5% Ctfs., Class ‘“B’” of the Morris PLAN COMPANY OF N. Y., interest payable January and July 1st, due 1921. 10,000.—p.v. 20-yr. 6% Convertible Debentures of the NEw YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD Co., interest payable May and November Ist, due 1935. 10,000.—p.v. 5-yr. 5% External Loan of the ANGLO FRENCH GOVERNMENT, interest payable April and October 15th, due 1920. 15,000.—p.v. 6% Bonds of the REMINGTON TYPEWRITER Co., interest payable January and July Ist, due 1926. 46 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND 10,000.—p.v. First Cons. 4% Bonds of the NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY Co., interest payable April and October Ist, due 1996. 2,000.—p.v. First Lien & Refunding 4% Bonds of the UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD Co., interest payable March and September Ist, due 2008. 1,000.—p.v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA First Liberty Loan Converted 4%,% Bond, interest payahle June and December 15th, due 1947. MEDALS FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICES TO WILD LIFE AWARDED BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND. JOHN M. PHILLIPS. Pennsylvania State Game Commissioner, Pittsburgh. Awarded at the annual convention of the Pennsylvania Wild Life League, Pittsburgh, Dec. 19, 1918. Awarded as a token of appreciation of fifteen years of continuous, devoted, self-sacrificing and highly successful services to the cause of wild life protection, covering Penn- sylvania, the United States and eastern British Columbia. The services rendered have been highly constructive, and have gone far toward the lessening of excessive killing, the creation of important sanctuaries, the increase of native song birds, the destruction of vermin and the enforcement of protective laws. To the initiative and the efforts of Mr. Phillips, the sportsman, was chiefly due the creation, in 1907, of the Elk River Game Preserve, of about 500 square miles in a hunter’s paradise in southeastern British Columbia. Commissioner Phillips has taken a very active part in restoring the sport of deer-hunting to Pennsylvania, by the creation of a great group of state game preserves, each one surrounded by about 5,000 acres of state hunting- grounds. 48 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND THORNTON W. BURGESS. Author of Bird and Animal Stories, Springfield, Mies Awarded at the annual meeting of the New York Zoological Society, New York, Jan. 14, 1919. Awarded in acknowledgment of distinguished services rendered to the wild life of America, and the children of America, in opening the eyes of -the latter to the most in- teresting features of wild life, and at all times insisting upon its humane and thorough preservation. As the author of 2,500 “Bedtime Stories,’’ and 27 books of stories about birds and mammals, Mr. Burgess has spoken long and well to an audience of millions of Amer- ican boys and girls. His conscientious and correct presen- tations, his inspiring love for the wild creatures, and his sane and logical treatment of the sport question called for the highest honor that it was within the power of the Trus- tees of the Fund to bestow. JOHN M. CLARKE. Director of aie New York State Museum, eee Awarded ata nC: of the Board of Regents, New York, Dec. 19, 1919. Awarded for leadership in the permanent protection of the birds of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its environs. Ten years ago, the sea birds of that great region were very inadequately protected, and the slaughter of them that annually took place threatened quickly to exterminate the crested cormorants, gannets, gulls, terns and other sea birds of Gaspe, Bonaventure Island, the Bird Rocks of the Magdalen Islands, and elsewhere. Dr. Clarke, an American scientist long familiar with that region, took up the task of setting on foot the move- ment which presently gathered strength in Canada, and finally resulted in the protective measures that have saved THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 49 the birds. Laws were enacted prohibiting bird hunting and creating—at no small trouble—effective bird reserva- tions. Services so humane, so praiseworthy and so effective as those rendered by Dr. Clarke to that rather remote region were deemed by the Trustees worthy of commemoration. MEDALS AWARDED FOR SANCTUARY WORK IN THE CONTESTS CONDUCTED BY THE PEOPLE’S HOME JOURNAL. Awarded in 1918. Sanctuaries. Acres. REV. HAROLD EF. Mouss, Elkins, W. V......... 128 65,268 Eee. J ReSH, Freeland; Paw... 003. 87 72,932 Seer cron. Kine.) Montes. ey os, 103 54,949 GEORGE L. L. DE ST. REMy, High Point, Baskaechewan, Canada 2.60). 66 52,425 Awarded in 1919. FRANK B. TICHENOR, Portland, Oregon.... 402 525,729 Sanctuaries located in Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Texas, Iowa, Washington, Michi- gan and California. BEETHA J. WASTIN, Elkins, N. H...):....7 Bits) 46,740 Mrs. PAMELA J. FRANCISCO, Ridgewood, ees Som ameter ace eh Fe ee TN 412 18,303 Sanctuaries located in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky and North Carolina. PART II.—CAMPAIGN REPORTS AND PAPERS THE TRAGEDY OF NEW YORK’S “BUCK LAW” NINE MEN AND 13,000 FEMALE DEER SACRIFICED IN 1919 ON THE ALTAR OF HUMAN FOLLY CHAPTER 1 F the story of the culminating tragedy of the long fight over the “buck law” of New York does not convey a solemn warning, and bring about a quick reform in every doe-killing state in our country, then nine good men of New York and 18,000 doe deer have died in vain. If anywhere in America nine men were quickly killed through a legislative blunder, made despite the most earnest and long-repeated warnings, it would publicly and widely be denounced as an outrage. Already there is reason to believe that some of the men who are most to blame for last year’s repeal of the New York buck law have repented in sack- cloth and ashes their fatal mistake. Ever since the buck law of New York was first proposed, it has been a storm centre of bitter conflict. From its in- ception a dozen years ago, through its enactment in 1912 down to its repeal in 1919, it has been opposed and defended. It was proposed and fought for by the wild life protectors of New York City and the southern two-thirds of the state,— always excepting the irreconcilables of Long Island,—and it was opposed and fought only by a portion of the extreme northern end of the state, and Long Island. Its particular opponents were found among the guides of the Adirondacks and their friends, and the constituents of Assemblyman Downs of Long Island, the veteran foe of game protection. In states having deer that legitimately may be hunted, a “buck law” is designed to limit the killing of wild deer to THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT sil bucks having horns that rise at least three inches above the hair of the crown. Necessarily it follows that in the ob- servance of this law a hunter may not kill or wound a female deer or a fawn, and therefore he must not fire at any deer until he actually sees horns upon it, three (or four) inches high. The warning slogan of the New Mexico Game Protective Association is exceedingly apt and forceful: If You Don’t See His Horns, She’s a Doe! As we have said a hundred times, the economic and ethical reasons for a buck law, and a law against doe-killing, are categorically as follows: 1.—The preservation of the deer species from extinction ; 2.—The preservation of legitimate deer-hunting sport; 3.—The preservation of human life; 4.—The preservation of state honor, and 5.—The preservation of the rights of the American boy. In and before the New York legislature the foes of the buck law fought us on the first three of these principles, and were silent on the last two. Because two or three deer hunters were killed during the reign of the buck law, our opponents vehemently denied our claims under Principle 3, and vehemently insisted, early and late, that “‘the buck law does NOT save human life.” In 1916, the second year of Governor Charles S. Whit- man’s first term, we had a great fight at Albany over the buck law repeal bill of Assemblyman Kasson. That bill was easily put through the Assembly, and through some sharp practice in the Senate, based on the “short roll-call’”’ at the dangerous “last moment,” it went into the official records as 52 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND having ‘“‘passed”’ that body, also. Then it went to the Gover- nor for signature. To Governor Whitman we made our final appeal; and the forces that had passed the bill also bore down upon him in its favor. In view of the host of enemies that the Chief Executive surely would make by adverse action, it seemed almost un- fair to ask for a veto. But we put the situation before him, standing upon facts and logic, and asked him to save the female deer, to save the lives of hunters, and to save the good name of the state. Regardless of any and all consequences to himself, either personal or political, in defiance of a strong element in the legislature, and in response to the call of Duty and Honor, Governor Charles S. Whitman vetoed that bill! And he did it with a ringing, stinging veto message which in effect de- clared that the men who had passed that bill ought to be ashamed of themselves. The legislature of 1918 wisely refrained from passing an- other repeal bill, because it knew that if it did so that also would be vetoed by the Governor. On January 1, 1919, Governor Alfred E. Smith took the executive chair; and from the first day of the assembling of the legislature (of 1919) a doe-killing bill was slated to be passed by both houses. We were assured that “Nothing can stop it.” 2 Feeling quite certain that the bill would be passed by the Assembly, we made no serious effort in that body to stop it. We concentrated our efforts on the Senate. At the hearing granted us by the Committee on Fish and Game, the com- bined forces of game protection made a representation that literally was everything that could be desired. As usual, the opposition appeared in strong force, and vigorously fought us on every point. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 53 The issue was known as “‘the Everett bill,’’ because it was introduced and vigorously championed by Assemblyman Edward A. Everett, of St. Lawrence County. It merely pro- vided for the killing, during the year 1919, of ‘“‘one deer” per license, either male or female; and of course its full en- actment into law wrought the repeal of the buck law. The Senate promptly passed the bill and sent it to Gov- ernor Smith. In response to our requests for a hearing on the bill prior to executive action, the Governor kindly granted one. It was held in the Executive Chamber, and occupied the entire afternoon of April 17, 1919. Never did the champions of wild life make a finer show- ing of strength, unity and high purpose than was made on that memorable occasion. On our side it was practically identical with our appearance before the Senate Committee. It is a pleasure to record here the names of the men who appeared and spoke, and the organizations and localities they represented. The full list is as follows: OPPOSERS OF THE DOE-KILLING BILL. GEORGE D. PRATT and W. S. CARPENTER New York State Conservation Commission WirnniaAM B. GREELEY...........=.....: cae, moe apt 2 Camp-Fire Club of America JOHN B. BURNHAM....American Game Protective & Prop. Association OTTOMAR H. VAN NorDEN....Long Island Game Protective Association DAnN@r CARTER BEARD: ¢.0000. coo The Boy Scouts of America CHARLES L. BRISTOL................ National Educators Conservation Society pe ees EIR NEAN 22 822 oe ee American Humane Association ASEERT J SQUERES..2:.5-:.5.... N. Y. State Fish, Game and Forest League os ROLLIE Us (Sa 0: : a A Ne Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. SRiEUS) EH. SEV MOUR.......2.2.225 205) 5 esse ke Lake Champlain Association EDWARD HAGAMAN HALL Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks DORSITSs al D0) oe nearer Utica Fish and Game Association W. T. HORNADAY Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund and N. Y. Zoological Society 54 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND CHAMPIONS OF THE EVERETT DOE-KILLING BILL. ASSEMBLYMAN EDWARD A. EVERETT...................- of St. Lawrence County SENATOR M. Y. FERRIS Gis ap Se. Seer oe im Bhd eS Oneonta Fish and Game Club TOE INGE a UDSO Nie ee he Fulton Fish and Game Club Ce WO SPERRY ic) ee a) ga White Plains Sportsmen’s Association ME. THOOVER:.2 5. ....... President New York Conservation Association Dray SWIEIVAN fee Sie a ee Fees Hamilton County, N. Y. DENSE 5h WU EIID PIGH Sf So tA ree Geach a ex-Conservation Commissioner eA PINEACKAY cs 8 Di te ode cad Ue earns Delaware County Game Club Mr. BUTLER........ Otsego County, New York Conservation Association YAOI SGT 6 101 70) 2 0 ns ane ES ASE EIR ee Jy el hE oe in Gloversville SOHN VE IRAN CIS: 8h eee ree ee a nae een Editor Troy Times et IN RING = 5 ob herent amy. District Attorney for Warren County Among the supporters of the doe-killing bill, the repre- sentation was not as strong as we have seen it at other times. On this occasion, however, we were surprised by finding in the ranks of the opposition to the buck law two former champions of conservation, both of them formerly in state employ as protectionists. Their appeal to the Gov- ernor was: “Let us try this other plan, and see if it won’t produce better results.” Our showing of fact and logic was far stronger than the facts and arguments in rebuttal. It was’ everything that could be desired—save for one thing: The awful lawlessness that had been the rule in the Adirondacks had resulted in a fearful annual slaughter of female deer that we could not deny, and that we made no attempt to deny. That was the one weak spot in our armor. Our Conservation Commission admitted its belief that an- nually between 3,000 and 5,000 female deer were killed con- trary to law, by lawless hunters and guides. The report of Commissioner Pratt for 1918 based on the excellent and deadly secret service work of his wardens, re- vealed in the Adirondacks a wide-spread, vicious and de- structive spirit of lawlessness that was positively amazing. And it was also humiliating to know that native Americans THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 55 could be so lawless, and so generally glory it it! The story is told, briefly but well, by Commissioner Pratt, as follows: EXTRACTS FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 1918 Enforcement of the Deer Laws :—Apparently authen- tic reports of wholesale violations of the deer laws in the Adirondacks caused the Commission to detail a number of protectors upon secret service work in the season of 1917 and again in 1918. The carefully sub- stantiated evidence of conditions in the deer forests, turned in by these men, is nothing short of astounding. No good will come from blinking the facts. Practically every possible violation-of the deer law was encoun- tered by the protectors, and not once, but repeatedly. The most regrettable fact brought out in the entire investigation was the determination on the part of large numbers of hunters to shoot anything that they saw, regardless of sex or age, and to shoot as much as they could, regardless of the bag limit. If one killed more than his legal number of deer, he divided with others, while if one killed an illegal deer, either doe or fawn, he skinned it and took the meat. Dogs were in common use in camp after camp, and whole deer and parts of them were continually bought and sold. An analysis of the violations thus reveals that they were due not to dissatisfaction with any one law, but to gen- eral contempt for the Conservation Law per se. The protectors were all required to report whether the hunt- ers in the camps to which they were assigned operated on the general plan of killing practically anything that they saw, and more than two-thirds of the protectors answered this question in the affirmative. The result of this determination is shown in 101 deer that came with- in the protectors’ immediate knowledge. 46 were bucks, 44 were does, and 11 were fawns of both sexes. It was a matter of great interest in one camp that one man had killed eight does in the season, while another at the same camp, by a singular coincidence, had killed eight bucks. The Commission wishes particularly to point out that the violations of the deer law involve no particular class or locality more than another. Men of all walks of life 56 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND are involved, and even some women who deliberately stood upon runways in wait for deer that were being run by dogs. Efforts to correct the old outworn point of view rgarding wild life—a point of view that would make game the property of whoever can get it, regard- less of law—must accordingly be directed to every class and locality. (pp. 47-48). Governor Smith went through that long hearing with per- fect patience and fairness. Everyone had an opportunity to say what he came to say. At the close of the hearing a most unexpected incident oc- curred. Governor Smith invited the writer and Commis- sioner Pratt into his private office, for a heart to heart con- ference. A little later on Chief Game Protector Legge was sent for. It was quickly revealed that the Chief Executive felt himself in a very difficult, and even painful, situation; but on one point his mind was perfectly clear. Something new must be done! As nearly as we can recall them, these were the Gover- nor’s words: 3 “Gentlemen, this deer-hunting situation now has reached a point where it is intolerable. The amount of unlawful doe- killing in the Adirondacks is very destructive to the deer, and besides all that, it is a shame and a disgrace to this state. Something different must be done about it! With people in the Adirondacks feeling as they do, and doing as they now are doing, it would take 1,000 game wardens to enforce the law, instead of 125. “Now, we really must try some other plan. As things are now, you admit that probably from 3,000 to 5,000 female deer are killed every year, and under this new bill it couldn’t be much worse than that! “We are asked to try this new plan for a year. Its spon- sors insist that it will help the situation, and be less hard on the female deer. I think we ought to try it, for one season. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 57 The deer could not be exterminated in one season, could they? No. Perhaps some good would come out of it, some- where. The present situation is intolerable, and there must be a change of some kind. Let’s try this Everett bill for one season, and if it don’t work satisfactorily, I’ll help you re- peal it next winter!’ At the last moment the writer strongly recurred to the danger to human life, and predicted a slaughter of men under any doe-killing law. To this the Governor replied: “The other side declare that there won’t be any more men killed under the new law than there have been under the buck law. If there are, of course I may be blamed, as I have been in my life for other things, but if I am I will have to stand it.” At heart Governor Smith is opposed to the killing of fe- male deer, and to endangering human life in that way, or in any other way. But the lawless doe-killer of the North Woods had created a situation that held him as in a vise, to the stern duty of trying something different, of trying to find a way out. Forced by a situation that bad citizens had rendered be- yond control, and quite against his own feelings and inclina- tions, Governor Smith finally signed the Everett bill. Knowing all that Commissioner Pratt and I know, I do not hold our Governor blamable for any one thing that has oc- curred under the fatal Everett law. Governor Alfred E. Smith is a true friend of wild life and of legitimate sport, and a true conservationist. He has fav- ored all measures for the better conservation of our state’s assets in wild life, and he has not permitted ‘“‘politics” to lay even one hand upon the State Conservation Commission. I believe that his act in signing the Everett bill called for real courage and determination. 58 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND CHAPTER II. Immediately following the signing of the Everett bill into statute law, authorizing the killing of female deer, we sent throughout the state of New York a press bulletin warning all deer hunters of the danger of being killed, and warning all parents against permitting their sons to endanger their lives in deer hunting in the Adirondacks. Only a few editors thought the warning of sufficient importance to justify its use of space. It seemed to us perfectly clear (1) That the end of the war would bring to the North Woods a greatly increased number of deer hunters, and (2) That the repeal of the buck law surely would lead to many men-shooting fatalities. According to the carefully sought and carefully compiled records of the Conservation Commission, during the six open weeks of 1919 a total of approximately 60,000 men and boys went deer hunting in the State of New York. A very few hunted in the Catskills, the remainder in the Adirondacks. The expected happened. Nine men were killed by being mistaken for deer, and seven were wounded, but survived. During the season of 1918 two men were “killed for deer’ by men who admitted that they were hunting illegally, and not specially looking for deer with antlers. At the hearings at Albany the doe-killers claimed that under the Everett bill no more does than bucks would be killed, and no more than were being killed each year in defiance of the law. The total number of hunting licenses issued in New York State in 1919 was about 200,000, or five full divisions of men armed with the most deadly weapons for deer or men, THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 58 and ably guided. Now, does any other state, territory or province of North America, or any of our colonial posses- sions, care to try or to continue the method of the Everett doe-and-man killing law? Are men so cheap that this waste of human life can go on? Mr. Daniel Carter Beard, National Commissioner of the Boy Scouts of America, once was sighted by a hunter in the open season, as “‘a moose.” But the hunter thought that he was a cow moose; and inasmuch as it was not law- ful to shoot cow moose, Mr. Beard was not killed. We are informed that many of the men who fought the doe-killing law now recognize the mistake they made and are sorry they made it. Many repeal bills were offered, and Governor Smith sent to the legislature an urgent special message recommending the repeal of the Everett law. The Governor’s demands and the demands of the situa- tion as a whole met with a quick response from the legis- lature. The bill introduced by Assemblyman Warren T. Thayer was enacted into law, repealing the Everett law, providing for the killing of one antlered buck only and also shortening the open season from six weeks to four weeks. But meanwhile nine dead men lie upon the altar of Per- nicious Folly. In 1918 the Adirondacks contained about 50,000 deer. In 1918 between 8,000 and 10,000 were killed, many of them females that were killed contrary to law and order, con- trary to the ethics of hunting sport and in defiance of decency on the trail. In the season of 1919, nearly 20,000 deer were killed, and it is safe to say that at least 13,000 of them were does. The total number of deer hunters in 1919 was 64,055. The official list of men ‘‘killed for deer,” as furnished by the State Conservation Commission, is as follows: nn Cr NELSON F. JONAS, Aged 18 One of the Nine Victims of the Doe-Killing Law in New York in 1919. =i 00000000000000000000000000 UUM MAA zl ill List of Hunters Killed in the Adirondacks in 1919 through the Operation of the Law Permitting the Killing of Female Deer NELSON F. JONAS, Great Bend, N. Y. Age 18 years. Student of the State College of Forestry, Syracuse University. Mistaken for a deer. THOMAS Ross, Carthage, N. Y. A “moving object” thought to be a deer. Killed by two bullets in the chest. HARLEY MARTIN, Grant, N. Y. Aged 50 years. Mr. Martin wore a light-colored suit and while bending over to pick a flower was mistaken for a deer and shot and instantly killed. J. AUGUST OHL, Utica, N. Y. 17 years old. He wiped his face with a white pocket handkerchief which was mistaken for the white tail of a deer and led to the fatal shot. THOMAS ROMEO, Carthage, N. Y. 40 years of age. Seriously wounded, but lived seven days after the shooting. JOSEPH DERRICK, Rome, N. Y. When out with a party of six other hunters, “a doe suddenly appeared near by and the entire party began shooting at the animal. During this shooting Derrick was shot and instantly killed.” HENRY C. CHRISTGAU, Brooklyn, N. Y. 53 years old. While posted on a runway he made a movement, was mistaken for a deer, shot and wounded so seriously that he died one week later. M. LEONARD HAWLEY, Ilion, N. Y. 42 years old. While out hunting with a party near Canada Lake he made a movement, was mistaken for a deer, fatally shot, and died in a few hours. DAVID LA PIERRE, Tupper Lake Junction, N. Y. 23 years old. He wore a pair of white overalls and white hunting cap. A portion of his clothing was seen and mistaken for the white tail of a deer. His death occurred a few hours after the shoot- ing. 66 62 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND LIST OF MEN SERIOUSLY WOUNDED. DANIEL MALONE, Baldwinsville, N. Y. JOSEPH MITCHELL, Minerva, N. Y. GEORGE ORR, Wells, IN. Xe NELSON CHARLAND, Saranac Lake, N. ¥: WILLIAM REIFFENBERG, Willsboro, N. Y. VIVIAN LACASSA, N ewcombe, NY CHARLES SNYDER, Port Jervis, N. Y. Total, 9 deaths and 7 men wounded by being mis- taken for deer during the hunting season of. 1919. In 1918 there were issued 230,079 hunting licenses, each one good for all kinds of New York State game up to the total bag limits set for the various species. Those licenses were good for the killing of 460,000 deer out of the total 50,000 generously credited to the forests of New York. If one-fourth of our licensed hunters were able to kill each one deer in a given year, our State deer would in one year be exterminated. How much does all this look like the ‘“‘conservation” of our dreams? THE LATEST AVAILABLE FIGURES. To ascertain with desirable closeness the number of deer killed in New York during the past hunting season, and the number of bucks and does, has been a long and diffi- cult task. Even up to April 30, 1920, the actual figures were not ready. 4 However, the mass of facts that already has been accumu- lated by Commissioner Pratt is sufficient to furnish a fair estimate of the final results. The following preliminary statement from “‘The Conservationist Magazine,” under the title ““A Review of the Deer Season,” is quite sufficient for practical purposes today. From this and other articles we feel justified in believing that the number of female deer killed in New York in 1919 was very close to 13,000. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 63 “The Commission believes that when the final figures are available they will indicate that considerably more than 20,000 deer have been killed during the season of 1919. In the season of 1917, when approximately 37,000 men hunted deer, the final figure indicated a kill of between 8,000 and 10,000 bucks. The following general conclusions, however, may be stated even in advance of the final figures: First, that the number of bucks killed has exceeded the number of bucks taken in a buck law year, and that the new law has thus not operated to protect the bucks; second, that the number of does taken has been very much in excess of the number of bucks.” CHAPTER III. HOW THE VARIOUS STATES STAND TODAY THE 16 STATES THAT HAVE BUCK LAWS. Showing Bag Limits Per Season. 20621007 Ie a eres il New Jersey .4..20000 1 2.827 ee ete 3 New. Mexico .......<....... il PRREINT A ee Ss ea 1 INIGw? ViORie es so 1 .f oe 2 ORECOM) oo CU We is 2 2 TiS 2 Pennsylvania. 1 MlraG. 6 1 MCAS) ee ae et ee 3 WS SISSIPOl .2 5 (GL) | cee ee oe ese eta 22 1 MOTSSOHFI Qt i WiyOmlinie y= oe 1 THE 19 STATES THAT PERMIT DOE KILLING. Showing Bag Limits Per Year. Connecticut _...... Unlimited North Carolina ets ee ee 3 County Laws Vary ELE. eer a eo 2 South Carolina... 22... 5 7 2) ti eee a pouth Dakota. 22> ois. il Beutsiana. 5 Werimont. al ee Mee es ee ds is ee Virginia massachusetts ..:....... 1 County Laws Vary MeWIPAN 2. en il Washington Minnesota... ek il East of Cascades..__.... 1 LL) cane i West of Cascades..___... 2 2 a ane sare 1 NWASCONSIM 2 1 New Hampshire ............ 2 WMoatana).<. oo 1 64 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND DEER HUNTING IS AN EXTINCT SPORT IN THESE 14 STATES: In some of the States listed below, wild deer are totally extinct. In the remainder they are so nearly extinct that the sport of deer hunting has been completely suspended by law at least for the present. Delaware. North Dakota. Illinois. (Close season, 1920.) (Close season, 1925.) Ohio. : Indiana. Oklahoma. — Iowa. (Close season, 1922.) Rhode Island. _ Kansas. (Predatory deer killable) Kentucky. Tennessee. Maryland. (Close season in 1919.) (Close season, 1922.) ~ West Virginia. Nebraska. (Close season, 1922.) THE QUAIL TRAGEDY ON LONG ISLAND |e a very short time the Bob White will be as thoroughly extinct on Long Island, New York, as the dodo is on the Island of Mauritius. Swine running at large anni- hilated the latter; and as to the status of the parties whom History will hold responsible for the tragedy of the quail History shall be the judge. In all our experience in wild life protection, few de- structive episodes have been more inexcusable or more ex- asperating than the Long Island case. In view of what it means to the inhabitants of a considerable area of New York State, the history of it must go on the records. Throughout the past fifteen years the game killers of Long Island have claimed, and fought for, special privileges for themselves. The market hunters, the shooting guides and other hunters of that Island, first, last and all the time, have demanded license to slaughter wild game as their selfish interests dictated. It was the news of their grand combine in the fall of 1910, to wipe out the best duck- shooting laws then on our statute books, that made the writer determine to carry the war into their own camp, and have with them a fight to an everlasting finish. The Bayne Bill, for the stoppage of the sale of all native wild game in the State of New York, was our answer to the Long Island combine, and with it the bird defenders of the State swept them off their feet so completely that they never have regained their footing. Assemblyman Downs still goes to Albany, and still tries to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, but out of the wreck of their de- mands they have saved only one item—the right to exter- minate their quail. 66 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND I distinctly recall the fact that when we appealed to the Legislature for a five-year close season for quail through- out New York State, Mr. Robert B. Lawrence said: ‘“Non- sense! There are plenty of quail.’’ But it prevailed every- where throughout the State save on Long Island. The old guard of Long Island killers was strong enough to secure the exemption of the dark-and-bloody ground, from Brooklyn to Montauk. This was in 1914. As time went on the slaughter of the pitiful remnants of Long Island quail merrily proceded. Men who regarded themselves as good sportsmen and true game protectors grieved in winter over the starving and freezing of quail ~ in sleet storms and deep snows, and blithely went out in the fall to comb out the last survivors and shoot them up for “‘sport.”” And not one of them even made one move to arrest the annual slaughter and give the few surviving quail a little rest and a chance to recuperate. The con- firmed quail-killers said: “Tf we don’t kill them the cold winters will!” And so the slaughter of THE REMNANT went on. Really, is not Man, at times, the most remarkable animal on earth? But there were a few men on Long Island who were differently constituted, and to whom the quail situation was gall and wormwood. One was Mr. Archibald C. Weeks, lawyer, and the other was Mr. G. Herbert Hen- shaw, editor of “Brooklyn Life.’””’ For months Mr. Weeks worked night and day to make an impression on the pub- lic mind at Albany and elsewhere in behalf of the quail, but without result. Then Mr. Henshaw approached the writer and asked him to start something. Prof. Charles B. Davenport, of Cold Spring Harbor, bitterly complained of the disgraceful con- ditions. We said: | THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 67 “There must be adduced some evidence that a great many Long Island people wish quail-shooting stopped for five years, or nothing can be done. Gather your people to- gether, then appeal to the State Conservation Commis- sioner for a regulation that will achieve the desired result. Prove that it is wanted by the people at large and the order will be forthcoming.” On this advice Mr. Henshaw and the others promptly acted. Mr. Henshaw’s petition was signed by about 160 of the best citizens of Long Island, and sent to Commissioner Pratt. And then came the show-down. _ At the hearing by the Conservation Commission in New York on April 30, 1917, there were some startling develop- ments. Practically all the country clubs of Long Island, to a total number of about 16, were well represented,—solidly against the petition! The New York Association for the Protection of Game was represented by Robert B. Lawrence, Secretary and John H. O’Connor, Counsel, both in vehement opposition to the petition! They gave the quail of Long Island “Such protection as vultures give to lambs.” Of persons supporting the petition, there were present precisely five: Mr. Henshaw, Mr. Weeks, Miss Weeks, Dr. C. H. Townsend and Mr. Hornaday. The most astonishing feature of the hearing was the appearance of Messrs. Law- rence and O’Connor, representing an alleged game protec- tive organization. The representatives of the hunting clubs contended that quail were “not disappearing,” or at least “‘not from their grounds.” Then the writer asked each man who believed that quail were not decreasing, over Long Island generally, to hold up his hand. At first not one hand went up. Then the quail-killers anxiously glanced about and looked at each other inquir- 68 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND ingly. Then one hand was timidly raised. Presently an- other stole up; and then others gathered courage and slid up, until a total of 17 men held their hands aloft, and bore false witness against Bob White! Really, it was an astounding exhibition; and as good as a play. Another hearing was held later on at Riverhead, on May 7, with parallel results. The quail killers were out in great force, and of the quail defenders only two or three were present. : The Conservation Commissioner felt impelled to decide the case according to the preponderence of evidence. The killers overwhelmingly swore away the lives of the quail of Long Island, and the petition was denied. The writer personally saw the previous year at one of the large country clubs of Long Island four sportsmen go out with four dogs on the first day of the quail-shooting season, and return at night with a total bag of one poor little hen quail! Judge Alfred R. Page joined the writer in an effort to secure the support of that club for better quail protection on Long Island, but in vain. Now, we hear of one Long Island club on which the care- taker traps the club’s quail in December, pens them up and and feeds them like sick babies all winter, then sets them free again in the spring, for fall shooting as usual. Is not the quail hunter of Long Island a remarkable animal? But the quail of Long Island now are thoroughly doomed. Part of the inhabitants are so mean, and the remainder are so indifferent, that the only thing remaining to be done is to write down the year in which Bob White becomes totally extinct, just as the heath hen did about forty years ago. And we can stand it, if the Long Islanders can. TWO GREAT CAMPAIGNS FOR WILD LIFE SANCTUARIES F any man shall acquire merit who makes two blades of grass grow where only one blade grew before, what shall we say of the magazine and its editors who make 6,468 wild life sanctuaries where not one existed before? This is a story of wild-life-protection endeavor and achievement which is so delightful to contemplate that the joy of writing it compensates the writer for much one- sided toil in this field of labor. In a particularly felicitous moment Mr. Thornton W. Bur- gess, gold medalist of the P. W. L. P. F., proposed to the editors of the People’s Home Journal the idea of a con- test in making game sanctuaries. At once Mr. Moody B. Gates, the editor, saw the. point; and without loss of time a workable plan was wrought out, the executive machinery was constructed, the button pressed, and the wheels set in motion. Stated in a few words, to suit the temper of these hurry- ing and impatient times, it was decided to ask men and women, boys and girls, to take blank pledges, go to owners of lands, point out the great necessity of providing pro- tected sanctuaries for our harassed birds and quadrupeds, then ask for signatures pledging the signers to make of their property an all-wool, yard-wide haven of refuge, in which no killing of any wild thing save predatory and in- tolerable wild life destroyers would be permitted. Prizes were offered for those who achieved the greatest success in obtaining signatures, and both the number of sanctuaries made and the total number of acres they con- tained, would carefully be taken into account. seivy 6Ge vSV¢ souenjpues ggp’Q \S2PV -youes ‘ gle \ es gq o2e¥ seiy 129 ro \ saisenjyoues Ze yveS es Salo 292 Lb aen}youes Qe¢e tT (09) wu 9) De) “MUANOL BWOH $,aj}doad OY} WOT SHIUVOLONVS AHIT AI Se49¥ 082) “Mva's ‘SIM aluenzOUeS 6216 SelMenj{sues ¢Qg} S9e NNIW seity 09g'e i soljenzosue e . i co WON | salay OGG'9S Sal4enyo VavNvsd JEFOL en Vue ea Ce. eek aaa BOCES ae 2 ' estou : = ‘cay SST! ze2 el V1 , SVX4L jo----------5 sasry 10691 Serre Se wo WI ; “SSIN Pde SPE Pur Site = Soy Ger 77 ; -y9uUe isalJenz2UeG a ‘a! ' s eee oe ee V 698 8) Sa12Y DOI’ ' ° i “95 ie ee OI ek XIW'N LovNNG ey sauces 22 VIO) os) ion ‘ eae Reo ee jes on ae SRUES VY sass¥s08 ly Kegauerdewes as g6s er (SPW 1292 ; S249y O// QI S849 Gz 9or aye Yoeeny SM OW } ‘SNVY | ! sooies C\ A “WA ogg s8h pues ose zl S222¥, “gatenjuest, saisenzoues go! easy elve! -4oueS Ag AMA PREIS GSO 102 aeee ee oe eee qoues 962. 30 yy go Segeeu ois v2 ‘ON\ 1 TM f--------S S849 £68 Ween! 5200 OEE ON geo" O\HO eerae Sguenqoues eee MGSIN a pues 2X arn Ryd ueBe ee. \ 992 vMOI Cane cic ¢ %, ee luenqzoueS 79! sed ues 9=" SalUEN}DURS Lp Wenn --- 5-2 TL M YOU NOIVUNVO LVaYS AHL AO SLINSAY wee ee meek m2, THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT Ti Having an opportunity to be of some service, the Per- manent Fund at once offered its gold medal for distinguished services to wild life to whomsoever scored the greatest achievement in this unique line of Christian endeavor. By suggestion and invitation, the Fund also offered as secon- dary prizes two or three copies of the 4-volume “Amer- ican Natural History” (Fireside Edition), which was de- clared by Mr. Gates and Mr. Burgess to be well adapted to prize-giving purposes. The People’s Home Journal offered a long list of cash prizes, and there were no conditions whatever touching the status of competitors as “‘subscribers,” or non-subscrib- ers. Each month for nine months of 1918, the most promi- nent and valuable advertising page of the Journal was wholly given up to propaganda regarding the new sanctu- ary-making industry. The slaughter of high-priced adver- tising space was terrific, and we doubted whether it could or would continue. We would not dare to compute the actual money loss to the magazine. But the publishers and editors never flinched once. On the contrary, in the 1919 contest, several pages of thrilling eartoons by Harrison Cady were bought and paid for and printed monthly. As campaign propaganda for the stir- ring up of the ignorant and apathetic, they were liter- ally immense. I wish it were possible to reduce and repro- duce one of them without losing at least half the details, but it is not. . Of course the circulation of the People’s Home Journal is very large, but it is no exaggeration to say that public interest in the sanctuary enterprise quite measured up to the size of the audience addressed. The contest of 1918 was a great success. The number of persons who worked in the campaign, and worked long and well, was really very large, and their success went far beyond owr expectations. The final results showed that a2 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND 42 states profited by the campaign. 2,604 sanctuaries were created by written pledges of their owners, and 770,329 acres were dedicated to the preservation of all birds and quarupeds save noxious species. In canvassing the returns of the contest, the judges (of whom the writer was one) found that four persons had each rendered an enormous amount of arduous personal services, and each had achieved a huge total of results. In order to meet this situation in a sportsmanlike and really adequate manner, the Trustees of the Permanent Fund im- mediately voted to award three additional gold medals, to- gether with one cash prize of $50 and three sets of the American Natural History. To several persons were awarded the Certificates of Valuable Service of the Pro- tection Fund. The following is a full list of the awards: PRIZES AWARDED BY THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND IN 1918 GOLD MEDALS Sanctuaries Acres REV. HAROLD EK. MOUSE, Elkins, W. Va......... 128 65,268 REV. d..2.“nESe,. Precland) Paisano. 87 72,932 MinA HUNTS Kane. Montana.-. 2 == = 22 103 54,949 GEORGE L. L. DE ST. REMY, High Point, ask, CaM ts. 2) ee eae eee 66 yaa yes CASH PRIZE OF $50 FLORA WHITFIELD, Raton, New Mexico........ 24 139,090 AMERICAN NATURAL HISTORY MARJORIE LLOYD, Antigo, Wisconsin.....__..... 100 9,391 GEORGE STEVENS, Ogema, Wisconsin............ 66 7,204 CANTRALL SCHOOL, Cantrall. iis (6 oe 54 14,402 THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 73 CERTIFICATES OF VALUABLE SERVICE PEOPLE’S HOME JOURNAL, New York. For the Great Enterprise! GHORGH HORTON, Dwight, Tiki o.. 87 13,820 JOE B. WOODWARD, Brownfield, Texas.......... 14 53,071 16-ACRE SCHOOL, Springfield, Mass............. 109 16,011 AWARDS GIVEN BY THE PEOPLE’S HOME JOURNAL Sanctuaries Reward Were OL Kentucky. 139 $25. REV. HAROLD E. MOUSE, West Virginia........ 128 10. merry, Montana... 2 103 5. MARTORIE. LOYD, Wisconsin... 100 a. Set of GEORGE L. L. DE ST. REMY, Canada.........._...- 93 Books nee. WES. Pennsylvania. 20.06... 87 Book of Sener HORTON. Lllimois 2s. 87 Bird Life GEORGE STEVENS, Wisconsin._...................... 66 is MeHREITA BREMER, Idaho... 2... 48 @ fee WOOD, West Vireinia......0.05 44 “i Pepsi AVILCKON,. Utah. 2s 42 4 Healy SIMPSON, Colorado._____..___.._._____.__...- 36 eg PePARTHART.. Towa). 34 4 Peep WITHERSPOON, Texas... Sy er mart MEG OPORLEDER, [inois.. 0.00 31 ss Pamwin P. FLAUM, New York...) 2. 3 a BearIon TAYLOR, Vireimnia... 2 _a2s ze WALTER PRICE, West. Virginia _.... 2... 25 “ peer Ml. DERRIN, lndiana.. 2...) 2-1... 25 ‘ SPECIAL PEOPLE’S HOME JOURNAL AWARDS FLORA WHITFIELD, New Mexico......-............- 24 $10. 16-ACRE SCHOOL, Massachusetts........ sae ees 109 American Nat. Hist. Were it possible to award a gold medal to a magazine or newspaper, the writer would have proposed a medal for the People’s Home Journal, because no recognition of such ser- vices as it has rendered can be too great. But for magazine corporations, medals are hardly possible; so in lieu thereof the Trustees did award and deliver the Fund’s certificate of Distinguished Services to Wild Life. GA WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND THE CAMPAIGN OF 1919. No sooner was the work of 1918 disposed of and the awards distributed than Mr. Gates announced his intention to repeat the effort in 1919. Finding that the offer of the Fund’s gold medal had proven to be the grand prize sought for by the contestants of 1918, the Trustees, by invitation, duplicated its offer of prizes for 1919. The same plan of signed pledges, and notices printed on linen and abundantly posted all over sanctuaries, was pursued, and again the con- test became general. The returns came in in December, 1919, and were fully as gratifying as before. Altogether the number of sanctu- aries (3131) was well above the figure for 1918, and the total acreage dedicated was 50 per cent higher, reaching the admirable figure of 1,520,668 acres; and 42 states and Canada were represented. Again the list of contestants and their results revealed workers under the highest mark who could not be offered anything less than the gold medal. Furthermore, the great efforts put forth by 18 other contestants, and the fine results achieved by them, called for something more permanent than the cash prizes that had been provided. Accordingly, a total of 16 sets of the Natural History book were awarded by the Trustees of the Fund to persons who certainly deserved from the Fund some recognition of their gallant work. The full list of prizes is as follows: PRIZES AWARDED BY THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND IN 1919 GOLD MEDALS - Sanctuaries Acres Mrs. PAMELA J. FRANCISCO, Ridgewood, IN eh oc o>, pe tet oe al OP ere 412 18,303 FRANK B. TICHENOR, Portland, Oregon_...-..- 402 525,729 BERTHA J. MASTIN; Milking: IN@ Ti 335 46,740 THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT TS AMERICAN NATURAL HISTORY BERTHA J. MASTIN, Wilkins, N.:H.5-... god 46,740 Mrs. M. J. TRAVIS, Vero, Florida..........--..- 93 6,170 Mrs. WALTER BARTON, Knoxville, Tenn.______.. 40 6,227 MIss S. G. SIMPSON, Brunswick, Maine....___. on 2,434 Mrs. LAWRENCE DAVIDSON, Washington, Pa. | 23 4,283 W. E. SMITH, South Chatham, Mass............. 23 Ler Juvenile Class, under 18 years of age oa FERNAND T. SPENCER, Lovelle, Mich.._...._.... 99 76,463 FRANCES Moon, San Angelo, Texas.............. 50) » 323580 PeSSOURAN, Frankford; Mo... 2). ..0..0 «0: 49 14,062 Pitt J. SHUMWAY; Gyrus, Mass................ 44 4,749 SeUART SHUREEY, lidaa, Texas... 2. 43 OFA RIGHARD NICOLLS, Glens Falls, N. Y............. oo 2,326 WILLIAM QUARLES, Panhandle, Texas.......... 19 1475852 Schools LYKENS TOWNSHIP CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL, Pi Amt ce fie 7,320 MVERETT SCHOOL, Area, [linois:.........2...0... 1% 2,00) AWARDS GIVEN BY THE PEOPLE’S HOME JOURNAL _ Sanctuaries Reward MRS. PAMELA J. FRANCISCO, New Jersey.... 412 $25. MAGTIN I. SMITH, New Jersey ..........-......- 128 $25. Pie -ADRIANCE, New York. .2 2). 129 25. FRANK B. TICHENOR, Portland, Ore..__......._.. 402 20: FERNAND T. SPENCER, Michigan... ___..._. 99 ro: iy IVINGSTON, Nichiean — 250. eS 76 Setof Bur- gess Books Finally, we publish herewith full statements of the re- sults achieved in 1918 and 1919. No lover of birds needs to be told what this great array of fully protected sanctu- aries means to our birds. The work of the People’s Home Journal has been a conspicuous achievement for conserva- tion. It was clear above the domain of advertising for profit, it cost the magazine heavily, and Mr. Moody B. Gates, 76 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Mr. Payne, Mr. Burgess as the originator of the idea, and above all, the owners of the magazine are entitled to the salute from every friend of birds in North America. COMPLETE LIST OF SANCTUARIES MADE IN 1918-1919 1918 1919 Sanctuaries Acres Sanctuaries Acres Alahaniay <0...) ae ff 119 28 2,490 AAT ANSAS: 22s tee 18 4,100 42 2,806 California 122 ....2. 1 170 ff 10,608 Colorado .222e 38 31,396 20 28,393 Connecticut >... 3 1,850 39 3,334 lorida. 2h set 3 60 101 6,286 Geeroia. 228 a. 33 6,318 il 400 ligation.) tf aye 8,927 3 5,480 Thmois: 12.3223.) 177 33,630 48 8,756 Indiana: tf oe | 104 12,783 26 3,051 ois Mecsbae PADEAIDO EIL' aie ce = otal Mw, Be Wy DP Sic a fi Iii j a a Humboldtsb (Hollandia} MECLUER GOLF ; 2% RORSS.<:p6Kar ro ak- Fake Le). ere i aoat!-bak A > roe, ae 28 9 SR RAT SAVING THE BIRDS OF PARADISE Map of a small portion of the eastern half of the Dutch East Indies, showing the bird sanctuaries specially set aside to preserve the Birds of Paradise. By P. G. van Tienhoven. plumage trade, and a general prohibition of shooting would suddenly deprive the aborigines of one of the most impor- tant sources of their subsistence. Therefore the Govern- ment, although complete preservation of the birds is aimed at, must go step by step in the direction of prohibition, and is endeavoring to lead the natives gradually into other occu- pations for the earning of their livelihood. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 101 Moreover, a great number of well-informed men are con- vineed that the Paradisia papuana—by far the most im- portant bird of the plumage trade—is not at all on the verge of extermination, and still is to be found in the immense country of New Guinea in fairly abundant numbers. The measures already adopted by our Colonial Govern- ment for the preservation of the wild birds of our East Indian possessions are as follows: 1. The creation of reservations, or sanctuaries, especially for the paradise birds, where no shooting is allowed. These are located as follows: (See black-line enclosures on map.) a. Inthe Schouten Islands and the group of the Japen Islands (Waigeoe, etc.). b. In the isles belonging to the Radja Ampat group. ce. In two parts of New Guinea; one at the northwest coast of Geelvink Bay, near the mouth of the Moe- brabi River, and the other between the Wapoga and Mamberano River, indicated in ink on the en- closed map. 2. In forbidding, for an indefinite time, or for some years, the shooting of the rare species, such as the rubra, apoda, etc. 8. In restricting the yearly time of shooting. In 1918 the time for shooting is open from April to October, whilst the shooting of the gouras or crowned pigeons—which, in my opinion, are more in danger than the paradise birds— is limited to four months, from April to August. 4, Finally, every gun must have a license; and the inten- tion of the Government is to increase the number of allowed licenses and to increase the price of each. When I returned to Java from my trip through the Moluc- cas J had the pleasure of talking over with our Government 102 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND the matter of protection, and I made the suggestion to in- clude with the absolutely protected birds all those which are sold for a low price, notably the Seleucides alba, Laphor- ma atra, Epimachus magnus and magnificus, Parotia sei- pennis, etc. This suggestion will be taken into serious con- sideration. Faithfully yours, P. G. VAN TIENHOVEN. RESULTS OF THE AMERICAN PLUMAGE LAW HE prohibitory results of the American and Canadian tariff laws (1913) for the exclusion of all wild-bird plumage intended for commercial users, are everything that their sponsors ever hoped they would be. The disappear- ance of wild feathers from women’s hats is wholly due to a law that is 99% per cent effective. In fact, we believe that if anyone had time to make systematic observations and calculate the result, it would be found that only one-tenth of one per cent of feminine hats now carry forbidden feathers. Before the American law went into effect, on October 4, 1913, a few dealers imported all the “‘paradise,” “goura” and “numidia’”’ that their cash would pay for. At the same time, many other dealers elected to cease carrying forbidden feathers. Today this honorable group is represented by the New York Millinery Chamber of Commerce; and recently it has recorded very decided protests against the further sale by the trade of banned plumage. They object to the odium that is being brought upon a respectable trade by a few irreconcilables who are determined to sell “paradise” as long as one can be obtained. Of course it is to be understood that the stocks on hand when our law to prohibit imports went into effect, were not confiscated, nor otherwise rendered unsalable. Even the most drastic course could not have brought back to life the dead birds represented in the storage boxes of the millinery trade. Those foreign goods remained salable, and a very few are on sale today, at prices so high that a few men take great risks in trying to work the smuggling game. But showy feathers are difficult to smuggle, and realize upon afterward. Any thief can steal property from other 104 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND people, but now it takes a supreme genius to dispose of it afterward by sale without getting caught. The vigilance of the U. 8. Treasury Department in stop- ping importations of forbidden plumage, and in seizing smuggled feathers, is deserving of high praise. The law was drawn as a barrier net with meshes so fine that not one wild feather could get through it; and it has turned out well. The only recourse of the lawless is smug- gling. Several parties now can testify that so far as economy is concerned, the smuggling of bird feathers is a highly ex- pensive pastime. For example, instead of getting large profits, Abraham Kallman, of Laredo, Texas, got six months imprisonment, a fine of $2,500 and a loss of about $50,000, all on the wrong side of his “paradise’”’ account. He bought the 527 skins (that he lost) in London, of Benjamin, Wil- liams & Co. | Even at this time there is possibly a trace of illegal egret killing and aigrette smuggling, practiced with great labor and travail, at Fort Myers, Florida, and possibly at a few other points infested by northern newly-rich visitors. The smart set of the northern cities has ceased to care for aigrettes, or to buy them, even when offered the chance; but the newly-rich-from-the-war buy all sorts of foolish things, and with them an occasional forbidden, and there- fore romantic, aigrette. In New York City the wearing of aigrettes is said to be confined to amateur actresses, and ladies’ maids who get cast-off finery for nothing. But the absence of wild birds plumage in New York is phenomenally complete. One can watch for days together without seeing one feather from a wild bird. Even the domestic and hand-reared feathers have to a great extent vanished with the wild ones. The strangest manifestation of all is the desire of the members of the legitimate feather trade that the sale of forbidden plumage should cease altogether, and no longer THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 105 bring odium upon honest men. When the tariff law went into effect in 1913 the feather importers of New York promptly accepted the situation, and elected to be good citi- zens by living up to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Then the men who had fought us hardest while the feather war was on, cordially and without rancor invited us to help them get everything in line for the full observance of the law without any unjust or unnecessary hardships to them. We accepted the novel role of intermediary between the U. S. Treasury Department and the millinery trade, and the re- sults seem to have been rather satisfactory to both sides. Today the U. S. Millinery Chamber of Commerce is strongly opposed to the sale by the government of any seized plumage, and on two occasions there has been witnessed the novel spectacle of the former importers of feathers being joined by the bird defenders in appearing in Washington to argue against certain “requested” sales of seized “‘paradise.”’ On both occasions the opposition made good, and the Treas- ury Department refused to permit the sales that had been urged upon it by parties who wished to buy the plumage “for exportation.” The United States Government, the Millinery Chamber of Commerce and the bird protectors are working together in perfect harmony; and the Chamber of Commerce recently has issued to all its members a circular call, strongly exhort- ing them to drop the sale of remnant forbidden plumage, for the reputation of the trade. THE CASE OF THE ALASKAN BROWN BEAR For about three years a few people in Alaska have been demanding from the Department of Agriculture the right to hunt Alaskan brown bears all the year round for their pelts, on the amazing ground that the bears seriously inter- fere with the stock-raising industries of Alaska, and later on the further ground that the bears are a menace and a positive danger to the residents of Alaska. A few promi- nent American mammalogists, headed by Dr. C. Hart Mer- riam, have opposed the proposed wholesale slaughter and the extermination of the most interesting carnivorous ani- mal in North America, and the status quo ante bellum has been maintained. Last spring a citizen of Alaska and an ex-soldier named Clarence Thompson took his rifle and went out bear hunting on Chicagof Island. We are assured that Mr. Thompson went bear hunting by the fact that no other game killable with a rifle was in season at the time of his sad misadven- ture. Mr. Thompson found a bear, fired at it twice, failed to kill it, and the bear injured him so terribly that after a most harrowing experience he died in the Chicagof hos- pital a few days after the encounter. Promptly seeking someone on whom to lay the blame for this tragedy, the editor of the Alaska Daily Empire pub- lished a long and violent editorial which from beginning to end virtually held Mr. William T. Hornaday responsible for the death of Mr. Thompson. This was based on a sup- position of pernicious activities in favor of the Alaskan brown bear by the accused party, whose whole burden of offense is to be found in one page of statement and protest in a pamphlet published by the Permanent Wild Life Pro- THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 107 tection Fund on February 15, 1920, as Bulletin No. 6, in an article entitled ‘“‘The Free Killing of Alaskan Brown Bears.” Just why the editor of the Daily Empire should elect to give the author of the pamphlet ten times more credit than he deserves for the protection that the Alaskan brown bear has received up to date does not appear, and therefore apol- ogies are due to Dr. C. Hart Merriam, the real leader of the opposition to Alaskan brown bear extermination. The article in the Daily Empire applies various opprobri- ous epithets to the Campaigning Trustee of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, who has noted with interest the fact that he has not yet been called a horse thief or a mur- derer by direct attack. To the editor of the Empire the following letter was for- warded, calling attention to the shortcomings of the people of Alaska in living up to the legal privileges in the abate- ment of the alleged brown bear evil: NEw YorRK, May 14, 1920. THE EDITOR OF THE Alaska Daily Empire, Juneau, Alaska. DEAR Sir: My attention has been called to the article in your newspaper of April 26, giving the distressing details of the death of Clarence Thompson from injuries received from a bear while out hunting. I deeply regret the death of Mr. Thompson, and also his failure to kill the bear before it attacked him. Ordinarily I do not answer newspaper attacks that are made upon me personally, because I believe that the public has little interest in personal controversies. I will, there- fore, pass by in silence the very harsh and quite uncalled for epithets which you so freely applied to me throughout your article. I will not, however, permit the principle in- volved to go undefended. ; Whenever an unfortunate accident occurs it is one of the frailties of human nature that no matter whether any sec- ond party is to blame or not efforts immediately are made to place the “blame” upon someone, no matter how remote 108 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND or farfetched the effort may be. In this case you go to ridiculous extremes to place upon conservationists in gen- eral, and the undersigned in particular, a burden of blame for the fact that Mr. Thompson went out hunting, failed to kill the bear that he found, and was unfortunately killed by the animal under particularly distressing circumstances. — Just why I should be blamed for Mr. Thompson’s unsuc- cessful hunting, and his fatally poor shooting, is hard to account for under the rules of common sense; but that fact does not seem to trouble you in the least. Mr. Thompson was armed according to his own best judgment, and he was out for bear. If his shooting had been good there would have been one brown bear less to trouble the people of Alaska. No law stood in the way of Mr. Thompson in his hunting efforts, and no conservationist was to blame because Mr. Thompson failed to kill the bear. _ No conservationist of my acquaintance believes for one moment that a man should not have all possible rights to defend himself against dangerous wild beasts when he is either attacked or threatened with attack. The law per- mits every resident of Alaska, and also every visitor who wishes to take out a hunting license, to kill three brown bears every year. This being the case, I ask you to tell me why under the sun there are too many brown bears living in Alaska to suit the people of Alaska? The brown and grizzly bears of Alaska are not immune. Inasmuch as the brown bears and grizzly bears of Alaska are so obnoxious to the people of that country, why do not the men of Alaska get their guns, go after the bears and kill three each per year until the alleged surplus is reduced. Surely there are a thousand men in Alaska who are able to hunt bears with safety to themselves; and if that is the case, the legal bag limit would permit the killing of 3,000 bears every year until the bears are exterminated. You have your remedy. Why do you not apply it? What is the matter with the men of Alaska that they do not go out, according to law, kill their three bears each, and en- tirely eliminate the brown bear question? But no! The men of Alaska demand the right to kill bears on a strictly commercial basis! It appears to be the money that is wanted, rather than safety from bears for the public. The law gives all Alaskans bear-killing rights which the most of them do not seem to exercise; and this THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 109 being the case, the demand for commercial extermination does not appeal to eastern men who are interested in seeing that the wild life of North America gets a square deal. You, Mr. Editor, being so much wrought up by the death of Mr. Thompson, should be the first man to take your gun and go out and kill your three bears. Already the law gives you a glorious opportunity. Go to it and stop black- guarding. Yours very truly, W. T. HORNADAY. ef LIL Of, the Cnnstoe the teléon Vnlober 19¢ 1917, at the Guildhall Westminster: Resolved: Ghat the Gol¥ Medal of the Society be awards tb)! William Ui Hornaday, - ae iw Ho United States, with Mew congratulations ow Mo eucceroful ArrUe. Chacoman iff Via, FAC-SIMILE OF DIPLOMA ACCOMPANYING GOLD MEDAL FROM THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS OUR MEDAL FROM ENGLAND O THE wild life protector who endeavors to do his whole duty and hew to the line, life is not all a bed of mountain roses, nor even of lilies of the valley. Sometimes he is compelled to thwart the purpose of his own friends who persist in trying to go wrong; and in warfare for the success of his causes he makes enemies in direct proportion to the extent of his activities. The more he succeeds, the greater the number of those who hate him for his success; and he who takes up the sword of Protection may bid farewell to all dreams of “popularity.” All this being true, no man is more entitled to exhibit tokens of approval that happen unto him than is the wild life campaigner. It is not often that the world bestows substantial tokens of approval upon living civilians, and the most of the world’s appreciation is reserved for dead men who are beyond its reach. In the bestowal of worth-while awards of merit, America is slow, stupid and 50 years be- hind her progress in other fields of endeavor. The wild life worker has small need to hide his light under a bushel, or to wrap his medals in napkins, as did the un- wise servant with his talent. We see no reason to conceal our genuine joy in the bestowal at the Guild Hall in Lon- don, on March 12, 1918, by the Royal Society for the Pro- tection of Birds, of its gold medal of honor upon the Cam- paigning Trustee of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund. It was the official declaration of the President of the Society, the Duchess of Portland, that it was awarded “in recognition of the great services rendered by him to the eause of Bird Protection, especially in promoting the Inter- national Treaty between Canada and the United States of eZ WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND America for the Protection of Migratory Birds.” At the same time another gold medal of the Society was awarded to Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt, Consulting Zoologist of the Can- adian Commission of Conservation, also for services in the promotion of the migratory bird treaty between the United States and Canada. We unqualifiedly declare that the award to Dr. Hewitt was fully earned and most worthily bestowed. Partly through the aftermath of the fight in the United States Senate in 1913, for the plumage law, but chiefly through the mortal embitterment of two or three senators through the Missouri enemies of the Weeks-McLean migra- tory bird law and the treaty, the American recipient of the Royal Society’s medal enjoys the distinction (!) of having been more often and more violently denounced on the floor of the United States Senate than has fallen to the lot of all other. defenders of the birds added together. But, even to Senator James A. Reed’s excoriation of an hour and a half we never have asked the public to read an answer. I have held that the public has no interest in attacks that are made upon me personally. The gracious action of the Royal Society for the Protec- tion of Birds was unheralded and unexpected. We think it may be regarded partiy as an expression of congratulation to us all on the success of the treaty. Certainly, that suc- cess was just cause for felicitation, and it is with sincere pleasure that we exhibit herewith a facsimile reproduction in black and white of the diploma bestowed with the medal. WILD LIFE PROTECTION LITERATURE ECAUSKE there is a great dearth of wild life protection literature in forms fit for preservation in libraries of reference, we have been at some pains to produce a biennial volume competent to stand on its own bottom on a library shelf. We have been sending our biennial “Statement” as a gift to about 75 representative American libraries, with the suggestion that now it is well worth while for every library in America to start a collection of wild life conser- vation books and pamphlets. A list of those libraries is at- tached. | | Up to this date about 95 per cent of the literature of wild life protection has been published (I can not say “is to be found’) in weekly and monthly magazines, and in pamph- lets. The availability of this literature leaves much to be desired. The most of it is, to the average man, totally in- accessible after a lapse of one year from date of publication. It is now the rule that none but editors keep bound volumes of magazines, and only those of their own making. No one but a genuine bibliophile is capable of conserving pamphlets in such shape that they are systematically filed, indexed for use, and readily available. Each year scores of really useful pamphlets are snowed under forever by thous- ands that have no permanent value. The producers of wild life conservation literature need to take thought for the morrow. The unbound pamphlet has its uses, but those who produce largely should so plan their product that bound volumes, properly indexed, can periodi- cally be made up. Our own bulletins are paged consecu- tively, and every two years are bound up in our volume, and placed for keeps on the library shelf. 114 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND A similar course should be pursued by the Biological Sur- vey, the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture and the New York and Pennsylvania State Game Commissions. The Massachusetts D. of A. already has to its credit two fine volumes on Bird Protection, by Mr. Forbush, but the Can- adian Conservation Commission has a series of bound books that in number and scope of volumes surpasses us all. That series soon will move one point higher by the publication of the important volume left in MS. by the late Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt as his final contribution to the great cause that he loved, the ‘‘Conservation of Wild Life in Canada.” Of the first three volumes of this “Statement” series, a limited number are for sale. The price of Vol. I is $1.00, and Vols. II and III are respectively $2.20 and $3.00 each, postpaid,—as long as the supply holds out. LIST OF LIBRARIES IN WHICH “THE STATEMENT” MAY BE FOUND Alabama. State and Supreme Court Library................ Montgomery Arizona. University .of , Arizona: :.2.... 2.3. ee Tucson Arkansas. Siete ME ANO NOONAN pat oh Eee cee eee Little Rock California. Los Angeles Public Library..................002... Los Angeles State Lilorairy es a eee eee Sacramento Colorado. Denver Public Library 2 0 8 eee Denver Connecticut. Free Public, Library. =...) ..) oee e ee New Haven Yale [Umi verstiy =: aug etc olen oe SD New Haven Delaware. plate Library 23 if yea AL ia eth alee Dover THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 115 District of Columbia. i btary ar WON Resp titi teh Se I ee. Washington | SSE ig a 2 4c aa oe Washington U. S. House of Representatives...................... Washington U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Biolog. Surv. Washington U. S. National Museum, General Library....Washington Florida. Jacksonville Free Public Library.__................. Jacksonville Georgia. Carnegie Library ............... DLE AN wee be Se Soe Le ee Atlanta Idaho. Sh Shel] Ore ir aie eed wae ced i e-Stobes ek Renee onan Boise Illinois. L517) 71 Tae I 0 2-28 he a A ce ec gene ea Me Chicago amir Rekar. Library ote ee een Chicago SEC EL Sis? To Geen ale GU De oe ew Pe eee Springfield Indiana. ppranteess Waareeatey no ee ho Indianapolis Iowa. Historical Department of Iowa ..........0....20..... Des Moines Bree Pubic Library... 0 Be Des Moines Kansas. Se REGS STL 01 2, ee ae eee nse Sere ee sede 8 A Topeka Kentucky. | SUE Ee UT) Oe | oa EEE oe TED ecg LOB eho Louisville Louisiana. New Orleans Public. Library 7. ee ee ee Ottawa Mexico. Museo Nacional de Historia Natural............Mexico City England. British’ IWuseuim: i. et ee London Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.............. London Society for the Protection of the Fauna of the British Mmpire 2. 22. sie ees Hatfields, Essex France. Societe Nationale d’Acclimatation de France........ Paris Ligue Francaise pour la Protection des Oiseaux....Paris r ‘oll ert ay ay coal ai ners ila a a Pr Re ey 7 Ras ae ea ye | ‘ yi es irae neh ‘ AA t, : Sears | rail ! f ng ahh ls Ee haha bai aid te Shean ners TurrAtea yeh Shs Bie Saat a MeN AN PAIN OB HRADi yp Abe eiatpry | | d.: ‘i ee ard i ih Bs ea ; i , 4 pat ptee Ser EM ety easly Socg sins LAP f ; he “ ' Me a 1" wk . Oe a”. aD ia _ sale f TH otis gs Code ny aa ere on, Oe, ne ; oe a Se 6 tee) o- — SPORTSMEN, Do you wish shooting sport to continue? Or do you wish to exterminate it, soon, by statute laws? Desiring Its Continuance, We Now Advise: ‘That all bag limits be reduced 50 per cent. That all open seasons be reduced 50 per cent. That hunting be permitted the individual only one year out of every two years, and That the resident hunting license fees be raised 200 per cent. THE WAY TO PROCEED Ask the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce, by 50 per cent, the federal bag limits and open sea- sons on migratory birds. Ask your state legislatures to do likewise. Ask your state legislatures to increase all resi- dent hunting license fees 200 per cent, give 10 per cent of the license money to the federal govern- ment for federal enforcement, support the state game commissions and wardens on a more lib- eral basis, and each year expend the balance on the feeding, sheltering and increase of wild life in sanctuaries, and in the destruction of vermin. PART III.—VARIOUS PAPERS THE END OF SPORT AND GAME IN AMERICA? WILL AMERICAN SPORTSMEN SEE THEIR SPORT EXTERMINATED? The raven became known as a bird of ill omen because on a certain occasion it became his duty to act as the bearer of a disagreeable message. Notwithstanding all the fine victories that in the recent past have been won for the protection of North American birds and mammals, game and not game, the sportsmen of America still are facing some ominous prospects and dis- agreeable probabilities. They involve the permanence or the extinction of sport with the gun. Ever since the enactment of the migratory bird law and treaty, we have been rejoicing in the return of the ducks and geese, and the revival of sport with wild-fowl. We have been joyously deluding ourselves by the belief that at last the future of bird-shooting sport in America is secure. Even a brief review of the situation as a whole reveals the fact that in the United States and Alaska, our killable game is by no means on a continuing basis. Moreover, it is very likely that the measures absolutely necessary to the making of legitimate sport permanent for even fifty years to come will be found by sportsmen to be so disagreeable that they never will be developed by them to an adequate extent. It is a common thing for a sick man to resent the idea of the surgeon’s knife; but we know that retlection sometimes convinces the patient that a permaneut cure is the only one that is worth while. 122 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Here is the cold and disagreeable fact: The game of our country cannot, by any possibility, much longer withstand the awful onslaughts that now are being made upon it, legally and illegally, wherever any game re- mains outside of sanctuary limits. The question whether American sportsmen will go on with their shooting until finally they exterminate their own. sport, is a question for them to decide. My task now con- sists only in pointing out conditions and their sure-and-cer- tain results. WHAT DO WE SEE? Let us look over the cards, as they lie face up on the table, and see what they reveal. First.—We see glorious federal and state laws for the pro- tection of the insectivorous and non-game birds, well ob- served in most places, but in some places shamefully abused by alien shooters. That abuse is because it is an utter im- possibility for any state to put into the field enough wardens to watch every alien who goes out hunting with a license in his pocket. Second.—We now see game bird hunting reduced, very largely, to the hunting of ducks and geese, with a very little shooting of six shore-birds, quail and grouse. Third.—We see all American quail, ruffed grouse, pin- nated and sharp-tailed grouse on a steep toboggan slide going swiftly toward sure Oblivion. Fourth. We see in the near future no wild game remain- ing save waterfowl, rabbits, hares and white-tailed deer, and a trace of introduced pheasants. Anyone who thinks that quail and grouse of any species whatever can by hand- made propagation keep the sport of shooting them on a permanent basis, makes a sad mistake. It can not be done! THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 123 Fufth.We see that the propagation of pheasants on game farms is worth while, though it is not a great factor in the production of sport. Sixth.—As we have all said many times, guns and gun- ners are increasing at an enormous rate, while many kinds of game are growing more and more scarce; and the open seasons are entirely too long. Seventh.—We have seen that bag limits are not saving the upland game birds, partly because there are ten times too many bags! Eighth.—For land game we see all kinds of natural cover and food diminishing through drainage, cultivation, timber- cutting and fires. We see the natural enemies of the game holding it at great disadvantages; and the hard winters steadily are becoming harder and more destructive to feathered game. Finally.—We see that the resident hunting license fees in the various states, one and all, without a single exception, are ridiculously and absurdly below the real value of the sweeping wholesale privileges that they confer. THE ARMY OF GAME-KILLERS AND THE CHEAP AND EASY LICENSE. For twenty years and more we have been very unwise and wasteful in giving hunting licenses, to cover a whole state and all its small game, for an entire season, for the paltry and ridiculous sum of $1 each. Yes, that is the standard rate for residents,—though a few states mark it a few cents higher. In nearly all states non-residents are charged higher figures,—as they should be. By this time it is to be hoped that the American people are able to imagine the potential destructiveness of an army of 5,000,000 vigorous men, all well armed and eager to kill. HOW LONG CAN THE BIRDS SURVIVE PRESENT BAG “LIMITS’”? By Courtesy of the Minnesota Scenic Highways Association. THE SUREST WAY TO EXTERMINATE DEER—KILL FEMALES By Courtesy of the Minnesota Scenic Highways Association. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 125 In 1911 we ascertained that 1,486,288 hunting licenses were issued by 27 states, out of our total of 48 states. Com- puting by averages the allotment of gunners for the 27 states then not issuing licenses, the total arrived at of sure- and-certain hunters in 1911 was 2,642,194. The number of other men hunting without licenses and contrary to law was believed to be sufficient to bring the total up to at least 3,000,000. Some competent authorities long ago estimated the total as high as 5,000,000. Since 1911 there have been some very great increases in the number of licensed hunters. Here is one index of that increase: In 1911 New York issued 150,220 hunting licenses In 1915 New York issued 188,216 hunting licenses. In 1918 New York issued 230,000 hunting licenses. This means an increase of 80,000 since 1911, not counting the farmers and tenants who now may legally hunt game on their own farms without licenses. In 1919 Pennsylvania issued 400,000 licenses. Now, it is estimated that 200,000 Pennsylvania farmers hunt on their own lands without licenses, but according to law, making a total of 600,000 active hunters in that one state. I believe that now there really are 5,000,000 men and boys, licensed and unlicensed, annually in the field in the United States, well armed and equipped, hunting and killing game: of any and every kind open to shooting. For stories and pictures of what they are doing to Amer- ican game, watch the narrative columns of the sportsmen’s magazines, and the daily newspapers that devote space to shooting and fishing. A few sample pictures, of perfectly legal killings, in widely separated localities, are shown here- with and left to carry their own comments. Why waste words on the obvious? QUAIL SLAUGHTER IN TEXAS, AND THE LOGICAL SEQUENCE EVERYWHERE QUAIL REFUGE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCARCITY OF QUAIL, THE OWNER OF THIS LAND, AT THE REQUEST OF THE NEW MEXICO GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, HAS AGREED TO PROTECT THE REMAINING BIRDS UNTIL THEY HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO RECUPERATE. AGCTI Vis. ss... RENE AYG: = | |! o ALL SPORTSMEN ARE ASKED TO COOPERATE BY RESPECTING THIS SIGN —) 'e, THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 127 THE GROTESQUE BUT DEADLY BAG “LIMITS.” We now come to the second factor in the extermination of American shooting sport, the so-called bag ‘“‘limit.’”? In view of the enormous number of hunters, all the game- killing privileges available under ‘‘the law’ need to be scrutinized. If we really must exterminate our sport with gun and rod, let us do it with our eyes open. With very, very few exceptions the bag limits on game to be killed have been fixed to satisfy or to please the sports- men. The objections to bag limits that I have heard during the past five years I can count upon the fingers of one hand. The limits fixed usually represent the utmost num- ber that a good shot can find and kill in one day, and the hunter usually gets the benefit of every doubt. Now, why should a duck hunter be permitted to load himself down each day for 91 days with 8 big fat geese or 25 ducks—eight times more than he and his family can consume? Do American sportsmen now hunt for meat, to “‘beat the beef trust,” or for gentlemanly sport? Do they hunt to keep the Hunger Wolf from their door? Is it from the bloody love of slaughter? That is the spirit of the mink, the weasel and the skunk. Well, then! Why should they kill so MUCH? In the reprehensibility of state bag-limit laws, all the states of our glorious republic are in the same boat, and they have been tarred with the same brush. Their bag- limit laws are, as a rule, rotten alike. I shall not stop to show them up in detail; because it is not necessary. One Horrible Example will suffice for all. THE LEGAL WAY TO EXTERMINATE THE GAME FISHES By Courtesy of the Minnesota Scenic Highways Association. HOW THE BAG “LIMIT” ON FISH WORKS OUT IN } THE STATE OF WASHINGTON A Practical Illustration, from the Port Angeles (Wash.) Olympic Tribune. “Dr. Dean told of the experience of Messrs. Blanchard, Bissel and himself on a trip to Crackerville, some eight miles from the head of the Elwha River last summer. Fish were so plentiful that one man could catch all the three of them could eat, and moreover, he could catch them in an hour or less before breakfast in the morning. “At Elkhorn, a famous fishing ground, they found a party of Seattle ‘sports’ who had been catching the limit or more every day for the week past. They had fully 250 pounds of trout in sight, some in a smoke-house and more lying around rotting, a disgrace to them and a shock to every angler possessing the least sense of decency. And the pity of it is that the law, according to Game Warden Pike, cannot reach them. ‘At the legal limit of 30 pounds a week,’ said Mr. Pike, ‘a party of six people out eight days may have 360 pounds of rainbow trout piled up and rotting, and yet be within the letter of the law.’ ” Really, is it not strange that the anglers of America are as heed- less as very many of them are of the ultimate fate of the game fishes of America, as their heedlessness is registered in wickedly destructive bag limits? THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 129 In order to offend no outsider, I will take the case of our own proud Empire State, New York, long a leader in wild life protection causes, and certainly today in the fore- most rank of wild-life-protecting states. The bag-limits in the various states are very much alike, especially on waterfowl and shore birds, and each state is just about as criminally careless, and just as guilty of unsquare deals to its wild life, as is New York. If you live outside New York, figure out for yourself the guilt of your own state, on the basis here shown. POSSIBILITIES OF GAME SLAUGHTER IN NEW YORK IN 1918. 230,000 Licenses ; Residents, $1.10 for the lot; aliens, $10.50; for each license holder all of the following: 2 Deer. 636 Varying hares or rabbits (6 per day, for 106 days). 200 Squirrels (5 per day, 40 days). 838 Quadrupeds. 24 Woodcock. 20 Ruffed Grouse. 3 Pheasants. Golden Plover, 1365 J Yellows and -Mixed bag of 15 per day for 91 days. Black-b Plover, 2275 Ducks. Twenty-five per day for 91 days. 728 Geese. Eight per day for 91 days. 2275 Snipe. Twenty-five per day for 91 days. 728 Brant. Eight per day for 91 days. Rails, 2275 ae Mixed bag of 25 per day for 91 days. Gallinules 9693 Birds. | Total quadrupeds and birds killable by each license-holder, 10,531. For the 230,079 hunting licenses issued in 1918, this means that the State of New York gave to her sportsmen legal authority to kill on her territory wild birds and quadrupeds up to a demnition total of 2,422,961,949 head. *IVBUULDUID ‘Mataagy Ss UawmszLodsg ayy, Jo Aseyanog Ag “MB 0} SUIPIODNS [TV NVMAUHOLVUSVS ‘NOSNHOL AMV LV DNILNOH SAVG Unod AO LInNsaY THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 131 The 18,628 hunting licenses issued on Long Island in 1918 were good for the killing of 5,889,600 quail out of the 2,500 still alive on that island. In 1918, 460,000 deer might have been killed in New York State out of a total deer population of about 50,000 head, all at 55 cents each, excepting a few at $5.25. But we are not yet through with the follies of the Empire State. In addition to all the above possibilities for slaughter under state hunting licenses, we find in the state game laws the following paternal provisions: That a land-owner, the members of his immediate family, and tenants actually occupying cultivated farm lands may hunt thereon without license during the entire open season! We decline to try to figure out the number of persons who hunt annually in New York under the above provision without licenses, but in Pennsylvania the number of free farmer hunters is estimated at 200,000. The plain fact in the New York case is that legal per- mission is each year bought, paid for and delivered to kill about 10,000 tumes as many head of game as there are alive in the state all told. This means that had the 230,000 licensed hunters of 1918 hunted with sufficient diligence they could have killed, in 1918, every wild game bird and mammal in the Empire State, and left no game alive any- where save in the game preserves and the zoological parks. And, furthermore: With similar laws on the books of all the other states of this nation, the licensed and authorized hunters of the United States could, had they been sufficiently enterprising, have 132 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND wiped out in that same year all the killable game of the United States. And these conditions obtain each year in this safe-for- democracy nation. WHAT ARE THE OPEN SEASONS IN THE UNITED STATES? It is impossible to give here small details, and it will be sufficient for present purposes to give the great general averages. On migratory game birds they are for the United States as a whole substantially as follows (see Federal “Regulations,” for 1919-20) : On all waterfowl, except wood duck, eider duck and swan, and coot, gallinule, Wilson snipe and jacksnipe, three and one-half months. Raile. oo s.0.de oe SS bo 8 oe Ro ree ee ee three months Black-bellied and golden plover, and yellow legs three and one-half months. Woodeoek: ). 2. ig ae 3 ee ee ee ee two months DOVES) Sas Soe close) AOE eee eee three and one-half months AND WHAT ARE THE UNIVERSAL BAG “LIMITS” ON MIGRATORY GAME BIRDS? Here are the universal federal “Regulations” as adopted and published by the Department of Agriculture on July 28, 1919, for our 48 states: Regulation 5.—Bag Limits on Certain Migratory Birds. A person may take in any ONE DAY during the open seasons prescribed therefore in Regulation 4 not to exceed the following numbers of migratory game birds: Ducks (except wood duck and eider ducks).—In the ice of. all -kimds: s.:o3. cides hoe sae eee ee eee ee Geese.—In the aggregate of ‘all kinds, (i. . onda we usc ee ees eee 8 BYant 0.dic debe act ee S25 Sceceeiere wean eect ene 8 THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 133 Rails, coot and gallinules (except sora).—In the aggregate of all 1 Ca ae ie cocci ee Re ae eae 01 RES 6 REA cis 5k GS ES OM eres 1) Se i eee ae 50 Black-bellied and golden plovers and greater and less, yellowlegs. in the arsrerate: Of. all, Tend Sc eho wd ck oo ile aeVS4 a ea ieinss on doies 15 SON SMINe FOF Paes. cet see's cle Ss o's Hea BENE HS Ge Oke ew am os 25 ERR Se ee oe, rere et ihe Ge ie ee a en SUE! cg SET EIS ksiw a sue 6 REA S CIOL TETAS Poa. Joris! ce, cae os atid MUM SNR SUE She ah oda aie ae 25 Now you have above the universal open seasons and the daily bag “‘limits.”” With this information before you, and the figures representing the annual hunting licenses issued in your state, take pencil and paper and figure out for your- self the killing possibilities in your state, annually—and the prospects of game in your state twenty years hence. The mind to which your figures make no appeal is hope- less. Bag “Limits” in Alaska.—Concerning big game there is a good object lesson in the so-called bag “limits” in Alaska. The laws fixing them were framed in Washington, and therefore the people of Alaska are not to blame. We in “the East” have been criminally careless in this matter; and we hear that a few Alaskans have been criminally defiant in the non-observance of the absurdly-liberal law. The Alaskan game bag “limit’? may be taken as an ex- treme example of wicked wastefulness in the utilization of valuable game animals. A resident of Alaska may kill in one year, without any license or the payment of any fee, the following animals: 2 moose, representing 1,800 pounds of dressed meat. 3 caribou, representing 750 pounds of dressed meat. 3 mountain sheep, representing 450 pounds of dressed meat. 4 deer, representing 400 pounds of dressed meat. Unlimited goats, representing 450 pounds of dressed meat. 3,850 3 brown bears, Unlimited black bears. “2. 9 ws \ Ny \-/f rh CaN ie THE APPALLING ANNUAL BAG “LIMIT” IN ALASKA Free to all residents. Non-residents pay $50. Fully 3,850 pounds of edible meat. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 135 A non-resident may kill the same identical bag, except that he is limited to 3 goats, for a paltry license fee of only $50. How long can the game of Alaska survive these condi- tions ? The complete destruction of all our game, outside the sanctuaries, is dependent not upon the law, the game com- missioners or the game wardens, but upon the diligence or slothfulness of the men and boys who hunt according to law. Now, what do serious-minded and honest Americans THINK of our system of game “protection’’? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXTERMINATIVE PROGRAM? Yes; who is really to blame for the absurd hunting license fees, the joke bag “limits” and the criminally long killing seasons? The answer is: Up to 90 per cent, 2t is the sportsmen themselves! The state laws on non-migratory game are exactly as the sportsmen have developed them, to suit their own views and purposes. The federal laws covering all migratory game birds have been made by the federal government’s Department of Agriculture, and in the main they reflect the demands of the great mass of sportsmen as those demands have been expressed in the form of state laws. Thirty-four of our states have experienced no difficulty whatever in making their state laws synchronize with the seasons and bag “limits” of the federal Regulations. When we sit down and for ten minutes devote ourselves to the difficult business of being honest and square with our wild creatures, we are compelled to admit (1) the open ‘YESTERDAY JONES SHOTA Y DUCK OQNA POND TEN ————s THIS MORNING, A SUNRISE ON . THE SAME WTTLE Pon p HURRY ALONG ". ° ——— An .G ar ' é ° ai hoe ra Coe » LANG: Remo eat >) wes | ; O reo PS = | * 2 %) ‘ er vy VLE A o ‘ NTA ety . ri { SS) \ , Uf } aN WAY yy BAS 7 y) \\\ lu THE OPEN SEASON FOR DUCKS, As seen by J. N. Darling, (““Ding’’) SS. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 137 seasons and bag limits are fixed to promote killing; (2) that we consult the interests of the hunters much more than the welfare of the game; (3) that the close seasons are made disastrously long in order to give every sports- man his annual opportunity to go afield and kill all that he can kill of what the law allows. With perfectly commendable caution, and for justifiable reasons, the Department of Agriculture has duly noted the expectations of sportmen that bag limits and open seasons shall be as large as possible, to give every sportsman a chance to go hunting each year, and kill what the law per- mits him to kill. It is not for the federal government to take the initiative in proposing sweeping new restric- tions on killing, even though its agents know that they are necessary. The brakes must be applied from within the ranks of the hunters of game or they will not work. Now, what are to be the answers to the questions raised by the three sets of conditions set forth above? I will suggest them; but I do not intend to insist. To make active campaigns for the quick correction of these evil conditions is not for me. The task would be 48 times too great. I like the American sportsman, and wish him well, both afield and afloat; but now he is up against a series of situations that he alone can mend. I have done what I could to help him to preserve his sport, for himself, and his sons, and mine. Now, all I can do is to expose the dangers that threaten all sport in America with gun and rod. If our sportsmen can endure the extinction of sport, I can! THE ANSWER TO THE LICENSE AND BAG “LIMIT” MENACE. What is the inexorable logic of the hard facts? To me the answers seem so clear as to be beyond the realm of controversy. Are not these the logical conclusions? 138 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND 1.—From this time henceforward, ALL shooting of game must be diminished at least 50 per cent! 2.—This can best, most easily and most justly be accom- plished by permitting NO man to have a license, or to go hunting, even on his own land, more often than one year out of every two years. 3.—All licenses to either hunt small game or large game now should be doubled, or even trebled, in price. 4.—No state that maintains deer-hunting should license any man to kill a deer for a smaller fee than $5. 5.—A license fee should everywhere, save by bona fide ex- plorers and natives in the far north, be paid on each big game animal killed; and of all places in which this is neces- sary Alaska needs it most! The existing (non-resident) license fees in Alaska, for everything except the shipment of moose heads, are ridiculous and exterminatory, and if continued for the future, they would be a crime. No Alas- kan will admit this, however, even when the big game of that Territory becomes extinct. 6.—In view of the cost to the nation of the adequate enforcement of the federal laws for the conservation of wild life, after increasing its rates, each state henceforth should turn over to the federal government, for conservation pur- poses only, ten per cent of its annual receipts from hunting licenses. THE ANSWER TO THE OPEN SEASON MENACE 1.—In various states many open seasons now should be closed from 2 to 10 years each. Full specifications would make a long chapter dealing with each of the 48 states. It should begin with the upland game birds, and embrace many species of birds,—game and pseudo-game, many game mammals, and the fur-bearing animals of many localities. If this is not applied immediately to many fur-bearers in THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 139 many places, the whole series very soon will disappear from the map of North America; and the fur dealers and trap- pers can take this fact or leave it. 2.—In most cases the open seasons that should be left on waterfowl, shore birds, white-tailed deer, bear and all big game in Alaska should be reduced about 50 per cent; but in Alaska the preservation of wild meat in cold storage, until used, should be made lawful. AVENUES OF ESCAPE. arn For new safety measures, correcting the defects of foolish licenses, criminal bag limits and outrageous open seasons, appeal to the following sources, for new laws or new regu- lations: For Migratory Birds: The state legislatures and the De- partment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. For Non-Migratory Birds: State legislatures only. For Deer, Bear, Sheep, Goats and Moose: In the United States, the state legislatures; in Alaska, the Congress of the United States or the Department of Agriculture. For More Game Sanctuaries: Congress for federal sanc- tuaries, and state legislatures for all others. Rest assured that Congress and all State Legislatures cheerfully will enact all the new restrictive laws that sports- men desire to place upon themselves in the killing of game, and for the better preservation and increase of game in sanctuaries, and on farms. OTHER REMEDIAL EFFORTS. In order that no sportsman may conclude that we rely solely upon measures repressive of the activities of hunters, we hasten to say most emphatically that in season and out THE FIRST MORNING’S BAG In the Grand Chenier, Louisiana. By Courtesy of The Sportsmen’s Review. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 141 of season, we urge these additional protective measures for the wild life of North America: | Acquire marshes, waste woodlands and mountains with- out number, and make them sanctuaries for all kinds of valuable wild life. Plant annually quantities of kaffir corn, millet and sorg- hum cane to furnish seed for wild birds. Plant millions of berry, nut and seed bearing bushes, trees and plants as special food for wild birds. This will go far toward protecting cherries, grapes and other fruits from attack by robins and other birds that we can not kill. Good species to plant are wild cherry, mulberry, juniper, mountain ash, hawthorne and juneberry. Feed upland game birds and other birds in winter about 10,000 times more than ever yet has been done, and pro- vide shelters for quail. Tie up all roaming dogs from May 1 to Sept. 1 each year, and save the ground-nesting birds from their rapacious jaws. One free-hunting hound does more harm than 20 sportsmen. Kill all hunting or traveling cats. Kill weasels, coyotes, great horned owls, barred and screech owls, Cooper, sharp-shinned and duck hawks; and crows and night herons whenever they start in to feed on ducklings. Confiscate the gun of every gunner convicted of killing game illegally, or of trespassing when hunting. In states like New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, permit no alien to own or to use a gun. (“The Pennsyl- vania alien gun law is constitutional,’ says the U. S. Su- preme Court.) All gentlemen sportsmen will respect the rights of owners who post their lands against hunting; and all game-hog ‘UNA1INT LO pepunig ay[ Jo Aseqan0g Ag 6061 “BluTOZITeD “esnjoD 1v9eu AYp jJooFs10Eed & 19}je , SPOIUIIN 000g 9 J, , SMONd HO OVA IVOUT ATLOGNNd V THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 143 trespassers should be compelled to do so, by stringent laws and heavy fines. Farmers will not feed and protect birds when the sure result is an annual horde of insolent and defiant trespassers. In some states the acceptance of pheasants from a state game farm automatically opens that farm to free shooting! This is intolerable and can not en- dure. WISE LAWS DO PRESERVE GAME AND SPORT. If American sportsmen wish that sport in the open with the gun and rod shall sanely and sensibly be saved from EXTINCTION, and established on a continuing basis, all they need to do to secure it is to ask for it, in clear and de- cisive tones! If the fur-wearers, fur traders and trappers wish to have the North American fur-bearing animals saved from quick extinction, they need to say so at once, and ask for the laws necessary to conserve them, with no fooling or quib- bling about the necessary details. The fur trade now is “up against” the certain and quick failure of the fur supply for the future, and it is for the three parties in interest to put up the bars of sane conservation, or put up their business shutters forever. It has been proven over and over that it is possible for wise and timely laws, adequately enforced, to maintain game and sport. More than that, in rare cases it has even brought back both from the edge of Oblivion. The white- tailed deer and elk are the most responsive of all our big game in coming back and re-creating deer-hunting. The wild ducks and geese can and do come back, when the seed stock is adequate, and the breeding and feeding grounds are not destroyed. But the upland game birds are different. They are mostly non-migratory, winter and summer they are surrounded by enemies of many kinds, their food supply day by day 144 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND and hour by hour is diminishing, and their natural pro- tecting cover is being taken away from them. Nothing but quick work and strong and intelligent work is going to save any grouse and quail shooting anywhere in the United States for the future generations of sportsmen. As instances of what sportsmen can do when they reso- lutely make up their minds, take the case of the geese and ducks of the United States. The stoppage of the sale of game and spring shooting has not only saved the sport of duck-shooting, but it has greatly increased it over what it was even ten years ago. Today it is the universal testi- mony that the supply of ducks and geese has enormously increased—since the migratory bird law was enacted. In the Mississippi Valley region there are more ducks in the air and on the water than have been seen at any past time during the last twenty years. As an exhibit I take great pleasure in quoting four paragraphs from a letter just re- ceived from Mr. J. N. Darling (“Ding’’), the famous car- toonist, who is an ardent, but conservative, duck hunter: “Tt was very remarkable to note the wonderful increase of all kinds of game birds due to the fact that for two years most of the hunters were either in France or so busily occu- pied with war work that they did not have time to go out and slaughter the game. Last season’s flight of ducks up and down the Mississippi and Missouri valley was the larg- est by common consent for the last twenty years. It re- minded me of the days of my boyhood, when the flocks of ducks during migration extended from horizon to horizon. Also it was a shame to note what little regard the average hunter had for the limit set upon the day’s shoot. “The law against spring shooting seems to be better ob- served this season than ever before, though I hear occa- sionally of some hunters who are going out and violating the law without any serious attempt to interfere. “The bag limit here in the West is limited mostly to twenty-five birds a day, in some cases fifteen, and I am in- THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 145 clined to think the limit is not too high if it were adhered to. The trouble is that when the flight is heavy and the shooting good, very few of the hunters pay any attention to the limit. I know of a number of kills that were made last fall exceeding one hundred ducks per gun in one day. “T will say, however, that there are a good many more real sportsmen among the shooters now than there were ten years ago, and I believe the efforts of the protective associations are having real effect.” In Europe it has been proven over and over that private owners of large hunting grounds have preserved sport for centuries. The deer forests and the grouse moors prove it. But that game has not been cursed by millions of free shooters, each one asserting the rights of a sovereign, and sometimes quite able to defy owners while trespassing on fenced and posted lands. In “free” America our laws against trespass on fenced property are a howling farce. They are a disgrace to a civilized nation. They represent the fetich of ‘‘personal liberty” brutally thrusting aside the most fundamental of all property rights,—the right to enjoy peaceable possession. It is high time that every state should protect the fenced property of its citizens against armed and dangerous, and sometimes defiant, game-hunting trespassers. I have said all that I have to say. Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn, author of “The Age of Mammals,” now solemnly says: “We are now at the end of the Age of Mammals!” It is my fear that man’s rapacity and greed for wild life now is so great that nothing will avail to save for the next century anything more of it than mere tattered rem- nants of a once glorious fauna,—rats, mice and English sparrows. THE RATIONAL USE OF GAME ANIMALS By W. T. HORNADAY An Address delivered at the Canadian National Conference on Game and Wild Life Conservation held at Ottawa, Feb. 18-19, 1919 HE words “rational utilization of game” immediately send my thoughts travelling into a region where the rational utilization of game has now become more than ever a burning question. I refer to the regions of the far north, sometimes called the inhospitable regions of the north, where the wild game of the country constitutes each year a very important part of the solid food of the white popula- tion. It is not my purpose to enter in detail into a consider- ation of the needs and the rights of the Eskimo, Indians, and wild tribes of that region; I am thinking mostly of the white population. We know that white settlements are pushing further and further into Alaska and northern Can- ada. We know that conditions are changing rapidly these days—in Alaska, at least. Conditions have so changed dur- ing the past ten years that it is now time to take thought for the morrow and proceed along new lines. WILD LIFE IN THE HANDS OF MAN In every new country man struggles mightily to harmon- ize with his environment and survive. Naturally, it is the newest countries that contain the most wild life. It is the way of the average frontiersman to make war on the game, and war on every man who seriously attempts to protect it from his onslaughts. In every country, new or old, the utilization of the wild game, and its perpetuation or extinc- THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 147 tion, are all determinable by the inexorable rules of logic, and of reasoning from cause to effect. The interests of a great number of people are paramount to the interests of a few. To the conservationist of natural resources, waste is abhorrent, and the extermination of valuable species is a crime. The robbery of posterity is wicked and repulsive; and all robbery deserves to be either prevented or punished. In every well-settled country containing a fair supply of game birds, game and fur quadrupeds and food fishes, the questions involved in the taking and utilization of those assets of nature create an irrepressible conflict. Every country produces its annual crop of uncompromising de- stroyers, and some countries contain a few real conservators. The western world contains few fanatics of the oriental type, to whom all killing is abhorrent and wicked. The white races of men believe in the doctrine of legitimate sport and sensible utilization; but the game-hog is a con- stant menace. The game-hog is a factor with which every government and every individual game protector must reckon. In the slaughter of game he has no conscience, and to him, game laws are an intolerable evil. He is utterly devoid of senti- mental or scientific interest in wild life, and he will go far to kill the last representative of a species in order to boast Of 11. | KILLING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT Some game-hogs, who are honestly ignorant of what they are, can be educated out of their evil ways, and reformed ; but others can not be. The last annual report of the New York State Conservation Commissioner, George D. Prace,; contains this striking passage regarding the confirmed game-hogs of the Adirondacks who slaughter deer illegally, and for whom no one can plead the excuse of ignorance. Commissioner Pratt says: 148 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND “An analysis of the violations thus reveals that they were due not to dissatisfaction with any one law, but to general contempt for the Conservation Law, per se. The protectors (disguised as sportsmen) were all required to report whether the hunters in the camps to which they were assigned operated on the general plan of killing practically anything that they saw, and more than two- thirds of the protectors answered this question in the af- firmative. The result of this determination is shown in 101 deer that came within the protectors’ immediate knowl- edge, in most cases under their personal observation: 46 were bucks, 44 were does, and 11 were fawns of both sexes. It was a matter of great interest in one camp that one man had killed eight does in the season, while another at the same camp, by a singular coincidence, had killed eight bucks.” It is to be remarked that the killing of does in the Adirondacks or anywhere in the state of New York is entirely illegal. “There were many more illegally killed deer than those mentioned above,” says the Commissioner, “regarding which the protectors obtained evidence that resulted in settle- ments or convictions. Cases arising from the 1917 work were settled for $3,511.50. They involved 79 individuals and more than 125 violations. Already in 1918, 38 cases have been settled, with a total recovery so far of $4,245. The 1918 cases alone will number between 200 and 300 when all have been closed. “The Commission wishes particularly to point out that the violations of the deer law involve no particular class or lovality more than another. Men of all walks of life are involved, and even some women, who deliberately stood upon runways in wait for deer that were being run by dogs. Efforts to correct the old, outworn point of view regarding wild life—a point of view that would make game the property of whoever can get it, regardless of law— must accordingly be directed to every class and locality.” THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 149 LAWS MADE TO COVER WORST CONDITIONS Now, in the making of laws, it is always necessary to make the laws adequate to curb the worst elements. No sooner is a new game law enacted than the human vultures who prey upon wild life immediately scrutinize it and study it in order to find its weak spots, and to plan evasions. It is this devilish spirit of criminality that renders it so difficult to provide for the utmost utilization of wild game as food for man. Whenever we see the day wherein all men will gladly obey the spirit of a law, as well as its stern letter, then may we say that the millenium of game pro- tection has arrived. The continuous development of the interior regions of Alaska and northern Canada, the increase in power trans- portation, of mining and of general exploitation, has brought a corresponding increase of pressure on the remainders of big game. The valleys of a very few navigable streams now contain any considerable remainder of moose, caribou, mountain sheep or bear. To find big game now it is neces- sary to strike into the interior. The great herds of caribou that only forty years ago came within gunshot of St. Michaels, Alaska, at the mouth of the Yukon, have vanished from the lower Yukon almost as completely as if they never had known that region. Now the residents of St. Michaels must travel hundreds of miles to find the nearest herds of the caribou millions. DISAPPEARANCE OF NORTHERN BIG GAME But the disappearance of northern big game is a large subject, and not to be entered upon here. We are concerned with the rational utilization of the stock that remains. The practical questions now before the people of Canada and Alaska are as follows: (1) How can we secure the most thorough legitimate utilization of wild game? 150 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND (2) How can wastefulness be prevented? (3) How can the continuity of supply be insured? The moment we undertake to conserve big game in the northern two-thirds of Alaska, which is north of the 62nd parallel of latitude, we come up against some strenuous demands for the sale of game. Fairbanks now is the storm- centre of a new demand, for the sale of game all the year round instead of in the open season only. Most Alaskans believe that the game of Alaska belongs to the people of that territory, that they should administer it as they think best, and, above all, that the sale of game is not only right, but abeolnely necessary. In 1918, it was noted that the laws of the United States were permitting the sale of moose, mountain sheep and caribou meat during the open season for hunting, every- where in Alaska north of latitude 62°, and that, during the year 1917, 6,000 pounds of big game meat lawfully had been fed to the laborers employed in ‘the construction of the Alaska Central railway, actually under the super- vision of the present Governor of Alaska. That large figure was given by Mr. Thomas Riggs himself, then Alaskan Railway Commissioner, at the hearing on the Sulzer bill, in Congress on March 5, 1918. The Sulzer bill proposed that mountain sheep, moose and caribou meat should be sold all the year round, everywhere north of latitude 62°, and it was ardently supported by Mr. Riggs and the people of Fairbanks. The Sulzer bill prom- ised to be so destructive to the big game of Alaska that it was easily killed. The episode emphasized with new force the fact that a new game act of Alaska now has become an absolute necessity, and must be worked out in the near future. LIVING CONDITIONS IN THE NORTH Every conservator of American big game is at least par- tially aware of the conditions that surround white people THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 151 who live all the year round in the northern regions of Canada and Alaska. Away from the influence of the lines of power transportation, the procuring of supplies of fresh meat from the flocks and herds of the stock-raiser and farmer is an impossibility. And it is not good that men, women and children should be compelled to subsist for long periods on no other flesh food than dried fish, dried venison, bacon and ham. If we concede that it is right for the trader, the missionary and the soldier of fortune to live in the far north, and rear families there, then we must concede that they are entitled to some supplies of fresh meat from the wild herds that can afford them without the risk of extermi- nation. In the language of commerce, we believe they are entitled to all that the traffic will stand. The question is, how can we meet the legitimate needs of the widow of Fort Churchill, the trader at Fort Resolu- tion and the missionary at Point Barrow, without the risk of annihilating the breeding stock? Let us assume that no one of these can go out, license in hand, and himself hunt and kill his own lawful quota of game. In the utilization of the wild game food of those regions, the non-hunters must not be fatally penalized because of their physical or other disabilities that prevent them from personally taking their own share of game on the hoof. Now, what is to be done? The men of the Far North at once will say: “Provide by law that all those who cannot hunt may buy their share of game from those who can hunt.” This proposal merits careful analysis and consideration. It is now a widely accepted principle of conservation that no wild species can long withstand commercial exploitation. It is an accepted fact that the surest way quickly to exter- minate any wild species is by placing a cash price on the heads of its members. 152 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND OPPOSITION TO SALE OF GAME Throughout the whole of the United States, and I think’ all of southern Canada, the conservers of wild life are a fixed and unalterable unit in opposition to the sale of game, anywhere, in those regions. That matter has been con- sidered, and at times fought over, for fully ten years; and, if any principles in wild life protection can be regarded as settled for all time, it is the ban on the sale of game and on the sale of the plumage of wild birds. The Sulzer bill could have been, and would have been, buried under a mountain of opposition, both in and outside of Congress, had it been pressed forward. In view of the well-known and legally recorded briefs of the wild life conservationists of Canada and of the United States, I now regard it as a waste of time to attempt to devise ways and means for the sale of wild game. The principle that lately has been so gloriously reaffirmed and so everlastingly fixed by the international treaty between Canada and the United States for the protection of migra- tory game birds against the market hunter and the game- dealer, must not now be discredited in the Far North. The time has come that the sale of game in Alaska must posi- tively stop before it has brought great harm to the game and to the people of Alaska. It is a curious circumstance that the men who thus far: have saved some of the game of Alaska from annihilation, have done so without either appreciation or thanks from the people of Alaska. But for the initiative of the meddle- some eastern naturalist in 1902, by this time the accessible regions of Alaska would have been swept bare of hoofed game. It is utter folly to assume, or to believe, that the people of Alaska alone are either willing or able to protect their big game from extermination, and utilize it on a real continuing basis. In times like the present the truth may better be told bluntly than in any round-about way. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 153 The people of Alaska are, from first to last, diligent ex- ploiters of the natural resources of Alaska, and the majority of the white population look forward to getting out of that territory to spend the remainder of their lives elsewhere. Twenty-five years hence a majority of th Alaskans may be Sincere conservers; but a quarter of a century is a long time to wait, and, in the interval, much mischief may be accomplished. BIG GAME MUST BE CONSERVED No, we can not agree to any sale of game anywhere; because that policy is known to be extra destructive. At all hazards, the big game of Alaska and northern Canada should be conserved on a continuing basis, for the good of the residents of those difficult regions. The hunters of Alaska may find it impossible to believe that eastern sportsmen have at heart the welfare of the future residents of Alaska who will need wild meat. No doubt very many of them feel that all the protective efforts of United States men are designed to protect United States hunting grounds; but all misunderstandings of our motives in Alaskan conservation we must accept as an unavoidable part of the burden, and as coming all in the day’s work. I believe that on this point we are indeed thinking more of the welfare of the Alaskans of the future than is thought by the Alaskans of today. And now what can we offer as an attempt at a solution of the puzzling question raised by the widow at Fort Chur- chill? It is time to put forth something intended to be constructive. We are absolutely certain that a way can be found to protect the rights of the widow, the missionary and the trader without the surrender of a great founda- tion principle, and without going halfway to meet disaster by providing for the sale of game. In an effort to be both brief and clear, we submit the following proposals as candidates for adoption into a code of principles: 154 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND PROPOSED PRINCIPLES 1. In the well-settled regions of the United States and Canada, the supply of wild game is nowhere sufficient to render it an important food supply ; and in view of its steady destruction by man, predatory mammals and birds, severe winters and scarcity of food and cover, game killing in those regions must be regarded as a severely limited pastime, and not as an industry in competition with the stock-raiser and the butcher. 2. In well-settled regions, it is impossible to make bag limits too small, or open seasons too short, for the best continuance of the game supply. 3. No frontiersman can reasonably be expected either to devise, or to execute, unaided by his Federal Govern- ment, methods for the adequate preservation and incrase of large game. 4. Well-settled and well-fed regions require game laws of greater stringency than frontier regions. 5. Frontier and savage regions require to be especially defined on the map, and provided with game laws specially adapted to the needs of their inhabitants and to the avail- able supply of game. 6. The strict regulation of game-killing in frontier re- gions inures directly to the benefit of the people most de- pendent upon the game for their existence. 7. The sale of game should not be permitted at any time, anywhere; because all commercialization of wild game and other forms of wild life is thoroughly exterminatory in its effects. 8. In all countries the rational utilization of game is desirable, but only on a basis that will provide amply and adequately for the perpetuation. of the breeding stock. 9. Regions that are remote from lines of power trans- portation or are, in winter, entirely cut off from supplies THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 155 of fresh meat from without, are entitled to Becteoeaiial treatment. 10. The relief of persons inhabiting frontier regions who by reason of sex, age or other causes are unable them- selves to take out licenses and hunt and kill their annual quota of game must be specially provided for by law. 11. Every community large enough to contain a post office should be established as a game-protection centre, or unit, and a deputy game warden should be appointed for each centre, to whom an annual salary should be paid dur- ing satisfactory service, no matter how small the salary might be. 12. The duty of every such deputy game warden should be to issue hunting licenses, check up the reports of license holders, and generally promote and be responsible for the observance of the laws affecting game. 13. The cold-storage of legally-killed game to promote its full utilization by the holders of hunting licenses, be- yond the regular season for hunting, is desirable and neces- sary. 14. It is time for the Governments of Canada and the United States to stop all killings of female hoofed game, other than caribou, by Indians, by prospectors, and by all other persons. 15. The waste of game should, under certain fixed con- ditions, be made a penal offense. 16. Regulations should be framed to require the rea- sonable salvage of game meat by sportsmen. LAWS TO COVER SPECIAL CONDITIONS It would be placing a very low estimate on the mental fertility of Canadian and American law-makers to assume that it is impossible for them to provide a share of caribou meat and snow geese for the widow and the missionary 156 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND without the sale of game. To the lay mind it seems en- tirely possible to work out a scheme for having a certain amount of hunting by proxy, under special licenses, pre- pared and issued to meet such cases. The game warden or his deputy, or, in their absence, some other government officer, could determine the merits of each application and exercise the discretion of issuing or not issuing a license to hunt by proxy. The holder of such a license could be relied upon to find a suitable person to act as a proxy, go out and make the kill and haul in the meat, for a daily wage consideration. Such proxies should not be issued to persons able to hunt for themselves; and the transfer of game by barter should be treated the same as the sale of game. The feeding of the refuse portions of game to sled dogs should be provided for by law and regulation rather than be permitted to continue unchecked in the total absence of regulations. FAMILY UNIT THE BASIS FOR LICENSES In the issuance of licenses, the family unit should con- stitute the basis of issue. Any law which, like those of certain western states of America, provided for the issue of a full hunting license to each member of a family would be a mistake, and occasionally would lead to heavy slaughter. A hasty survey suggests that, with a liberal bag limit, one hunting license to four persons of one family would not be very wide of the mark. The bag limit of our Alaskan Game Act permits the killing of two moose, five caribou and three mountain sheep, which is certainly enough fresh meat for four persons for four months, if it be properly utilized. The Nova Scotia law that forbids sportsmen to leave large quantities of good meat to spoil in the wilderness, or to be devoted to the maintenance and increase of preda- tory game-destroying wolves, is an excellent: law. Ethically, THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 157 no sportsman has any special right to waste good edible meat in hungry lands. Let the salvage of meat be a part of the price that the sportsman pays for the privilege of pastime slaughter of valuable food animals. NEW ALASKA GAME ACT SUGGESTED In response to the demand of the people of Fairbanks, Alaska, and others nearer home, that the sale of game privilege be greatly extended throughout northern Alaska, we reply that the time has come for a new Alaskan Game Act which will completely stop the sale of game, and pro- vide for a safe and sane system for the better utilization of the wild game of that territory. We have suggested to the Fish and Game Club of Juneau, southeastern Alaska, that an unofficial commission be assembled to consist of five persons, three of whom shall be residents of Alaska, to consider all the facts and proposals available and evolve a new Alaskan Game bill. While that proposal has met with some favor, its future is, of course, uncertain. At all events, however, it appears to the writer to offer the best approach to a new system of combined protection and utili- zation. Alaskans are greatly disturbed by the destruction of valuable game by wolves, and they appeal insistently for governmental relief. That subject is of pressing importance, but is quite apart from these observations. In conclusion, there is now every reason for advocating, in the rational utilization of game, prompt and thorough consideration and firm and energetic action. THE RESCUED FUR SEAL INDUSTRY T the St. Louis fur auction held on February 2, 1920, there were sold for the United States Government 9,100 skins of fur seals, the net proceeds of which were e $1, 182,- 905, an average of $140.98 per skin. That sale marks an important period in the history of the most practical and financially responsive wild life con- servation movement thus far consummated in the United States. In 1911 one of the stakes set by the advocates of the five-year close season was a return to a revenue of at least “$1,000,000 per year,’ and now it is no exaggeration to say that the results of the long close season that began in 1912 and ended in 1917 have been everything that the close-season advocates claimed that they would be. The steady and very rapid increase in the fur seal popu- lation of the Pribilof Islands during their five years of immunity from commercial slaughter is revealed by the following official census figures as made by the United States Department of Commerce, and kindly furnished by Secretary Alexander. In 1912 there were 215,738 seals of all ages. In 1913 there were 268,305 seals of all ages. In 1914 there were 294,687 seals of all ages. In 1915 there were 363,872 seals of all ages. In 1916 there were 417,281 seals of all ages. In 1917 there were 468,692 seals of all ages. In 1918 there were 496,432 seals of all ages. In 1919 there were 530,237 seals of all ages. The total number of fur seals killed for their skins since the open season began have been as follows: THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 159 In 1918 the number was 34,890. In 1919 the number was 27,821. The prices realized at the St. Louis fur auctions on the sale of fur seal skins are revealed by these figures: In 1918 there were sold 8,100 skins for $375,385. Aver- age, $46.34 per skin. In 1919 there were sold 19,157 skins for $1,501,608. Av- erage, $78.38 per skin. In 1920 there were sold 9,100 skins for $1,282,905. Av- erage, $140.98 per skin. If the average price of $140.98 at which the lot of 9,100 skins sold on February 2, 1920, should hold for the entire catch of 27,821 skins taken in 1919, the total gross revenue for the lot would be $3,922,204.58. In view of the feverishly advancing prices of all kinds of real fur, the growing scarcity of the supply, and the clamorously insistent demands, both of the rich and the poor, there are good grounds for the belief that very soon we will see good raw fur-seal skins selling at auction at an average price of $250 each. With 110,000,000 people in America demanding ‘“‘fur’’, the future of the trade in real fur is remarkably bright,—so long as the supply lasts, —and Congress may regard the future of the nation’s fur seal industry with entire complacency. The saving of the fur seal herds was a good investment. In the future, when all other bearers of good fur have been utterly exterminated—as they soon will be—the pro- tected fur seal herds will produce, by sure-and-certain arithmetical progression, a really vast quantity of the finest fur in the world. It needs no stretch of prophecy to fore- tell the annual increment to the three nations who now are so sensibly preserving the fur seals of Alaska from killing at sea. When we begin to take, as we formerly did in the days of the fur seal millions, an annual catch of 100,000 160 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND skins, the importance of the salvaged fur-seal herd will be realized. If we figure it out on a basis of the sale of Febru- ary 2, 1920 at St. Louis, the answer is $14,098,000 per year, 75 per cent of which will belong to the United States. Under the terms of our treaty with England and Japan we are dividing net proceeds with those two partner nations, who now help us to preserve the fur seals when at sea, on the perfectly fair basis of 15 per cent to Japan and 10 per cent to England. During the five-year closed season we annually paid to each of those two nations the sum of $10,000. In its habits the fur seal—which in reality is not at all a true seal, but a fur-coated sea-lion—is one of the most remarkable of all sea-going mammals. There are writers who still insist that fur seals can be managed by man just as a farmer manages his herds of breeding cattle and horses. As a matter of fact, the fur seal is hopelessly wild and untamable, and the only “management” that man can be- stow upon the free animal is in terms of slaughter. He can drive it and kill it by artificial or by natural selection, but that is absolutely all. The fur seal migrates, returns, breeds and feeds solely in accordance with its own erratic and persistent will, and man’s so-called “management” lies solely in the use of the seal-killer’s club and the skinning- knife. HOW PENNSYLVANIA IS BRINGING BACK GAME AND SPORT A Story of Great Success in Making State Game Preserves. By JOHN M. PHILLIPS. For Fifteen Years a Member of the Board of Game Commissioners of Pennsylvania. Some twenty-five years ago the thinking sportsmen of the State of Pennsylvania, becoming alarmed at the rapid disappearance of wild life generally in this State, awoke suddenly to a realization of the fact that if it was to be saved for posterity, immediate action was necessary to secure its protection and preservation. It was recognized that in or- der to attain results, a head to direct and guide the efforts of the sportsmen was necessary. After considerable agita- tion, in 1895, by an Act of Legislature, the Game Commis- Sion was created, empowered to collect data and to recom- mend legislation relating to the subject of game and wild bird preservation, and to enforce such laws as might be enacted. The Commission was to consist of six sportsmen, appointed by the Governor without regard to their political affiliations, as it was intended to keep the Game Commis- sion a non-partisan body and out of politics. The Commis- sloners were to serve for love of the work and without remuneration. The cause was particularly fortunate in the first Com- mission, as the men appointed were enthusiasts on the sub- ject of wild life conservation; besides, they had had con- siderable experience in protecting birds and animals upon lands under their control. Soon after taking office the Commissioners realized that in order to accomplish results something more than good game laws and their enforce- ment was necessary, for, while this might take care of the game left in the State, no provision was made for increas- ing the supply. Having in mind the magnificent resuits achieved by the Federal Government through the establishment of National SHINVALONVS FAVS ALVIS S.VINVATASNNAd ‘SDALISM_ 2BwUIYy 2202S Kavrppuxmy oO ‘SBdAUDGC@IAd BWuUlvsy 939IS O \ $0 @O THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 163 Parks and Game Refuges in various parts of the United States, and the experience of those in our State who owned private game preserves, the Commissioners, some years later, hit upon the idea of establishing in various parts of the State, refuges or sanctuaries into which game of all kinds and song and insectivorous birds could retreat and find safety when harassed by enemies. It was thought that freedom from disturbance, especially during the breeding season, in an area where predatory animals and birds could be exterminated and where a closed season would be main- tained perpetually, would result in a marked increase in the birds and animals in these sanctuaries, if the experi- ence of the Federal Government and private individuals could be taken as a criterion. A careful investigation of the subject of game propaga- tion satisfied the Commissioners that efforts to raise in captivity our native game birds, such as wild turkey, ruffed grouse and quail, had not as yet met with material success. Another point that was seriously considered was that just as the introduction of the English sparrow and the German carp had resulted disastrously to the nation, so might the importation of foreign birds and animals result in more injury than good to the State. After considering all phases of the question, the idea of a game farm was abandoned and the Commissioners turned with renewed conviction to the sanctuary idea by which our native and useful wild life could multiply without as- sistance from man other than the systematic extermination of vermin and the absolute protection afforded by a per- petual closed season. Happily for the purpose of the Commission, the move- ment for the conservation of our forests and water-supply was well under way. Our Pennsylvania Department of Forestry had already acquired large tracts of land, located almost without exception in our mountain counties, at the headwaters of streams, constituting a forest reserve area and recreation ground for our people which, at the present time, aggregates over a million acres distributed over al- most half of the sixty-seven counties of the State. The areas of these forest reserves vary, ranging from 1,176 acres in Wyoming County to 128,085 acres in Clinton County. By an Act of Legislature May 11th, 1905, the Game Com- mission was authorized, with the consent of the Commis- 164 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND sioner of Forestry, to establish Game Preserves or sanc- tuaries upon the State forest lands. The Legislature of 1907 limited the area of these Preserves to nine miles in circumference, while those of 1911 and 1915 increased their size and provided that the greatest transverse dimension should not exceed ten miles, nor should the area of the Pre- serve exceed one-half of the total area of the tract of land of the forestry reservation upon which the Preserve was located. In 1919 an act was passed, backed by the sports- men, authorizing the Game Commission to purchase with the surplus from the Resident Hunters License Fund, lands near our large centers of population, where the Forestry Commission did not already possess lands, for the purpose of establishing game sanctuaries and hunting grounds similar to those on state lands. Also an act allowing the Game Commission to provide auxiliary game preserves of not less than 250 acres or more than 4,000 acres through the consent of the owners or by lease. These auxiliary preserves may consists of farm lands. These wild lands, although in the main unsuitable for agriculture, are the natural home of the game it was de- sired to attract and propagate, and possess the necessary summer and winter feed, streams and cover for our birds, bear, deer, squirrels, rabbits, etc. Chestnuts, beechnuts, acorns and many other nuts, wild grapes, haws and other fruits are abundant, together with an almost endless variety of berries. So long as the grcund remained bare feed would be plentiful, and with the coming of the snows and ice many of the birds could feed upon the buds of the beech, birch and other trees, and if necessary, could be fed by the preserve keepers. Besides some of the tracts possessed waters upon which wild water fowl might find a resting place, at least in their migratory flight. Rather than establish a few preserves of large dimensions, it was deemed advisable to create numerous small ones of about 3,000 acres each in extent and to locate them, as nearly as possible, in the center of the forest reserves in different counties. The purpose of so locating the sanc- tuaries was to make sure that the game propagated therein would first spread to the state land rather than to the prop- erty of any individual or organization which might be posted to prohibit hunting. In this way the Game Preserve would produce an unending supply of game which would naturally THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 165 and inevitably spread to the public forest lands from which no hunter is barred. It was thought wise to locate the Preserves in sections where the game had formerly been plentiful but had been practically exterminated, to gain by such action the support and assistance of the hunters in that region rather than to locate in territory containing plenty of game, thereby in- curring the resentment of the hunters, who would feel that their best hunting grounds had been taken away. When the location of a Preserve has been decided upon, the first thing necessary is to exterminate the vermin, which destroys more game than the hunters. The wild-cat, weasel, fox, skunk, mink, and the prowling house cat are, through the careful use of strychnine and by other means, killed off. The next step is to guard against the danger from fire and the brush is cleared from a strip of land fifteen to twenty feet wide around the outside of the Preserve. In some instances where the danger from fire is pronouncd, it is also crossed with fire lines, thus creating open roads where fires may be met and extinguished. Vermin having been exterminated and provision made for fighting forest fires, we next surround the Preserve with a single marking wire, fastened to trees or posts, about waist high on a man, the object being not to enclose the game but to define the limits of the Preserve. This wire is usually nine miles long and is placed inside the fire line surrounding the Preserve. At frequent intervais notices printed upon muslin are tacked up along the line of wire on trees or posts, calling attention to the fact that the lands inside the wire are a State refuge for game, and asking for the cooperation of all in seeing that the game is not disturbed. The sanctity of these preserves in almost fifteen years has only been violated once and then it was claimed by mistake, showing that our sportsmen appreciate their value. ; The Preserve is now ready for the game, and if it is not already sufficiently stocked, game of various kinds, such as deer, elk, wild turkeys, fox squirrels, varying hares, etc., are purchased and placed in it. A State Game Keeper is in charge of each Preserve. His duties are to fight fires, see that the game is not molested, keep the Preserve free from vermin on which, as an incentive, he is paid the regu- lar bounties. In order to supplement the natural feed in 166 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND the Preserves and attract and maintain wild life, he is instructed to plant walnuts, hickory nuts, mulberries, wild cherries, mountain ash, apples, wild grapes and other nut, fruit and berry producing trees and shrubbery, buckwheat and other grains. In addition to this he plants barberries, spruces, pines, etc., for shelter and winter cover. This spring 2,500 of these trees and shrubs will be placed in each sauctuary. There are no fences around the Preserves and, as stated above, the wire is intended only as a marker, so that the game is not confined in any way, but can enter and leave the Preserve at will, it being intended to reproduce as nearly as possible the conditions under which animals and birds thrive in a wild state. Naturally, the herds and flocks intermingle at pleasure and there is no in-breeding with the consequent loss in stamina that would occur in a fenced enclosure. Provided dogs and guns are left outside the wire, our Preserves are open to the public except during the open sea- son for game, when no person save the officer in charge is allowed within the wire, the purpose of this provision being to prevent the driving of deer and other game out- side the Preserve onto the forest reserve, where it may be killed in the open season. The cost of establishing one of these Preserves upon State lands in wild country is about as follows: Smooth double galvanized No. 9 wire........................-..-- $115.00 Cuttine: fire=biess (eter te ea ee ne eee 350.00 Emection “of weamps 2 .22)4. 150 eee eee ee 1,000.00 Erection of stable and other outbuildings ........-....... 300.00 Telephone COnNEEbION:, fe--k. <3 4 oe ee 200.00 | E [fy a7 =i eR Ma nO aE Tost ee LA gE ER ed oe ee Sy: | 165.00 Two fire extinguishers—No. 22 Babcock-dump bottle 45.00 Total average cost of creating a sanctuary.............. $2,175.00 The cost of maintaining one of our regular Game Pre- serves per year is at this time approximately as follows: Salary of game preserve keeper.....:.........---.---.4---steee $900.00 Feed and maintenance ‘of horse... ee ee 150.00 Feed for game, including the planting of trees, shrubs, CLGs 1 i ee ee 5 eee 50.00 Telepuone: Telnitall’ we. 28 toe ee oes eee eee 24.00 Miscellaneous: expenses: (022.0 a ee 50.00 Pobal. os) p15. At FCs cee ee ee eee $1,174.00 THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 167 We have been careful to stock our Preserves with the large northern deer, most of them secured from Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York, and the balance from breeders within the State, the cost ranging from $15 to $30 each. Some of our deer are caught during the snows of early spring, when hunger forces them to come to baited traps. In many cases they are caught by being driven into corrals through long V-shaped wire fences and shipped immediately in individual crates. On account of the does being heavy with fawn, they should not be handled later than March. However, our losses have been negligible and have never exceeded 2 per cent. We have never had a State-wide closed season on deer in Pennsylvania. In 1905 our total kill in bucks, does and fawns was estimated at 300, and it was then realized that if something was not done quickly our deer would be exter- minated. Our bear and wild turkeys were also on the road to extinction. It was during that year that our first game sanctuary was established in Clinton County, and by 19138, when our Resident Hunters License Law was passed, giv- ing us ample funds to carry on our work, we had six large Preserves in operation and our kill for 1913 was approxi- mately 800 deer, 300 bear and 500 wild turkeys. We now have 24 large game preserves of about 3,000 acres each located in our mountain counties, with a large area surrounding them upon which our 600,000 sportsmen may hunt without running up against trespass signs. We also have six auxiliary game preserves, mostly on farming lands for the protection and propagation of rabbits, quail, ruffed grouse and English pheasants, with hunting grounds surrounding them. During 1920 we expect to establish ten additional large game preserves and at least twenty-five auxiliary game preserves. Our kill of game has increased yearly since 1905, when we established our first Preserve, and in the season of 1919 the total was as follows: 168 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND GAME KILLED DURING SEASON OF 1919. Estimated Weight Total Number. Kind. of Each. Weight. 2,913 Lesa) Male: Deer 22 {ee 130 Ibs. 378,690 lbs. FEZ 6220 pce ec aes Wma es: Tae we Let! 200 “ 94,400 “ AD SOR ECA OODLES” (ot. ocr A, Peete aa. etna 2 a 5 430 oon 439,106 Squirrels: (i275 20 2 we ee ee 1 - 439,106 “ SAOSGRaACOONS? So. ee Serene . 272,288 “ DSL Wald) Turkeyco 2 se ee ee 12 = 64,762 “ 251,001 Ruffled Grouse =... =). 2) 14 430-501 15,658 Ring Neck Pheasants............ The = 46,974 < AG ol Oy Vareimias Qualls ee se 6 02z. 17,a09) = bio Hungarian Quail 222 2s ee Ours pans) cr 209! WOOUCoek! Mab" ke i ae ee One 10;4Sae 28.714 Wald’ Waterfowl) 25.2256) 9 2. Mose Dip eoOumes Total weisht 7,251,904 Ibs. The deer and bear were counted by Game Protectors in the sportsmen’s camps, so are perhaps under the total killed, while the figures on small game are based on information secured by our Protectors. The results attained have been so evident and so uni- formly successful in all our preserves as to demonstrate beyond any question the value of this idea. Our preserves are no longer an experiment. The steady increase in the supply of game in them, on the large public hunting ground surrounding them, and in their neighborhood, has been re- markable. The large northern deer imported from other states and placed in these preserves have thrived and multi- plied so that localities in which they were formerly plenti- ful but had been exterminated are again populated with these beautiful creatures of the woods. Our South Moun- tain Preserve, located in Franklin County in 1907 and stocked in the early spring of that year with three bucks and twenty-three does, is a good example. In the fall of 1906 four deer were killed in that section, a buck, a doe and two fawns, which about exterminated the deer. In 1919 426 bucks were killed. In 1913 we located on the forest lands of Westmoreland County, within 60 miles of Pittsburgh, a Preserve where deer had not been seen for over 30 years. In the hunting season of 1918 fifty-five bucks were killed there, and in the season of 1919 sixty- three bucks, all the offspring of the twenty-one deer with which this sanctuary was stocked. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 169 A dog with a tin-can tied to his tail naturally seeks home and friends and it is not strange that wild life, when har- assed by sportsmen, should seek safety and peace in these sanctuaries. Many stories are told regarding the instinct or sagacity of the deer, especially old bucks, in eluding their pursuers by seeking temporary safety in these refuges. During the snow at our Ligonier Preserve, tracks of 74 deer were seen entering the Preserve during one day and night and only 14 leaving it in that time. Grouse, turkeys, squirrels and other small game nest and breed in the sanc- tuaries and naturally scatter over the surrounding coun- try. During the hunting season it is surprising how quickly they learn that inside the sanctuary wire means safety. To our minds this system of game propagation in its habitat and environment and under absolutely natural con- ditions with protection from hunters and vermin, is in- finitely superior to any plan which involves the breeding of game inconfinement. In fact, the Pennsylvania Game Com- mission considers it a patriotic duty to bend all its energies and apply all its resources to the conservation and perpetu- ation of our native and useful wild life rather than to im- port from foreign countries at great expense birds and animals of doubtful value. Through the adoption of Pennsylvania’s constructive game preserve policy, the million acres of State Forest Reserve on which a few years ago wild life was almost extinct, are being gradually made into the greatest hunting and recreation grounds ever contemplated for the benefit of the people of any State. It has been observed that in 1919 our State sportsmen killed 7,251,904 pounds of game, which at the low price of 20c per pound would have a value of $1,450,380.80. Our sportsman who pays a dollar fee to belong to the greatest hunting club in America makes a good investment. In 1919 we sold 400,000 licenses, and there are 215,000 farms in Pennsylvania with at least one hunter to a farm, all exempt from license, making up a grand total of 600,000 hunters. It is our opinion that our game sanctuaries are the main factor in bringing back our game, although this could not be done without good game laws, especially our Buck Law and Alien Gun Law, and the enthusiastic support of our 170 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND sportsmen, as well as the revenues derived from the Resi- dent Hunters Licenses. Last, but not least, credit must be given to the fact that the Game Commission is quite divorced from politics. If game can be provided so plentifully that no bird or animal species is in danger of extinction, we consider hunt- ing a national necessity because it trains men to take care of themselves in the outdoors and become skilled with fire- arms—both these factors being highly beneficial to our na- tion in time of war. April 26, 1920. THE SAVING OF THE SEA BIRDS OF THE GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE BY DR. JOHN M. CLARKE Director of the New York State Museum, Albany. The following historic record of recent events of im- portance to North American bird life was kindly pre- pared by Dr. Clarke at the request of the editor of this volume. It reveals a light that to most Americans has, to date, been “hidden under a bushel,” but which well deserves a place in the recorded history of North Ameri- can bird protection.—W. T. H. OME seven or eight years ago the horrible slaughter of the birds on the Bonaventure cliffs by tourists who thought it fine sport to fill a boat with dead Gannets, aroused general indignation on the coast, and these activities were the cause of some protesting letters from me to influential friends in Canada, and in 1914 and 1915 I was asked by the Royal Society of Canada to present the matter at the annual meeting of the Society in Montreal. Just about this time a memorial, drawn by the lease-holders of certain salmon fishing reserves in Gaspe, protesting against alleged activi- tites of the Crested Cormorant in the destruction of the young salmon was sent to the Minister of Fisheries at Ottawa and an order was issued to Commander Wakeham, Chief Game Inspector for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to have the Crested Cormorants which nest on the summit of the Perce Rock destroyed. Commander Wakeham proceeded to arrange for the execution of his instructions although he did it reluctantly, as I know from personal correspondence with him at the time when I expressed regret at the action taken. A protest was made against this order by a number of the citizens of Gaspe, but the effective protest came from the Province of Quebec itself, which demurred to the in- vasion of its authority in this case by the Central Govern- Dy 24 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND ment. The order was therefore rescinded until such time as an examination of the diet of the cormorants might de- termine whether and to what extent the young salmon were their food. This investigation was started the following summer under the auspices of the Geological Survey of Canada which sent to the coast Mr. Taverner and his assistants. Mr. Taverner was engaged for the entire season and part of the following season in this examination and carried his studies still further amongst the nesting birds of Perce Rock and Bonaventure Island. He did not, however, visit the Bird Rocks of the Magdalen Islands. In due course Mr. Taverner made his report, quashing the indictment against the cor- morant. Meanwhile, in the winter interval, I was asked by the Commission of Conservation at Ottawa to go there and present the cause of the birds with a view to their protection by the Federal Government. This I did and found a general sentiment of enthusiastic cooperation. I had a definite plan for working the project out in spite of the difficulties presented by the control of the bird islands involved. This was an interesting situation; all three Islands were a part of the Province of Quebec. The Bird Rock, however, had been taken by the Federal Government for lighthouse purposes; Bonaventure Island was privately owned and the Perce Rock was still Crown Land subject to the civic control of the Province of Quebec. The general proposition of the Commission of Conservation was to bring the three together under a wardenship to be controlled at. Ottawa, either by them or by the Canadian Bureau of Parks. I received genuine support from the Bureau of Parks. The Director assured me that they had the right to constitute such a park and the Commission of Conservation had money enough to acquire from the private owners the necessary properties for purposes of control. I was thereupon author- ized by the Commission of Conservation to proceed with the taking of title to the private lands on Bonaventure Island, a project which was to be worked out economically by the THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 73 transfer, on the part of the owners, of a strip of land bound- ing the bird cliffs, in part compensation for which the Com- mission of Conservation was to put up an iron fence not only to mark the boundary but to keep sheep and cattle from fall- ing over the rocks. The bird ledges on Bonaventure Island extend over almost the entire eastern face of the Island and the lots of land run straight across from shore to shore, so that every lot owner on the Island had at the rear end of his lot a face on the bird cliffs. Among the larger owners there was an ancient fishing station which had been in active business since the latter part of the 17th century. This Company, like other fishing companies on that coast, was supreme in its influence upon the people and was regarded by them somewhat in the light of the seigneur of the Island. During the following summer I was engaged in drawing these titles and found no objection on the part of the own- ers to executing them. A standard form of deed was ap- proved by the Commission of Conservation, but when it came to the execution of the deed by the Fishing Company, I was met with absolute refusal on their part. The man- ager of the Company, being an obtuse fellow with no senti- ment, opposed the entire project so vigorously that the pri- vate owners became terrorized and were reluctant to sign. Then it became necessary to attempt to convert the Com- pany itself to this project. The control of the stock of the Company was held by Senator Turner of Quebec, an aged man, the father of the two Generals Turner who had attained great distinction in the Canadian Army. Many trips were made to Senator Turner from Ottawa and Montreal; first by Mr. James White and Dr. Frank D. Adams, and in some of these visits I think, subsequently, Dr. C. Gordon Hewett. Senator Tur- ner was a man of peculiarities and the interviews were not successful, not always amicable. Nothing was accomplished. I sought to approach him in a different way and through a personal friend living in Gaspe, whose name, I regret to say, can not be mentioned in connection with this matter; a 174 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND person who knew Senator Turner and the members of his family, and I was able to present the matter with a map of the Islands which I had prepared for the purpose and suc- ceeded in getting his unconditional assent to the proposal and indeed, his enthusiastic espousal of it. Everthing then seemed cleared out of the way when Senator Turner died and the matter was passed on to his heirs. This complicated the situation as the heirs were scattered. The members of the family living in Quebec were however approached and found to be cordial in making the proposed concessions. In spite of this effective work on the part of the citizen of Quebec to whom I am vaguely referring, it was taking too long a time to realize the end sought. On one occasion while actively concerned at Perce in these preliminary matters, I had the pleasure of getting the Honorable Honore Mercier, Minister of Fisheries of the Province of Quebec, into close and intimate touch with the situation on the ground. After the death of Senator Turner and the obvious breakdown or delay in the operations being carried on by the Commission of Conservation, the entire problem was taken up as one of Provincial concern exclu- sively. The same effective citizen who was successful in gaining the interest of the Turners was also intimately ac- quainted with Mr. E. T. D. Chambers. I am not informed that this influence was in this case specially exerted upon Mr. Chambers for the end in view. I think very likely that Mr. Chambers and his Chief, Mr. Mercier, worked out the problem by their own first intention. At any rate, Mr. Chambers drew the bill which has been enacted into a law and Mr. Mercier saw that it was so enacted. The pro- visions of the law, as far as the Islands are concerned, are those which were outlined by me and for which I was work- ing with the support of the Commission of Conservation. There is the story, rather a longer one than I meant to tell. I have given the sequence of the facts as I know them. In a forthcoming number of ‘‘Natural History” I have writ- ten of these places and told a part of the story as succinctly THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 175 as the space required. I do not think that the ins and outs of such a campaign need to be made a matter of record. I may say, however, that my army of friends in the Province of Quebec have cordially held up my arms in every move that I have made, and perhaps I ought to add that I have used the pages of the Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Quebec on behalf of this effort. I have long been an honorary member of that Society and am very glad indeed to receive the personal commendation and recognition which the Society has accorded me. THE WORST INDICTMENT OF AMERICANS HE worst indictment we ever have seen in print bear- ing upon the game protection morals of outdoor lovers is to be found in “Field and Stream” for November, 1918, on page 557. It was written by a very decent “Proprietor of a Sporting Camp,’ somewhere out West, and it tells a story of a lawless and selfish spirit that is fairly astound- ing. It is the figures given that make the story actually gruesome. Here it is in part: However, this is not the worst phase of the situation. There are hundreds of sportsmen who could not be induced to shoot game out of season, and who brag that they never break the game laws, who, nevertheless, practically force the guides or the proprietor of the camp where they are staying to serve venison out of season. Right now we wish to acknowledge that we have, up to the last two years, shot out of season whenever we needed fresh meat at the camp. In 1911 very little was used, and we started the season of 1912 de- termined to absolutely refuse to serve venison out of season. We almost succeeded, but not quite. If we had “cut it out” entirely we would have been in the poorhouse this winter, and with no prospects of any guests in 1913. We kept a very careful and complete record in 1912, and the results below will show the reason for our financial Worry. 85% of guests asked for venison. 57% demanded venison. | 20% gave us to understand that if they didn’t get venison they would never come again. ‘‘They got it at Blank’s, and knew that he was a ‘sport’ anyway.” 14% tried and sometimes succeeded in getting venison for themselves. 90% brought small calibre rifles or pistols. 20% of these shot at anything that moved. 30% were noticed to shoot small birds and squirrels. Six men asked for partridges before season, and two of them shot them out of season. Now this was not an unusual set of guests. In fact they were the best “bunch” we have ever entertained, and a gentlemanly and lady- like crowd. Their lack of veneration for the game laws seemed to be the only weak spot in their behavior. In eight years we never have had a guest protest against a viola- tion of the game laws, and several of them were members of Game Protective Associations in other States. What is the answer? TEXAS TESTIMONY ON THE CONTINUED DESTRUCTION OF VALUABLE BIRDS IN TEXAS Texas seems determined to retain the bad eminence here- tofore accorded her of being a “dark and bloody ground” for the slaughter of valuable birds. Attention is called to the following testimony contained in an address delivered by Prof. H. P. Attwater of Hous- ton, at the Texas Farmers Congress on July 18, 1919. It appeared in the Houston Chronicle of July 19, under the caption: DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS IS VAST INJURY TO FARM “This spring I visited one of my old collecting grounds in Bexar County on the Madina River, south of San An- tonio, and was deeply impressed with the noticeable scarc- ity of bird life compared with former years. Where birds of many kinds used to be found in great abundance at that time of the year, with nests in almost every tree, and birds heard singing in all directions, during my stay of two days at the ranch there was a strange silence, and I only noticed a few frightened mocking birds, red birds, doves and some others, which appeared unusually shy. “Along the road several dead bullbats were observed which had been shot from autos, simply for the pleasure of seeing them fall. I was told that auto parties leave the city in all directions, especially on Sundays, many of them with one or more passengers, who practice target shooting. My friends at the ranch said that the sound of firing on some days was incessant, and that on one occa- 178 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND sion the occupants of one machine used up 400 cartridges during a trip. It is safe to say that nearly, if not all, these shots were fired at harmless and useful birds. When we consider that similar conditions exist in the vicinity of other towns and cities throughout the State, we begin to realize the magnitude of this senseless destruction of one of the State’s most valuable natural assets at a time when the need for conserving wild life is vitally important. ‘“‘Besides their ruthless destruction by man, now greatly facilitated by motor power and machine guns, a terrible toll is also exacted of birds by their natural enemies and from other causes, including hurricanes, storms, prolonged drougths, forest fires, floods, severe freezes, poison, the de- | struction of forests and woodlands, stray cats and half- trained bird dogs allowed to roam about by irresponsible owners. “It is unfortunate that our State bird and game laws are constantly being violated with impunity, and that much opposition to the federal migratory bird law (one of the best moves for bird conservation ever made in this coun- try) still exists in certain quarters. ‘“‘Farmers who do not protest when their feathered friends are being exterminated unlawfully are as much to blame as those who do the killing.” The very latest bird news from Texas is to the effect that Col. Sterett, the State Game Commissioner, has been very busy trapping quail in the counties wherein quail still exist and shipping them, for colonization purposes, to counties in which quail have been EXTERMINATED! This, and huge losses to Texas cotton planters from the boll weevil, are the logical results of senseless quail slaugh- ter in Texas. But “Let the galled jade wince. Our withers are unwrung!”’ QUICK RESULT OF PROTECTING THE PRAIRIE CHICKEN iis regions where grouse and quail have been reduced to only a few widely scattered and mostly solitary indi- viduals, the slow results of long close seasons have been pointed to by the enemies of close seasons as proof that the principle lacks value. There are some men who will not understand that when grouse and quail are shot down to a certain low point, no power on earth enables them to recover. On the other side, however, where protection was given in time, it is a pleasure to cite the following testimony furnished by Mr. L. L. Rudrud of Piapot, Sas- katchewan, Canada, November 2, 1918, as follows: “Prairie chickens next to ducks are the most plentiful birds to be found out here. They have received the pro- tection of our Province for two years and now there sure are plenty of chickens. They will run in the wagon trail ahead of your horses and very seldom do they make use of their wings. I have seen hundreds of chickens picking Sunday breakfast between the rails of the C. P. R. tracks alongside the elevators at Cross, Sask. (about 7 miles west of here). “When the season opens here these chickens will get a worse going over than when Uncle Sam gets into full ac- tion on Germany. When these chickens sit on the barns, eat with chickens in the yard, sit on telegraph and tele- phone poles, sit in the center of the railroad tracks in flocks of from 20 to 50, you can see what will happen when the season opens and pump guns get into action.” BIRD PROTECTION AND DESTRUCTION IN EGYPT HEREVER Englishmen are found throughout the world who are charged with the government of lands and peoples, the wild birds and quadrupeds are sure to have strong champions at court, and are sure to receive the best protection that can be afforded. It is unnecessary to point out that in governing great masses of ignorant people by means of a few intelligent officials and a very small number of officers of the law, it is not always pos- sible to cover the whole situation and invariably make the punishments fit the crime. But wherever he is, the British official tries to do his bit in the protection of wild life. Early in the British management of the affairs of Egypt various British officers in the service of the Egyptian Gov- ernment recognized the fact that the Valley of the Nile is a great highway for a huge volume of migratory bird life that annually traverses it forward and back on its way to and from Europe. These migratory birds consist chiefly of members of the passerine order, and through their de- struction of insects are highly beneficial to agriculture. For many years they have been slaughtered in Italy during their migrations in ways that already have been fully de- scribed in “Our Vanishing Wild Life’ and elsewhere. Twenty years ago several British officers in the service of the Egyptian Government, and particularly Sir Alexander Baird, Dr. Walter Francis Innes Bey and Captain S. S. Flower, Director of the Egyptian Zoological Gardens at Giza, endeavored to secure the protection of the useful birds of Egypt. Not much definite progress was made until the late Field Marshal Lord Kitchener took the mat- THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 181 ter up, and Law No. 9 of 1912 was enacted. Captain Flower reports that ‘in most parts of the country this law has been loyally kept, and has resulted in a most gratify- ing increase in the numbers of many species of useful and beautiful birds, especially the rufous warbler, the hoopoe and the buff-backed egret. “Many officials have personally taken up the subject and done good service to Egypt in seeing to the protection of the birds in the districts in which they worked; among many others, the following gentlemen have been especial benefactors to the country: F. J. L. Atterbury, Mr. J. L. Bonhote, Mr. G. C. Dudgeon, Mr. H. Hartshorne, Lt.-Col. H. C. B. Hopkinson Pasha, Col. G. G. A. Hunter Pasha, Major G. H. Malcolm, Mr. A. T. McKillop, Mr. M. J. Nicoll, the late Mr. W. Olphert, Miralai G. F. G. Purvis Bey, Miralai T. W. Russell Bey, Mr. J. D. Shepherd, Mr. T. L. Smith and Mr. G. E. Burnett-Stuart. “But I regret to say that there are districts where the law has been constantly broken during the last few years. Grave responsibility lies on the local authorities of Dami- etta, Fuwa and Rosetta for their unpatriotic and uncivilized behavior in allowing the birds, which would otherwise bene- fit the whole of their own country and other countries, to be wantonly and very cruelly destroyed. It appears that the best method of stopping these illegal practices is to let the whole matter be publicly known, so that the people concerned may be educated to the error of their ways.” In a brochure published by the Ministry of Public Works of Egypt, Zoological Service publication No. 28, entitled “Bird Liming in Lower Egypt,’ Mr. J. Lewis Bonhote describes the nefarious and destructive industry of bird liming in the provinces of Damietta, Fuwa and Rosetta, which comprehend the best bird-hunting grounds of Lower Egypt. It is in these regions that the migratory insecti- vorous birds pause as soon as they cross the Mediterranean to rest and look for food. It is there that they are received 1 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND with great quantities of artificial bushes whose branches are covered with bird lime, and immense numbers of them are caught by the fellaheen. ‘“‘There is a regular trade at Rosetta in small birds, . . . bundles of them being offered in the streets and on the station. They are mainly wheatears, pipits and warblers. They are bird-limed and snared and caught in large quantities for food. It is not a question of a few birds being killed, but of thousands daily—limed twigs all along the coast. They are a staple article of food in these parts. Apparently nobody here has ever made an attempt to enforce the regulations, but I am going to do so.” (F. Atterbury, Rosetta, August, 1915.) The price of the birds in Alexandria is 4 Turkish piastres per dozen, or about 20 cents; in Damietta, 214 piastres per dozen, except rollers and large birds that fetch 1 piastre each. | In the three districts above there is a great dearth of British officials and British officers of the law. As a result, the native officials when sufficiently prodded by their su- periors, make sporadic efforts to stop bird liming. It is stopped while the British official is on the spot; but imme- diately his back is turned and his absence reported, it breaks out again as virulently as before. In view of the fact that British zoologists in the gov- ernment service in Egypt now have turned the searchlight of publicity upon the bird-destroying practices that have been prevailing in Lower Egypt, we may expect a prompt end of the evil. Beyond question ways will be found to suppress the bird liming and bird snaring industry, and to suppress the sale of song birds for food. The bird pro- tectors of the world may confidently count upon it that the bird liming evil which so long has been practiced in Lower Egypt very soon will receive its quietus, and be numbered with the things that were done to the birds during the Dark Ages. THE ITALIAN BIRD NET IN NEW JERSEY ANY ways and means are in operation for the taking of song birds for food without making a noise about it and attracting attention. In “Our Vanishing Wild Life” (Scribner’s Sons), we de- voted a chapter to the Italian roccolo and its deadly in- visible net. Now that silk net has appeared in the United States. On March 29, 1918, Mr. William C. Klein, Federal and State Game Warden in New Jersey, described to us in the following letter the capture of an Italian bird netter while in the act of operating three large silk nets in the capture of song birds. The report is as follows: “T take pleasure in reporting to you the arrest by me on September 5, 1917, at the City of Clifton, N. J., of Martin Pinetti of Paterson, N. J., for capturing 25 chipping sparrows by the use of silk nets. “This man had six nets in his possession, three of which were in use at the time I arrested him. He states it takes thirty-five days to make one net and the value of each net is $380. “He further states that he sells trapped song birds for 8¢ apiece and that on some days he makes as high as $17 in this way. “The accompanying photograph shows three nets in oper- ation at the time of the arrest, which picture I took after I had him handcuffed, and before I took the nets down. “The other photograph shows his complete outfit, con- sisting of a long bag for carrying the net poles, a leather satchel for the nets and birds, and also a vicious looking knife, which is 15 inches long over all. 184 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND “The method: employed by Pinetti is to set the nets on the edge of a city dump or along a hedge row at the edge of a large field. When set at the dumps he walks along the edge until he is opposite the nets, he then walks very slowly across the dumps until about seventy-five yards in front of the nets. He then blows a very shrill whistle, which frightens the birds, and in their effort to escape they fly into the nets. He then goes along the nets and with his thumb nail crushes the birds’ skull. When these nets are set along a hedge row on the edge of a field his method is to walk in a zigzag line across the field with a long switch or carriage whip, beating the long grass. In their efforts to escape the frightened birds fly into the hedge row only to find themselves enmeshed in the nets.” Moral for all game wardens: Look out for a long and slender bag, a satchel and the deadly silk net. CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT EVENTS IN WILD LIFE PROTECTION AND EXTERMINATION From January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1920 PLT. Jan. 1—During the past sixteen months an awakening to the needs of wild life, and to duty in its protection, has taken place in New Mexico. Nine new protective associations have been formed, and four have been successfully promoted in Arizona. The stock- men of the Southwest have been aroused and enlisted in the general cause, and altogether an ideal spirit has been created for the real protection and increase of game. Much national work has been accomplished. Sage grouse, bob-white, sheep and antelope are protected for long periods. The U. S. Forest Service has exercised a very powerful influence in behalf of wild life. Feb. 14.—To the surprise and consternation of the League of Ohio Sportsmen, the Ohio legislature swept the quail shooters off their feet by placing the quail in the list of song-birds, for per- manent protection. The vote in the State Senate was 31 to 1, and in the House of Representatives 120 to 14. This result was largely due to a series of powerful and truth-telling cartoons by W. A. Ireland, published in the Columbus Dispatch. Feb. 26.—By act of Congress, Mount McKinley National Park was created, in Alaska, north of Mount McKinley, with an area of 2200 square miles. March 5.—The legislature of Manitoba enacted a law providing an indefinite close season for all prairie chickens, grouse and quail of that province. While this period is indefinite, there seems to be an expectation that within a comparatively few years it will be possible to re-open the shooting of all the species now pro- tected. [In 1920 it was reported that a marked increase in prairie chickens was apparent. | Mar. 5.—The 527 skins of the greater bird of paradise seized at Laredo, Texas, arrived at the Zoological Park, a portion of them were immediately placed on exhibition, and many were dis- tributed to museums for exhibition, in accordance with the author- ity conferred by the Treasury Department. 186 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND March 17.—Important improvements were made in the wild life laws of Idaho. Sage grouse were given a closed season until August 15, 1922; quail shooting was closed until 1920; the bag limit on deer was reduced from 2 to 1; all big game killed must be tagged, and the regulations of the federal migratory bird law were made Idaho state law. March 24.—Montana extended the protection of mountain sheep and goats to 1922. The bag limit on deer was reduced from 2 to 1, and the hunting season was shortened to two weeks. All up- land game birds throughout the state are protected, except for a brief open season of two weeks. Killing elk for their teeth or heads alone is made a felony. March 27.—The Nevada legislature enacted a series of new laws that represent a sweeping reform. All grouse and mountain quail — are protected until 1922. Mountain sheep, goat and antelope are protected until 1930. The sale of game is prohibited, and HEE state bird laws are made to conform to the migratory bird aw. March 29.—W. F. Parrott, of Waterloo, Iowa, and one of Iowa’s foremost citizens, after having journeyed at his own expense from Waterloo to Des Moines to urge Senators to protect Iowa quail for five years to save those birds from extinction, was ejected from the Senate Chamber by the Sergeant-at-Arms through the efforts of two members, Senators Smith and Fraley, who invoked against him the long-disused anti-lobbying rule. His ejection was strongly resented by Lieut. Governor Moore, ie majority of the Senators, and all the wild life defenders of owa. March 30.—The Iowa legislature unanimously passed a resolution tendering a sweeping apology to W. F. Parrott, of Waterloo, be- cause its anti-lobbying rule was by two Senators invoked against a “gentleman who was employed by no special interest, and in no private matter whatever, but in what he regards as a public and humanitarian cause.” After three sections of pre- amble highly complimentary to Mr. Parrott, the resolution ap- pears as follows: “RESOLVED: That the Senate herewith expresses its regrets that the rule should have been invoked against this estimable gentleman, and the Secretary of the Senate is directed to send a copy of the resolutions to the party referred to herein.” March.—The Blair County (Penn.) Game, Fish and Forestry Asso- ciation in its third annual report stated that 36 Mexican quail were received in March, in addition to 89 received late in 1916 for distribution the following year. Of the two shipments, con- taining 125 birds, only 37 were alive at spring time. In the opinion of the Association the climate is not suitable for these birds, and efforts for acclimatizing them are fruitless. April 5.—The Iowa legislature enacted a law, in spite of fierce oppo- sition by State Game Warden Hinshaw and many “sportsmen,” according five-year close seasons to quail and pinnated grouse throughout the state. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 187 April 10.—Senator Smith of Arizona, acting for Senator McLean, introduced in the Senate a bill designated as S. 1553, “to give effect to the convention between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded at Wash- ington, August 16, 1916, and for other purposes.” This bill be- came familiarly known as the enabling act of the treaty. The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. April 11.—The New York State Senate by a vote of 28 to 15 passed the Robinson bill for the killing of stray and unlicensed cats. Every owner of a cat will be required to pay 25 cents for a license tag and 10 cents as a registration fee. The measure was strongly backed by the Conservation Commission as a protection against the destruction of birds by bird-hunting eats. April 20.—The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations favorably reported Senate bill 1553 and recommended that it be passed. April 30.—Hearings were held in New York City before Conservation Commissioner George D. Pratt on a petition presented by citi- zens of Long Island, asking that a five-year close season be given the quail of Long Island. May 11.—Delegate Charles A. Sulzer, of Alaska, introduced in the House of Representatives bill No. 4374, “to regulate the killing and sale of game animals in northern Alaska during the exist- ing state of war.” The bill was referred to the Committee on Territories. June 10.—Conservation Commissioner George D. Pratt, of New York, denied the petition of citizens resident on Long Island for a five-year close season on the quail of Long Island. Hearings on this petition had been held by the Conservation Commission in New York City on April 30 and at Riverhead, L. I., on May 7. June 15.—The Province of Saskatchewan, Canada, enacted a close season on sage grouse and other grouse, and also eliminated the open season on female moose. July 9.—Dauphin County, Pa., joined the other counties of Pennsyl- vania in filing petitions with the State Game Commission for the closing of their districts to the hunting of ruffed grouse for two years. The only two counties not filing petitions were Phil- adelphia and Delaware, the former because it has no hunting district, and the latter because it has no grouse. Delaware County, however, filed a petition to close the county to the hunting of ring-neck pheasants. July 10.—Charles Goodnight, pioneer breeder of buffaloes and buffalo hybrids and owner of the celebrated Goodnight herd in the Pan- handle of Texas, wrote as follows to Mr. Edmund Seymour, President of the American Bison Society: “T have just returned from the Wichita Game Preserve where I was entertained by Mr. Rush, warden, and was shown thor- oughly over the property, and I found, first, perfect order and splendid system, and the best buffalo herd, taken as a whole, that I have ever seen. This is saying a good deal, but I will Sand by it.” 188 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND July 22.—For the first time in history the science of the breeding and preservation of game birds was added to the curriculum of a modern university. The passage of a bill by the New York state legislature made it possible for the New York State Col- lege of Agriculture of Cornell University to undertake the work, and the trustees agreed to accept, maintain and administer the farm “for the purpose of conducting practical experiments in and giving instruction on the breeding of game.” It was also provided by the law that the farm should be conducted in close cooperation with the State Conservation Commission and _ its surplus product shall annually be placed at the disposal of the Commission. Aug. 17.—The following Order in Council was approved by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, converting Mr. Jack Miner’s wild goose farm at Kingsville, Ontario, into a Canadian Game Preserve: “Upon the recommendation of the Honorable the Minister of Public Works and Highways, the Committee of Council advise that pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 (g) of the Ontario Game and Fisheries Act, that portion of the Township of South Gosfield, in the County of Essex, bounded on the South by the Second Concession, on the West by the McCain Road, on the North by the Fourth Concession and on the East by the Division Road, which includes the Miner Farm be set apart as a Crown Game Preserve, and the hunting, taking or killing of any game bird or animal in or upon such preserve be prohibited.” Aug. 24.—The Northwest Game Act of Canada, relating particu- larly to the Northwest Territories, originally passed in 1916, to provide greater protection for the Barren Ground caribou and musk-ox, and to reserve special areas for the latter animal, was finally passed by the House of Commons at Ottawa, with some amendments. The Act will be administered by the Domin- ion Parks Branch. Aug. 29.—The Canadian government passed its enabling act to carry into effect the terms of ‘‘a certain convention between His Ma- jesty and the United States of America for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United States.” Nov. 8.—In the death of. Miles W. Burford, of Silver City, New Mexico, first president of the New Mexico Game Protective As- sociation, the Association and the sportsmen of the state lost a true friend and earnest worker in the cause of wild life pro- tection. Nov. 20.—The heath hens sent by the Mass. State Game Commission to establish a new colony on the state game farm at Middle Island, Long Island, all died. Most of them dropped dead from their perches. The cause of death was thought to be due to intes- tinal tuberculosis. Dec. 11.—Delegate Charles A. Sulzer introduced in the House of Rep- resentatives a new bill, H. R. 7344, to take the place of H. R. 4374, introduced by him on May 11, 1917. Among other things the new THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 189 bill allowed the killing of cow caribou, and the cold storage and sale all the year of moose, caribou and white mountain sheep meat. The bill was referred to the Committee on Territories. Dec. 17.—Mr. Zenas Crane, one of the subscribers to the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, died at his home at Dalton, Mass. 1918 Jan. 6.—The New York State Conservation Commission reported that during the month of November, 1917, the state game protectors scored a high record, having reported 501 violations of the game laws, only five of which resulted in acquittal. Two others were canceled and four were still under investigation. The remaining 490 cases yielded $7,752.06 in fines. Jan. 17.—The House Committee on Foreign Affairs rendered a favorable report on the enabling act for the migratory bird treaty and recommended that it be passed. Feb. 5 and 6.—Hearings were held before the House Committee on Territories to consider House bill No. 7344, at which statements in support of the bill were made by Delegate Charles A. Sulzer, EK. W. Nelson, Chief of the Biological Survey, Charles Sheldon, Vice-President of the Boone and Crockett Club, and Thomas Riggs, Jr., now governor of Alaska. Feb. 26.—A second hearing was held by the Committee on Territories on the Sulzer bill (H. R. 7344), on which occasion statements were made by Charles A. Sulzer and Charles Sheldon in favor of the bill, and Belmore Browne, Marshall Scull, and W. T. Horn- aday in opposition to the bill. Mar. 5.—A third hearing was held by the Committee on Territories on the Sulzer bill, on which occasion Thomas Riggs, Jr., ap- peared and made a further statement in support of the bill. -Mar. 6.—C. L. Andrews, long a resident and an official in Alaska, reports in correspondence that the whales of Bering Sea and the north coast of Alaska are increasing in number. He states that for 15 or 20 years previous whale have been so scarce that few whalers have fitted out expeditions to pursue them and on account of the cessation of whale-hunting, the herds have slowly increased in numbers until now whale meat is a factor of native food as far up as Point Barrow. Mar. 12.—At the annual meeting of the Royal Society for the Pro- tection of Birds held at the Guildhall, Westminster, the gold medal of the Society was awarded to Dr. W. T. Hornaday and Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt for their work in connection with the migratory bird treaty between the United States and Canada. Mar. 31.—Gov. Edge, of New Jersey, signed a bill, introduced by Assemblyman Tattersall, of Passaic County, making it illegal to kill or pursue birds or animals with the aid of automobiles. The penalty for violations of the act is $50 for each offence. 190 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND April 23.—A hearing was held before the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives to consider H. R. No. 7360, introduced by Representative Graham of Illinois, to prohibit the sale of game in the District of Columbia. April 26.—Gov. Charles 8. Whitman signed the bill giving the quail of New York, not including Long Island, an additional two-year close season. Some years ago the quail in certain parts of the state had become markedly decreased in numbers, so that in 1913 a five-year close season was provided. The new law thus provided a total of seven years continuous protection for New York’s remnant of quails, but there is little reason to hope that the quail ever can recover sufficiently to justify further quail shooting. April 29.—Through the signature of Gov. Charles S. Whitman the cat bill recently passed by the legislature became a law. The new law reads in part as follows: “Any person over the age of twenty-one years who is the holder of a valid hunting and trapping license, may, and it shall be the duty of a game protector or other peace officer to, hu- manely destroy a cat at large found hunting or killing any bird protected by law or with a dead bird of any species protected by law in its possession; and no action for damages shall be maintained for such killing.” June 11.—The largest government-owned breeding-place for wild fowl, formerly called Mud Lake, and located in New Mexico, was named Lake Burford, in honor of Miles W. Burford, Presi- dent of the New Mexico Game Protection Association, who died on Nov. 8, 1917. The change in the name of the lake was authorized by the National Geographic Board. June 14.—By order of the State Game Commission of Michigan, the hunting of ruffed grouse was prohibited for one year. The action met with the hearty support of the sportsmen of the state, many of whom urged that the closed season should cover a period of at least five years. June 23.—Charles E. Brewster, at one time connected with the law department of the Biological Survey, U. S. Department of Agri- culture, died at Washington. He was a most energetic game protector, and was in the work continuously for 30 years. He collected much of the evidence which was used in the great Silz duck cases of both in New York and New Jersey; he broke up the quail shipping traffic in Kentucky and southwestern Virginia, took a Wand in checking the duck traffic from Big Lake and took an active part in game protection work in Michigan, Penn- sylvania and Texas. June 28 and 29.—The U. S. House of Representatives and Senate took final action on the migratory bird treaty enabling act and passed it. The vote in the House in favor of the bill was 237 to 49. July 3.—The President approved Senate bill 1553 to give effect to the migratory bird treaty. THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 191 July 31.—The President issued the proclamation of the migratory bird treaty and regulations. July 31.—A special open season on ducks in five counties in California in which rice is extensively grown, was granted by the Secre- tary of Agriculture from Sept. 30 to October 15 inclusive. This action was taken after an investigation that disclosed the fact that extensive damage was being done to those rice crops by birds. Aug. 26.—The U. S. Dept. of Agriculture issued its first Service and Regulatory Announcement under the terms of the migra- tory bird treaty and regulations. Aug. 31.—By order of the New York State Conservation Commission the open season on grouse in the state, not including Long Island, was shortened, and the bag limit over the entire state was de- creased from four to two birds per day, and from twenty to ten in the season. This decision by the Commission was reached after hearings had been held at New York City, Albany, Utica, Malone, Rochester, Elmira and Goshen, at which it was pointed out that a very serious shortage of ruffed grouse had existed in the state for the last three years. The chief causes for the decrease were given as cold, wet nesting-seasons which either prevented the eggs from hatching, or caused the death of the young birds; unusual inroads upon the grouse by vermin, especially foxes, goshawks and great horned owls, and increased hunting brought about by better roads and facilities for trans- portation, and the extensive use of automobiles in grouse hunt- ing. Oct. 25.—By Presidential proclamation certain amendments and ad- ditions to the migratory bird treaty and regulations were carried into effect. Nov. 4.—Mrs. Russell Sage, one of the founders of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, died at her home on Long Island. See notice in Part 1 of this volume. Dec. 17.—J. Frank Callbreath, of Telegraph Creek, B. C., reported the following incident: A Japanese restaurant keeper talked an Indian guide into killing a cow moose for him, telling him that he had a special license, etc. The Indian proceeded to kill the moose. He was caught, and the Game Warden, Mr. Evans, pushed the case until he was fined $250. Dec. 19.—The gold medal of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund was conferred on John M. Phillips, for 12 years a very active member of the State Game Commission of Pennsylvania, and a great force in the protection of wild life and forests. The presentation of the medal took place at the annual conservation dinner of the Wild Life League of Pennsylvania at the William Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh. 1919 Jan. 4—The ranchers of Natrona County, Wyoming, organized to cooperate with the U. S. Biological Survey in the control of 192 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND wolves, coyotes and bobcats, for which purpose a fund of $8000 was raised. Jan. 6.—The death of Theodore Roosevelt removed from the field of wild life protection one of the most powerful and effective cham- pions of that cause. See notice in Part I. Jan. 13.—Gov. Alfred E. Smith signed the bill amending the Conser- vation law of the state of New York so as to conform to the federal migratory bird law. In this connection the bag limit on geese and brant was reduced to cover only 8 of either species instead of 25 as formerly. Jan. .—At the annual dinner of the Boone and Crockett Club, of which Theodore Roosevelt was a member, the suggestion was made that the new Greater Sequoia National Park in California be called the Roosevelt National Park. A bill to that effect was introduced in Congress, immediately passed by the Senate and referred to the House of Representatives for action. Feb. 18 and 19.—Under the direction of the Commission of Conser- vation of Canada, in cooperation with its Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection, the first Canadian National Conference on the conservation of game, fur-bearing animals and other wild life, was held at Ottawa. At this conference the Campaigning Trustee of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund delivered an address entitled “The Rational Use of Game Animals.” Mar. 9.—Mr. Frederick G. Bourne, one of the Founders of the Per- manent Wild Life Protection Fund, died at his home at Oakhill, L. I. Mr. Bourne was President of the Singer Sewing Machine Company. See notice in Part I. Mar. 12.—The state of Washington took a backward step when acting Governor Hart signed Senate bill No. 28, known as the Phipps bill, which provided for the breeding and sale of wild game, including moose, caribou, elk, deer, otter, marten, mink and other wild animals or wild birds. April 10.—A hearing took place before the Committee on Fish and Game of the New York State Senate on the bill introduced by Assemblyman Everett to repeal the “buck law” and permit the killing of one deer of either sex. See “The Tragedy of New York’s Buck Law,” Part II. April 17.—Gov. Alfred E. Smith granted a hearing to a large dele- gation representing the various game protective organizations and allied interests who appeared against the Everett bill for the repeal of the buck law. In spite of the strong representations made, the Governor signed the bill in order that it might be tried for one season, as an experiment, for the correction of in- tolerable deer-hunting evils in the Adirondacks. May 9.—The Canadian Minister of the Interior, in a report to the Privy Council, recommended that a commission be appointed and authorized to study the subject of the domestication of the musk-ox in Canada. The commission appointed consisted of the following gentlemen: John Cunion Rutherford, James Stanley THIRD BIENNIAL STATEMENT 193 McLean, James Bernard Harkin, Commissioner of Dominion Parks, and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. June 4.—In the Eastern District Court of Arkansas Federal Judge Jacob Treiber upheld the constitutionality of the migratory bird treaty act in an elaborate opinion handed down in the case of the United States vs. E. D. Thompson of Memphis, Tenn. This deci- sion is one of the most important ever rendered as effecting the conservation of wild life. It will be recalled that in 1914, in the ease of the United States vs. Harvey C. Shauver, Judge Treiber decided that the McLean migratory bird law, passed March 4, 1913, was unconstitutional. June 21.—Senator Knute Nelson introduced in the Senate bill No. 2182 for the creation of game sanctuaries in national forests. This new bill is identical with the original Chamberlain-Hay- den bill introduced in January, 1916, and which died in the 65th Congress, solely through the opposition of Senator Smoot. June .—By an act of the Saskatchewan legislature an indefinite close season was declared on elk. This animal is now perma- mently protected throughout its entire range in Canada. This re- sult has been largely brought about through the influence of an increasing number of persons interested in the preservation of the game of Canada, who have from time to time held conferences on the subject and whose recommendations have gradually been adopted by the various provincial legislatures. Aug. 10.—Dr. Joseph Kalbfus, for many years secretary of the State Game Commission of Pennsylvania, was killed in an acci- dent near Sheffield, Pa. The automobile in which Dr. Kalbfus and Mr. E. A. Kelley, State Game Field Superintendent, were riding, was struck by a Pennsylvania Railroad train. The occu- pants of the car were thrown out and Dr. Kalbfus was killed ai- most instantly. For nearly twenty years Dr. Kalbfus had been one of the boldest and strongest fighters for the wild life of America, and he leaves behind him a long record of important victories. See note in Part I. Aug. 11.—Mr. Andrew Carnegie, a Founder of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, died at his home, Shadowbrook, Lenox, Mass. Sept. 2——Federal Judge George M. Bourquin, at Helena, Mont., in the case of the United States vs. Rockefeller, upheld the migratory bird treaty act as constitutional. Dec. 19.—The medal of the Pennsylvania Wild Life League was con- ferred on Hon. William E. Crow, a member of the Pennsylvania State Senate, for distinguished services to the wild life cause. The presentation took place at the annual dinner of the League at the William Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh. Dec. 31.—The Treasury Department advised that certain prohibited wild birds plumage which had been seized by customs officials in New York, and which certain dealers had requested should be sold by the government “for exportation,” was ordered to be destroyed, excepting such portions of it as were to be used for scientific and educational purposes. * INDEX TO SECTIONS I-III A. Accidents in deer hunting, 57, 58, Gi, ‘G2. Adams, Frank D., 173. Agriculture, Department of, 137. Alaska, bag “limits” in, 133: game conditions in, 149, 152; new game act now required, TS. aay Daily Empire newspaper, 107 Alaskan brown bear, case of the, 106. Alaskans, attitude of some, toward game, 150, 152, 153. Aliens and guns, 141; laws in Pennsylvania, 169. Andrews, C. L., 189. Arizona, new game sanctuaries im, S32. Army of 5,000,000 hunters, 123. Association for the Protection of Game, 67. Atterbury, F., 182. Attwater, H. P:, 177. Auditor, report of, 41, 44. B. Bag “limits” too liberal, 123, 127; on migratory birds, 132=- in Alaska, 138. Baird, Sir Alexander, 180. Barker, G. T., 54. Beard, Daniel Carter, 53, 59. Belgium, needs help, 26; need of bird protection in, 98. Blair County, Pa., Fish and For- estry Association, 186. Bonaventure Island, 172. Bonhote, J. Lewis, 181. Bourne, Frederick G., 14, 192. Bourquin, Judge Geo. M., upholds bird treaty, 193. Brewster, Charles E., 18, 190. Bristol, Charles L., 53. Browne, Belmore, 189. Buck law, in New York, 50; in Penna., 169; in 16 states, 63. Burford, Lake, 190. Burford, Miles W., 19, 188. Burgess, Thornton W., 69; medal awarded to, 48. Burnham, John B., 53. Butler, Mr., 54. C: California, new game sanctuaries in, 838; opens season on rice- destroying ducks, 191. _ Callbreath, J. Frank, 191. Campaigning Trustee’s financial statements, 38, 40, 42. Canada, conditions in northern, 151; conference in 1919, 146. Canadian Commission of Con- servation, 172. Caribou, new protection for, 188. Carnegie, Andrew, 18, 198. Carpenter, Warwick S., 53. Cats, bill against, in N. Y. Sen- ate, 187; law against, enacted MNS Yeon OO, Causes calling for activities, 25; expenditures on account of, 40, 44. Chamberlain, Senator George E., 80. Chambers, EH. D. T., U73. Chapellier, A., 95. Charland, Nelson, 62. Christgau, Henry C., killed in deer hunting, 61. Chronology of Important Events, 185. Clarke, John M., article by, 171; medal awarded to, 48. Cold storage for surplus game meat advocated, 155. Colorado, new game sanctuaries in, 83. Commercial exploitation fatal to game, 151 Conference, Canadian, at Ottawa, 146. Congress, passes migratory bird treaty enabling act, 190. 196 Conservation Commission, N. Y., 63, 189; hearing on quail, 67; report of, 148. Cornell University, formally takes up game breeding, 187. Crane, Zenas, 189. Crow, William E., medal for serv- ices to wild life, 193. D Darling, J. N., cartoon by, 136; statement from, 144. Davenport, Charles B., 66. Davis,) Predid.,.55- Debreuil, Charles, 95. Decision of U. S. Supreme Court, . 88. Deer, accidents in hunting, 57, 58, 61, 62; hunting extinct in 14 states, 63; illegal killing in Adirondacks, 55; killed in N. Y. in 1919; 59, 62; killing pos- sibilities of, 1381; laws in vari- ous states, 63; surest way to exterminate, 124; white-tailed, in Penna. game preserves, 167. Delacour, Jean, 95. DeLapp, W. C., arrest of, 85. Derrick, Joseph, killed in deer hunting, 61. de St. Remy, George L. L., medai tO, 40: Dickerman, Watson B., new sub- scription by, 36. Doe-killing, law repealed, 59; laws in 19 states, 63; oppo- nents of bill, 53. Dogs, 141. Drawing Account, 42. Ducks, increase in, 144. Duncan, Commissioner, of St. Joseph, Mo., 85. E. Eastern game _ protectors and Alaskan game, 152. Egypt, Bird Protection and De- struction in, 180. Everett, Assemblyman Edward, 53, 54. Everett deer law of 1919, 57, 59. Extermination of sport impend- ime; 121, Family unit basis for licenses, 156. INDEX Feeding upland game birds in winter, 141. Ferris, M: Y:, 54. Field and Stream, 176. Fish, destruction of, 128. Flower, S. S., 180. Food, game as war, 21. Foundation, amendment to plan Ol, 28. Founders and Subscribers, 28-38. France, bird protection in, 93; needs help, 26, 29. Francis, John M., 54. Francisco, Pamela J., medal to, 49. Fund, Permanent Wild Life Pro- tection, 94, 96; amendment to plan of foundation, 28. Fur Seal Industry, salvage of the, 158. G. Game killed in Penna., 1919, 168. Gates, Moody B., 69, 75. Godard, Andre, 95, 97. Goodnight, Charles, on Wichita Bison Herd, 187. Greeley, William B., 53. Grouse, protected in Mich. for one year, 190. H. Hall, Edward Hagaman, 53. Hawley, M. Leonard, killed in deer hunting, 61. Heath hen in N. Y., 188. Henshaw, G. Herbert, 66. Hewitt, C. Gordon, 15, 173; medal awarded to, 112. Holland, R. P., federal game war- den, 87. Holmes, Supreme Court Justice, opinion by, 88. Hoover, Herbert, 22. Hoover, M. H., 54. Hornaday, William T., 53, 106; letter by, 28, 107. Houston Chronicle, 177. Hunting, license fees too low, 128; seasons in the U. Ss fez I. Idaho, improves her game laws, 186; new game sanctuaries in, 83. Income Account, 37. Increase in wild fowl, 144; in prairie chickens, 144, 179. INDEX Indictment, worst, of Americans, 176. Innes, Walter Francis, 180. Interstate Sportsmen’s Associa- tion, 85. Iowa gives five year close season to quail, 186. Italian Bird Net in New Jersey, 183. Italy needs help, 26; need of bird protection in, 98. Johnson, Lake, four days hunting on, 130. Jonas, Nelson F., 60; killed in deer hunting, 61. Judson, John B., 54. K. Kalbfus, Dr. Joseph, 16, 193. Kallman, Abraham, arrest and conviction of, 104. Kansas, new game _ sanctuaries id es Se Kasson deer bill in N. Y. legis- lature, 51. Kiley, J. S., 54. Klein, William C., 188. L. Lacassa, Vivian, 62. LaPierre, David, killed in deer hunting, 61. Lawlessness in the Adirondacks detected, 147. Lawrence, Robert B., 67. Laws effective in game preserva- tion, 143. League, French, for the Protec- tion of Birds, 29, 93. Legal bag of ducks, in Califor- nia, 142. Legge, Llewellyn, Protector, 56. Libraries containing our publi- cations, 114. Licensed hunters increasing, 125. Licenses to hunt, in New York, 58; in Pennsylvania, 125. Ligue Francaise pour la Protec- tion des Oiseaux, 29, 94. Literature of wild life protection, TS. Louisiana, new game sanctuaries in, 83 Loyer, Maurice, 95. Chief Game 197 M. McAllister, Frank W., 86. Mackay, E. A., 54. Malone, Daniel, 62. Manitoba protects upland game birds, 185. Marshall, Louis, 87. Martin, Harley, killed in deer hunting, 61. Mastin, Bertha J., medal to, 49. Medals awarded for services, 47; from Royal Society for the Pro- tection of Birds, 121 112. Memoriam, Tablets in, 10. Menegaux, A., 95, 97. Mercier, Honore, 173. Merriam, C. Hart, 106. Michigan gives one year to ruffed grouse, 190. Millinery Chamber of Commerce, 103, 105. Miner, Jack, government recog- nition of, 188. Minnesota Scenic Highway Asso- ciation, 124, 128. Missouri’s final attack on migra- tory birds, 85. Mitchell, Joseph, 62. Mondell, Frank W., 79. Montana, improves her game laws, 186; new game sanctu- aries in, 83. Moose, fine for cow moose at Telegraph Creek, 191. Mouse, Harold E., medal to, 49. Mt. McKinley National Park created, 185. Musk-ox, new protection for, 188; plans to domesticate in Canada, 192. N. Nelson, Senator Knute, 80; bill introduced by, for sanctuaries in national forests, 80, 193. Netting birds in New Jersey, 183. Nevada, sweeping reforms in game laws, 186. New Guinea, bird sanctuary, 101. New Mexico, game protection in, 185. New Mexico Game Protective As- sociation, 51. New Mexico Wool Growers Asso- ciation, 80. New York, absurd bag “limits” im, 129. 198 New York Conservation Commis- sioner, report of, 55. New York Zoological Society, 96. North Dakota, new game sanctu- aries in, 83. Northwest Game Act passed by Canada, 188. O O’Connor, John H., 67. Ohio protects quail, 185. Ohl, J. August, killed hunting, 61. Oklahoma, new game sanctuaries in, Sa. Open seasons too long, 123. Oregon, new game sanctuaries in, 84 in deer Orr, George, 62. Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 145. P. Paradise Birds, saving, 100. Parrott, W. F., and Iowa legisla- ture, 186. Payne, K. W., 76. Pennsylvania, alien gun law in, 169; bringing back deer in, 161; game killed in 1919, 168; hunting licenses, 125; state _ game preserves of, 162. People’s Home Journal, 69, 71, 73. Perce Rock, 172. Perrier, Edmond, 95. Ee ete not a great factor, 123. Phillips, John M., article by, 161; medal awarded to, 47, 191. Pichot, Pierre Amedee, 95, 97. Pierrepont, John Jay, 32. sors Martin,. netter of birds, 83. Planting of food producers pro- posed, 141. Plumage law in America, results Oi, 103. Plumage trade in Dutch East In- dies, 99. Possibilities in game slaughter, 129. Prairie chicken, results in pro- tecting, 144, 179. Pratt, George D., .55- from report of, 148. Principles of game utilization in far North, 154. extract INDEX Prizes awarded for sanctuaries, Ue Quail, from New Mexico not suc- cessful in Penna., 186; given long protection in Iowa, 186; killing possibilities, 131; pro- tection in Ohio, 185; refuge notice, from New Mexico, 126; slaughter in Texas, 126; Trag-. _edy on Long Island, 65, 68. R. Radja Ampat Islands, bird sanc- tuary, 101. Recommendations to game and sport, 1388. Reiffenberg, William, 62.. Remedial efforts proposed, 139. Report, of activities, 21; of Audi- tor, 41, 44; of N. Y. Conserva- tion Commission, 55, 148. Resh, J. J., medal to, 49. Restrictions proposed, 138. Reynolds, J. R., arrest of, 87. Rice crops, relief for, from Cali- fornia ducks, 191. Riggs, Jr., Thomas W., attitude of, toward game, 150. Romeo, Thomas, killed hunting, 61. Roosevelt, Theodore, 11, 192. Ross, Thomas, killed in deer hunt- ine, Gil. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 110! Rudruds i. ko: preserve in deer S. Sage, Mrs. Russell, 12, 191. Sale of game in the north, 150, U2: Samples, George L., arrest of, 85. Sanctuary bill in Congress, 78. Sanctuaries, for birds of para- dise, 101; in national forests, Nelson bill for, 80; prizes awarded for, 72, 74; state game, new, 82; two great cam- paigns for, 69, 70, 76. Saskatchewan gives sage grouse long protection, 187; stops all elk shooting, 193. Schouten Islands, bird sanctuary, 101. Sea Birds of Gulf of St. Law- rence, 171. INDEX Seal, Fur, report on the product of the, 158, 159. Seasons, hunting, in the U. S., 132; should be reduced, 138. Securities, List of, on Dec. 31, 1918, 45. Seymour, Julius H., 58. Smith, Gov. Alfred E., 52, 56, 57. Smoot, Senator Reed, 78. Snyder, Charles, 62. Societe Nationale tion, 94. Soco Nimrods, California, 142. South Dakota, new game sanctu- aries in, 84. Sperry, C. T., 54. Sport, End of, in America? 121. Sportsmen, admonition to, 120; responsibility of, 135. Sportsmen’s Review, 130, 140. Squires, Albert J., 53. St. Lawrence, Gulf of, sea birds of. 174. State game sanctuaries, cost to establish and maintain in Penna., 166; in Pennsylvania, 162; new, 82. State Rights fetich, 87. Standard Oil Bulletin, cut from, es. Stillman, William O., 53. Stingley, H. A., auditor, 41, 44. Subseribers to Fund, 34, 35. Subscriptions, Special, 35. Sullivan, D. T.,. 54, Sulzer bill, 150, 187. : P: @Waverner, P. A:, 172. Ternier, Louis, 95. Texas Testimony of Texas Bird destruction, 177. Thayer, Assemblyman Warren 2 Dell, "by, 09. Thomas, Senator Charles S., 78. Thompson, Clarence, killed by bear, 106. Tichenor, Frank B., medal to, 49. Townsend, C. H., 67. Tragedy of New York’s “Buck” Law, 50. Treasury Dept., U. S., vigilance of, 104. Treaty, migratory bird, 85, 88; constitutionality of, 88; ena- ae act passed by Congress, 190. d’Aceclimata- 199 Treiber, Judge Jacob, 86; decides bird treaty constitutional, 193. Trustees, Report of, 36; award of medals by, 47. Upland game birds in danger, 122; feeding .in winter, 141; protected in Manitoba, 185. Use of game animals, 146. ree new game sanctuaries in, 4, Utilization of game, 146. Vic Van Norden, Ottomar H., 53. van Tienhoven, P. G., report by, 99. vee Valkenburgh, Judge A. S., Vermin, 141. Vilmoare, E. S., arrest of, 87. W. Wadsworth, W. Austin, 17. Wakeham, Commander, 171. Walcott, Frederic C., 22. War, activities during, 24; game as food during, 21. vee against deer hunting, Washington, fish destruction in, LS new game sanctuaries in, fe 5 provides for sale of game, Weeks, Archibald C., 66. Weeks, Miss, 67. Was increasing in Bering Sea, Whipple, James S., 54. White, James, 173. Whitfield, Flora, 72. Whitman, Charles S., 52; signs new quail bill, 190. eee life protection literature, Wolf, bounties provided for kill- ing, 192. Wool Growers Association, New Mexico, 80. Wyoming, new game sanctuaries in, 84 Z. Zoological Society, New York, 96; receives seized plumage, 185. Zoological Society of Amsterdam, 99. INDEX TO BULLETIN NO. VI Alaska, attitude toward game conservation, 10; brown bears in, 24; eagles, slaughter of, 25; first game law for, 10; need for wild game food, 9; public inter- ests in, 7; sale of game in, 15. Alaskan game act, proposal for new, 30. Bears, Alaskan brown, killing of, 24, Boone and Crockett Club, 10. Browne, Belmore, testimony of, Die E. Eagles, slaughter of, in Alaska, 2S Early propaganda for Alaskan game protection, 10. B. Fairbanks Commercial Club, 20. Fairbanks National Defense Council, 20. Fund, Permanent Wild Life Pro- tection, offer of, 34. G. Game, wild, as food for Alaska, 9; decrease in Alaska, 26; de- struction of, by wolves, 20; fed to railway laborers, 15; new measures for, 28, 30; sale, in Alaska, 13, 15. Gartield, C. ., 33. Grant, Madison, 10. Ee Herald, New York, 10, 12. Hornaday, William. T., 10; 305.31. L. Lacey, John F., 10. M. Measures, new, for Alaskan game, 28. N Nelson, E. W., fot oon Of 2 New York Zoological Society, 10, dale 20: P; Program, constructive, proposed, a2, oo R Regulations of Dept. of Agricul- ture, 40. Riggs, Jr., Thomas W., 10,3 testimony on Sulzer bill, 18, 195520: S) Sale of game in Alaska, 13, 15. Sheldon, Charles, 20; testimony Of, 15 1s. Sulzer, Charles A., 16. Sulzer bill, introduced, 16, 17; organizations opposed to, 20; testimony on, 17. Sutherland, D. A., 26. AN Text of Alaskan Game Law, 35. Vi. Valdez Miner, 16. W. Wenrich, Wright, 20; from letter by, 21. Wickersham, James W., letter to, 29. Wolves, destruction of game by, Ve xtracts Z. Zoological Society, New York, 10, 1 20, tye eee nese os a eese tae THE WHITE MOUNTAIN SHEEP This beautiful and rare animal annually in the open season north of 62° is slaughtered in Alaska for the markets, and is sold “‘to beat the beef monopoly,’’ at Fairbanks, Nanina, and other places. Shall the sale of white sheep meat continue? Think of feeding railroad laborers and miners regularly on THIS fine game animal! PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION ; FUND BULLETIN No. 6 FEBRUARY 15, 1920 PUBLISHED FOR THE INFORMATION OF CONGRESS A NEW GAME ACT FOR ALASKA FOR THE BETTER PROTECTION AND MORE RATIONAL UTILIZATION OF ALASKA’S GAME ANIMALS BY WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, Sc.D., A.M. Campaigning Trustee “Nothing extenuate, nor set aught down in malice.” The wild life of Alaska is not wholly ours, to dispose of as we please. It has been given to us IN TRUST. We must account for it to those who come after us and audit our records. NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL PARK 1920 THE PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND FOUNDERS. ($1,000 or more.) Mrs. RUSSELL SAGE, New York. GEORGE EASTMAN, Rochester. Mrs. F. F. THOMPSON, Canandaigua HENRY FORD, Detroit. WILLIAM P. CLYDE, New York. JOHN D. ARCHOBOLD, New York. ALEX. SMITH COCHRAN, New York. WILLIAM H. NICHOLS, New York. ANDREW CARNEGIE, New York. GEORGE F. BAKER, New York. GEORGE D. PRATT, New York. DEFENDER OF WILD LIFE, Wash,D.C. Miss HELOISE MEYER, Lenox, Mass. EDWARD S. HARKNESS, New York. “IN MEMORIAM,” Boston. Max C. FLEISCHMANN, Cincinnati. Mrs. J. S. KENNEDY, New York. EMERSON MCMILLIN, New York. FRED’K G. BOURNE, New York. MorRTIMER L. SCHIFF, New York. SAMUEL THORNE, New York. ANTHONY R. KuskEr, Bernardsville. JOHN DRYDEN KUSER, Bernardsville FREDERIC C. WALCOTT, New York. FRED’K F. BREWSTER, New Haven. Mrs. Wo. H. Buiss, New York. Mrs. R. T. AUCHMUTY, New York. Howarp M. HANNA, Cleveland. EDMUND C. CONVERSE, New York. WATSON B. DICKERMAN, Mamaroneck. SUBSCRIBERS. JOHN J. PIERREPONT, Brooklyn. CLEVELAND H. DopGE, New York. JAMES SPEYER, New York. FRIEND OF WILD LIFE, Berkeley,Cal. Mrs. ETHEL R. THAYER, Boston. HENRY A. Epwarps, Albany. Miss ELIZABETH S. EDWARDS, Albany. HOMER E. SARGENT, Chicago. ROBERT B. WOODWARD, Brooklyn. CHARLES A. DEAN, Boston. WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, New York. JOHN M. PHILLIPS, Pittsburgh. JOHN C. PHILLIPS, Wenham, Mass. C. W. Post, Battle Creek. COLEMAN RANDOLPH, Morristown. A. BARTON HEPBURN, New York. ZENAS CRANE, Dalton. Mass. Z. MARSHALL CRANE, Boston. Miss EMILY TREVOR, Yonkers. NORMAN JAMES, Baltimore. HENRY W. SHOEMAKER, New York. GusTAvuS D. Pope, Detroit. ARTHUR B. LEACH, New York. JOHN MARKLE, New York. CAMP-FIRE CLUB OF MICHIGAN, Detroit. J. ERNEST ROTH, Pittsburgh. W. J. HOLLAND, Pittsburgh. JOHN H. EAGLE, New York. ARTHUR W. ELTING, Albany. EVERSLEY CHILDS, New York. WILLIAM C. BRADBURY, Denver. Mrs. HARRIET WILLIAMS MYERS, Los Angeles. AUDUBON SOCIETIES, Pasadena and Los Angeles. ALEXANDER V. FRASER, New York. WILLIAM E. Corrin, New York. CHARLES WILLIS WARD, Eureka,Cal Dr. EMILY G. HUNT, Pasadena. J. WILLIAM GREENWOOD, Brooklyn. ALFRED COLLINS, Philadelphia. RICHARD HARDING DAvIs, Mt. Kisco. ALAINE C. WHITE, Litchfield, Conn. R. W. EVERETT, Pisgah Forest,N.C. Total Permanent Fund, Jan. 1, 1920, $108,495. TRUSTEES. WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, Campaigning Trustee. CLARK WILLIAMS, A. BARTON HEPBURN, Banking Trustees. CONTENTS PUBLIC INTERESTS IN ALASKA ALASKA’S NEED FOR WILD GAME FoopD ATTITUDE OF ALASKA TOWARD CONSERVATION FIRST ALASKAN GAME LAW “DUTY OF CONGRESS,” (in 1902) SALE OF GAME IN ALASKA THE SULZER BILL DESTRUCTION OF GAME BY WOLVES LETTER FROM WRIGHT WENRICH Two ALASKAN DEMANDS FREE KILLING OF BROWN BEARS SLAUGHTER OF EAGLES Is BIg GAME DECREASING IN ALASKA? NEW CONDITIONS DEMAND NEW MEASURES PROPOSED BASIS FOR NEW GAME ACT A CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAM TEXT OF EXISTING ALASKAN GAME LAW PERMITS FOR TROPHIES AND SPECIMENS SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS LATEST REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ILLUSTRATIONS WHITE MOUNTAIN SHEEP EARLY ALASKAN GAME PROTECTION PROPAGANDA ALASKAN MOOSE ANTLERS ALASKAN BROWN BEAR ALASKAN CARIBOU 15-20 42 43 Frontispiece - facing 10 16 24 32 BURNING QUESTIONS. Are the people of the United States willing that the moose, white mountain sheep and caribou of Alaska shall be slaughtered to feed railway laborers and miners on a commercial basis, everywhere north of Latitude 62, to “beat the beef trust?” Are the people of Alaska willing? Are the people of the United States and Alaska willing that the big game of Alaska shall be destroyed today, leaving nothing for the men of tomorrow save a province as barren of game as Siberia? If The People are not willing, then we must at once come to a show-down, and frame and enact an entirely new and up-to-date game act for Alaska. PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND BULLETIN No. 6 FEBRUARY 15, 1920 PUBLISHED FOR THE INFORMATION OF CONGRESS A NEW GAME ACT FOR ALASKA The lapse of time and changed conditions in Alaska now render it the bounden duty of the American people and their Congress to consider and act anew upon the business of practical game conservation in that Territory. PUBLIC INTERESTS IN ALASKA If newspaper reports are as true as they usually are, then it is a fact that some of the people of Alaska strongly resent the Territorial status of that province and demand full statehood. As night follows day, this insures resent- ment of “eastern” influence in the utilization of the wild game of Alaska. From Governor Riggs downward that feeling now exists and persists, particularly from Valdez northward. Now, the natural impulse of the citizen of New York and elsewhere in The States would be to think and to say: “If a majority of the people of Alaska really desire to exterminate their food supply of wild game, let them go ahead and do it. We can stand the consequences if they ean” But that is not the way to carry the white man’s burden of conservation. Men who are chosen, either by natural 8 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND or artificial selection, to lead in promoting the welfare of America’s heritage of wild life can not sit back in quiet comfort and say: “After me, the deluge!” We can not, as good citizens, assume any attitudes of indifference toward the forests, fisheries, game and min- erals of any portion of the public domain. It is a principle of criminal law that he who knowingly permits another person to commit a crime, without protest or effort at pre- vention, thereby becomes particeps criminis. In wild countries it is the aggressive and domineering minority that first dictates the fate of the wild game. The white population of Alaska now numbers about 16,000, and it would be a perfectly easy matter for 100 determined men of that small company to dictate the game disposal policy of the entire province—provided all Alaskan game now were turned over to the sole control of people at present sojourning in that Territory. Notwitstanding some Alaskan feeling to the contrary, there are vast and valuable interests in Alaska that the present people of that Territory do not in any wise own in fee simple, or in any manner hold subject to their dis- posal. The coming generations of Americans have in the vast Territory of Alaska many rights that we, as the guard- ians of their interests, can neither ignore, nor destroy, nor permit to be destroyed. Let it be understood now, once and for all time, that the wild life protectors of the United States are not going to lie down and passively permit the best interests of Alaskan wild life to go into the discard. As one who believes sincerely both in the legitimate and sensible utilization of game and the protection of the rights of future Americans, the writer does not propose to be “read out of the party,” as certain Alaskans already have attempted to do. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 9 ALASKA’S NEED FOR WILD GAME FOOD. Alaska is the only American possession in which a note- worthy proportion of the population is at any time appre- ciably dependent upon wild game as food. The great area of Alaska, the long land distances to be traversed, the diffi- culties of heavy transportation and in many districts the appalling scarcity of food, present difficulties such as no other land or people of ours encounter. It is in Alaska that a pound of wild meat attains 300 per cent. of impor- tance. It 1s Alaska and its people who will suffer most when the game has been exterminated! Of all countries under our flag, Alaska most of all stands in need of perfect game laws, and perfect game law enforcement, in order to postpone as long as possible the evil days of complete extermination and meat hunger. Really, does it not seem as if Alaskans should welcome friendly interest in their supply of game, and be the last people on earth to accuse every eastern conservationist of desiring to conserve the big game of Alaska “in order to kill it himself’? And yet there are Alaskans who would give up all claim for Federal aid in the protection of Alas- kan game for the sole sake of securing the high privilege of doing what they please to the game of Alaska. Is it not strange? When the last moose, the last sheep and the last caribou falls to wasteful hunters, what will feed the hungry white man mushing over the long trails of the interior? There may be those in Alaska and Canada who scoff at the idea that all the caribou may be killed, but we ask them to re- member the millions of the American bison, the fur seal millions, and the billions of the passenger pigeon. 10 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND ATTITUDE OF ALASKANS TOWARD GAME CONSERVATION. By Thomas W. Riggs, Jr., Governor. “The attitude of Alaskans toward proper game laws is not antagonistic, as is generally considered by the unin- formed. On the contrary, every right-thinking Alaskan is extremely jealous of the country’s game and wishes to see a true conservation effected, as without it game develop- ment must cease. Without game the small mining camps must suffer not only in health but in activity, and the trap- per and the prospector will be driven from the hills. That the supply of game must be conserved is apparent to all, but the Government, by ill-advised laws, is hastening the extermination of the game. The sentiment of the people of Alaska will enforce laws when enacted by a body of men who are conversant with the country, but now, even when an arrest is made by a game warden, it is almost impossi- ble to secure a conviction, owing to the difficulty of obtain- ing a jury not more or less sympathetic with the offender. To enforce laws to which the people of Alaska are hostile, I must draw attention to the fact that the force of game wardens is entirely inadequate.”—(From the Annual Re- port - the Governor of Alaska on the Alaska Game Law, 1918. THE FIRST ALASKAN GAME LAW. The first law ever framed for the protection of Alaskan game was enacted by Congress in 1902, through the leader- ship of Representative John F. Lacey, of Iowa, father of the now famous ‘“‘Lacey Act,” for the inter-state protection of birds. It originated in the ranks of “eastern sportsmen” and naturalists, and it was brought into existence through their initiative and their efforts. It was vigorously as- sisted by the New York Zoological Society and the Boone and Crockett Club. But for this strictly eastern impulse it is extremely probable that Alaska’s game act would have been deferred for a number of years, with corresponding slaughter of most valuable game. NEW YORK WERALD, SUNDAY, JANUARY 12, 1002. } G > OF - ALASKA | NEEDS PROTECTION = ‘ANTON SLAUGHTER IN THE) || SPORTSMANS NEW PARADISE | SATENS EXTINCTION LIKE WHICH SWEPT ANIMAL FLESH- EATER OF hd soe spice t om Rees fo nets EOS Kok tet Nivcemicr { suet cites apertemss x i Y + ce the fot oF Cine wo pee mtn the feok. oR ew oy at AIRE, aR. ty RU nSet ERO be Maton) x Payer Ree x Iain tom ake BA BORER SOA. ee Py peels wey the wig ot S womes bee wotheen wiwald be ebacente t pperertnt Comba or yioag BRO Oe Nope “ MOUNTED BY FX FASTEN _PONVER £20 Table species ta thowrt Director of the New York Zoo! »gical Park Tells of the “Sportsman's Paradise” fz the North ead Makes a Pica for Efficient Protection of the Animals, Say- ing It ts the Daty of Congress to Act. 2 o . 2 it Brecaniaay Or arasna 4 ASD AREY ETEK WMO KSLIED , TOM THE KENNET Prerrsvra f bevhe x6 ret we Chew fr started aigiers a Re ENIAL point ah primet he tw * Wits Areirewtics es Kaw, att “ \ Serene tas: Awe ane op Snes, Ste: Sembateat ig BY WIELIAS er NA ie : Sirs ctpe ot tbe Tens Beck Yompogsens” Bers Of de uptettn fone q(oeette eeplited ta him Mr ore ogee, Bene Z Tins sec? the oso tog ™ ts Hts aintrmon’ © a hoxicaivm, weply thei 2 oneness WE ANMTIERS OF TRE Girt Moost OT ALASKA AND DAIL oc WEES Who Snort THE WEARER CET Balfron, ‘ euid sith cary extinction, efther Unmet Hos white tn perk taste ton tee tne MECMAY WER the Cacti. fremhy sui f. Atl SAL commer WY The axpenes of Eby thn she SAA nee +* of Alaska, fue ct heel (tem we Ie aed, OF en batt for Pikes gcd (Siem, 15d Uren whe & to eer tine taints, ate Use cee whe Bis prAl Cemtiiclee ta the aptemel Wife oF tog gas te & = Moat eo phetioady O is worth wile te Alek. Pres Ue tee ere af Sika! Wen te SS cet 2 Whether Be warty bie to . be the romance tf sroglent iin as teen site ty Gor tin Avertiws 12 the pane Is and ¢tporee 9% AA gece irae, CAT SERIE Veen patenete Rive Sailtind needed Samia BUS erwreted Leneaty af the bate pease Oo £ Satine hak By FeKe erected ox Une UND: Rally mane Recta tra afk extoariog More wares mosey Tne," OMG Legh erent & pread oMlewce 1 nel) er Larter Me (he Seah th Weed amare boot a he ees aan Ta short, tbe case Pocaune they Ed mex Ay Dyers ceerec to ton mech fe ee 6d ANAM IE hacer Usk ened geht Me Ge her teak a mergemtt Ket, at ther tome EARLY PROPAGANDA FOR ALASKAN GAME PROTECTION Facsimile of an article by W. T. Hornaday, published in the NEw YORK HERALD on Jan. 12, 1902 ar a MY 7 4 , ‘ 1 oe nw, 7 7 i wo! A oa BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 11 It is not out of place now to recall this item of history, for the information of Alaskans who were young in 1902 and for the information of a few who now are manifesting impatience, and even resentment, over the fact that New York still is actively interested in seeing the big game of Alaska preserved on a continuing basis. I will not undertake to report upon the efforts of others in 1902, because we can not recall any activities for Alaskan game that antedated those of two of the officers of the New York Zoological Society. Mr. Madison Grant busied him- self with the drafting of a bill to be passed by Congress. Through the courtesy of the New York Herald we exhibit a facsimile of an illustrated propaganda article by the writer hereof that appeared in the Herald of Sunday, Jan- uary 12, 1902. So far as we are aware, it was the first public demand for a comprehensive game act for Alaska, coupled with a definite program. It seemed to us in 1902, as it also seems to us now, that the very scanty and thinly scattered white population of the enormous Territory of Alaska can not afford to furnish, at their sole cost and charge, adequate protection to the game of Alaska. We think that they should not be ex- pected to furnish it unaided. While this subject is before us, the writer desires to declare to the Governor of Alaska that he (the writer) was the first person to go on record with a demand for a large annual Federal appropriation for the protection of Alaskan game, and that the initial amount asked for by him (in 1903) was $15,000. It was not long before annual appropriations by Congress began to materialize, and now it begins to look as if the conserva- tionists of New York again need to exert themselves to secure a substantial increase of the annual sum of $25,000 that now marks the very inadequate limit of Federal aid. The present Governor of Alaska, Mr. Thomas Riggs, Jr., has more than once said things in print reflecting upon the iy WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND attitude of eastern sportsmen toward the protection of game in Alaska, and now we respectfully remind him that those men now come very near to having some vested rights as conservators of the game of Alaska, because their efforts for his territory far antedate those of any Alaskan whom we know. The original game act of 1902* purposely conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture wide power in the framing of regulations to carry out unspecified details in game pro- tection and register the spirit of the law. It was believed that the Federal Government could be trusted to do the right thing by the moose, sheep and caribou of Alaska, and there was no disposition to impose upon the people of Alaska, either native or white, any unnecessary restrictions. On the contrary, the framers of the bill accorded the native, the miner, the explorer and the prospector such special privileges, and such wide latitude, that we never yet have received any complaints from anyone speaking in their be- half. On the other hand, we have openly and repeatedly protested against the slaughter of cow moose, especially in the closed season, by lazy Indian epicures who profess not to be sustained and satisfied by the flesh of bull moose. In the writer’s article in the New York Herald of Jan. 12, 1902, published before the first Alaskan game bill was even in its swaddling clothes, we offered the following basic propositions as constituting the DUTY OF CONGRESS. Truly, it is the duty of Congress to preserve the valuable national property in large game now living in Alaska. What we want at Washington is the immediate enactment of game laws for Alaska, based on plain common sense and a sincere determination to protect the game from extermination. After that we want in Alaska a few honest and resolute men with power to act, whose salaries and positions will depend upon their success as game protectors. *See page : BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 13 Every port and large settlement should have a paid game protector of the right sort. The sale of firearms to the natives should be prohibited. Every hunter should be required to register and obtain a license. Excessive killing should be prevented, or punished. In every possible way the slaughter of hoofed game by natives should be discouraged, or prevented. The killing of females or young should be_ severely punished. Wherever any valuable species is threatened with early extinction, either through excessive hunting or trapping, its killing should be absolutely prohibited for ten years. In 1902 caribou were so abundant in Alaska that in some minds there seemed to be a question whether it was not both right and desirable that the sale of caribou flesh should be provided for, subject to the regulations to be framed by the Government. So far as the writer is aware, the sale of sheep and moose meat never was regarded as a pos- sibility, and so far as we are aware no question regarding its sale ever arose into general view. The sale of game heads and antlers was explicitly for- bidden, by Section 4 of the Law of 1902. Concerning the sale of game meat, the game act of 1902 as it finally passed was far less explicit. It made the mis- take of far-reaching ambiguity. Jt authorized nothing defi- nite, and so far as game meat sales were concerned, it never mentioned them. The wording of the law that has stood unchanged for seventeen years is as follows: “Section 4. Sale.—That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons at any time to sell or offer for sale any hides, skins or heads of any game animals or game birds in Alaska, or to sell, offer for sale, or purchase, or offer to purchase, any game animals or game birds, or parts thereof, during the time when the killing of such animals or birds is prohibited: Provided, That it shall be lawful for dealers having in possession game animals or game birds legally killed during the open season to dispose of the same within fifteen days after the close of said season.” There never was a time when the above treatment of the game-sale question in Alaska was adequate or right. All the restrictions on the sale of game that do exist were created by the regulations of the Department of Agricul- ture. 14 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND In the above proviso the word “sale” is not once men- tioned. Section 4 conveys no legal authority whatsoever for the sale of any game, at any time, by “dealers,” or by any other persons! The friends of the sale of game take the ground that whatever is not specifically forbidden by law is permitted, and therefore legal. While the above law may have been sufficient in 1902, it is far from being ade- quate now. The only clause or sentence in the Alaskan game law that even hints at authorization for the sale of game is a grudg- ing proviso that “dealers” may enjoy a brief privilege to “dispose of” game for fifteen days following the open sea- son—but that privilege is NOT given DURING the open season! Now, if the contentions of the game-sale defenders is true, why was it ever necessary to convey permission to do a thing that never had been forbidden? At all events, that disposal privilege, and the absence of prohibitive law, has been treated by the Department of Agriculture as lawful authority to sell great quantities of moose, sheep and caribou flesh during the open season for game hunting and fifteen days thereafter, everywhere north of Latitude 62 degrees, which is the Latitude of Mt. Wran- gell. The first “Regulations for the Protection of Game in Alaska,” published by the Department of Agriculture on Aug. 22, 1903, and signed in facsimile by Secretary Wilson, say not one word regarding the sale of game! Just what was actually done in that year and in 1904 regarding sales, we do not know. It seems that in 1908, and again in 1913, the Alaskan game act was amended and re-enacted. The writer never knew that such a proceeding was contemplated until long after the new act became a law. Briefly stated, the amend- ments were as follows, and they made no change whatever in Section 4: BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 15 “The Sixtieth Congress made important amendments to the original law. Under the new law (85 Stat., 102), approved May 11, 1908, Alaska is divided at latitude 62° into two game districts, with special seasons for each district; caribou on the Kenai Peninsula are pro- tected until 1912; nonresidents hunting big game other than deer or goats, and residents desiring to export heads or hides of big game from Alaska are required to obtain licenses; authorization is also given for the employment of Wardens and registration of guides. All matters relating to the issue of licenses, employment of -wardens, and the registration of guides are placed in charge of the governor of Alaska. Hereafter all correspondence on these subjects or concern- ing the shipment of heads for trophies should be addressed to the governor of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. The Department of Agriculture will continue as heretofore to issue permits for the collection and shipment of specimens for scientific purposes and for live animals and birds for exhibition or propagation. Correspondence relating to these matters should be addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.” THE SALE OF GAME IN ALASKA. For a number of years the sale of game in Alaska has been proceeding, not by statutory authority save for fifteen days of each year, but in spite of default in prohibitory or even regulatory statutes. If the reader will refer to the original and also the existing game acts, the above state- ment will be found correct. The testimony given in 1919 before the House Committee on Territories literally aston- ished the natives of “the East.” The present Governor of Alaska made the startling admission that in 1918, while he was one of the Federal commissioners for the building of the Alaska Central Railway northward from Seward to Fairbanks, about SIX THOUSAND POUNDS of game meat were bought and served to the RAILROAD LABOR- ERS at work on the road. And this at the rail head, with a railway line in opera- tion to tidewater. Are the people of the United States satisfied with this showing? Do they regard it as having been necessary ? One question to be settled now, and settled for all tims is this: 16 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Shall the stationary miners, canners, lumbermen and railroad builders of Alaska be fed on game? | The editor of the Valdez “Miner” contends that miners should and must have game. He says that it should be “legal to sell same twenty miles away (from Valdez) in a mining camp.” , , This is characteristically a miner’s view of game—that it is a commercial necessity to the miner anywhere twenty miles from tidewater. Now, this implied dependence of the miner upon wild game for food, and his consequent ability to work, leads straight to the logical conclusion that without game meat the miner could not mine, and that the interior mines would close because they could not be worked! In, other words, if the Valdez Miner is right, the disappearance of game north of Latitude 62 will mean at least the partial collapse of the mining industry!! Now, of all the hardy miners of Alaska, is there one real miner who will have the hardihood to say that he sincerely believes that when Alaskan game totally disappears, mining also will cease, because of the lack of food to sustain the miners? ) | The idea is preposterous. At this very moment wild game meat is not half so much a necessity to the miners of Alaska as it is to the very poor of New York City. — THE SULZER BILL. On May 11, 1917, Mr. Charles A. Sulzer, then seated as delegate from Alaska in the House of Representatives of the Sixty-fifth Congress, but afterward unseated, intro- duced a bill (H. R. 4374), “to regulate the killing and sale of game animals in Northern Alaska, etc.” Its purpose was to legalize the sale of game north of Latitude 62 all Antlers in the National Collection of Heads and Horns, New York Zoological Park. Spread. 76 inches. Shall this grand animal be killed north of 62° to “beat the beef monopoly,’’ and to be sold as food for railway laborers and miners? Te \ Cea ase ¥ i : : us . . Re 7 - & 4 = kK nt > “ BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 17 the year around. Om December 11, 1917, Mr. Sulzer intro- duced a substitute bill (H. R. 7344) which took the place of the first bill. On Feb. 5, 1918, the House Committee on Territories, Hon. William G. Houston, Chairman, gave its first hearing on Bill No. 7344. The report of that hearing was promptly printed, and it produced a profound sensation. It revealed a degree of industry and lawlessness in the killing of valuable game, and of activity in the sale of game, that among many of the friends of Alaskan game had been quite unknown and unsuspected. It was soon revealed that the real purpose of the Sulzer bill was not to feed frontier people who were starving, but to enable the population of the City of Fairbanks and other towns to side-step the “beef monopoly” by eating moose, sheep and caribou at a price lower than that of monopo- listic beef ! In order to make the situation perfectly clear it is worth while to quote freely from the testimony given at the hear- ing on the Sulzer bill. Mr. CHARLES SHELDON.—Here is this vast wilderness, for thousands and thousands of miles around, with game abounding. The sheep are back in the mountains, and the caribou are back 100 or 125 miles from the districts where the people live. The people live mostly down on the river, except for a few mining camps. If you want me to take the time I can describe the whole thing to you. There in winter they are shut up, at the mercy of the beef monopoly; and about these camps are game, and with this whole enormous area just teeming with wild game, and only a few thousand people to avail themselves of it, do you think those people are going to sit there, and pay the prices charged by the monopoly for beef, when this wild game is near or in the hills? Of course not. And what has been the result? They have gone out and killed the game. We have had our game law, but in spite of that, in answer to the demands of the stomach and rather than be held up by the beef monopoly, they have simply gone out and killed game. When I was up there, and I venture to say it is not far different today, if they hauled a breaker of the game laws into Fairbanks they could not get judge or jury to convict him. The opinion was so absolutely unanimous that the people were entitled to this relief from the beef monopoly that the officers of the law could not convict anybody for breaking the game laws, and they stopped trying to convict anybody. 18 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND This storing of meat led to great evils. They had to go up into the sheep country, and they went with dogs, and many sheep were fed to the dogs. And many fellows had nothing to do, and they would go out prospecting around, and they would take sheep down and store them on the Yukon River for high prices, and the first thing they knew warm weather would come and the sheep would all spoil. It led to a complete disregard of the law, and I venture the assertion that the same is pretty nearly true today. If you have a local com- munity, as Alaska is, and the people are solidly of that point of view, they are going out to kill their meat and it doesn’t make any dif- ference what law you put up there. .... No. The people up there will not protect the game. The evils that have arisen from the conditions I have described they will not fight. —Hearings on the Sulzer Bill, pp. 18-19. *% Mr. LUNDEEN (interposing).—Do you favor this particular pro- posed bill? Mr. SHELDON.—Absolutely they must have that privilege. If this bill is enacted into law you will create a spirit of co-operation that will assist in carrying out its provisions. If this privilege is not accorded, the people will go in and kill the game anyhow. Hearings, p. 20. * Hf * aK Mr. SHELDON.—There are a great many people there in comparison with the total population who can not go out and hunt game for meat. The vast majority of people can not engage in that work. They stay there in mining camps and have to buy meat. If they can not get meat for themselves they must pay the prices charged by the beef monopoly, as conditions are now. This plan of providing a greater supply of game meat during the war should help to relieve the beef monopoly situation. * 3 Be * * Mr. DowELL (of the Committee).—This bill opens wide the door for the marketing of game. Whatever restrictions you may have in the bill for an open season, the door is thrown wide open, as I read it, for the marketing of game. * * ne * * _ Mr. Rices.—The selling of game is a very considerable item in the living expenses of the Indians. The Indians will not work as white men will work. The Indian is a trapper and fisherman. In the fall of the year he goes out and brings it in, irrespective of any law that you might have. This will give us a chance to keep track of the game that is killed by the Indians, and it will also give the Indian a legal right to dispose of his game after the 10th of December. Mr. Voict.—How many Indians are there in Alaska? Mr. Rices.—I think about 25,000. The game country in question is confined, you might say, to the geographical center of Alaska. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 19 THE CHAIRMAN.—I want to ask what is the effect of the conditions that are now prevailing there, so far as the number of game animals is concerned. Are they increasing or decreasing? Mr. Riccs.—From what I can learn or judge, they are increasing somewhat. Mr. Rigces.—The people of the interior are in bad shape. Mr. JOHNSON.—That may be. But if they are, they do not need a license or anything else to go and get meat. Mr. Riccs.—But the workmen can not go out and shoot meat. Mr. JOHNSON.—Is there much meat used in the construction of the Alaskan Railway north of 62? Mr. Riccs.—Yes; we use game. I think that last year we used 6,000 pounds. Mr. JOHNSON.—Do you remember what you paid for it? Mr. Riacs.—We paid from 15 to 25 cents a pound. Mr. Riaes.—The market hunter is a game hog. He kills all the game that he can, and peddles it around under cover. Mr. DowELL.—Now, how many companies operating there are in the meat business, or are engaged in the buying and selling of this wild game? Mr. Riecs.—F our or five, probably. Mr. JOHNSON.—In all the country? Mr. Riccs.—No sir; in interior Alaska. That might be considered along the Tanana River and its tributaries, and the lower Yukon. For the purpose of game, you might say it is along the Tanana River, because there is not much game except caribou lower down. Mr. DoweELL.—Is there any stable price for the purchase of this meat from those who bring it in? Mr. Riccs.—No, sir. Mr. DOWELL.—Do they know generally what they are to receive for it? Mr. Riees.—Yes, sir. They try to buy it for 15 cents per pound, and if the prospector will not sell it for that, it depends on how badly they want it whether they will pay more. Mr. DowELL.—You referred to what you termed the game hog. How extensively is he operating there? Mr. RicGs.—Well, we never have been able to find out exactly, because his work is under cover. There was an instance that came to my attention not long ago when a man brought in 26 hindquarters of sheep. The supposition is that he fed the rest of those sheep to his dogs, or threw them away as waste. He was promptly arrested and fined, and his meat confiscated. Twenty-six hindquarters mean 13 dead sheep. A whole herd of Ovis dalli—a species nowhere numerous, and a spe- 20 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND cies easily exterminated in any locality that is well hunted. Thus is going the beautiful white mountain sheep of Alaska. Apparently the regulations permit any meat-hunter to kill three head and sell them openly during the open season; and a “dealer” may “dispose” of any number of them “for 15 days thereafter.” End of the Sulzer Bill.—The Sulzer Bill was advocated by Delegate Sulzer, Thomas W. Riggs, Jr., now Governor of Alaska, Charles Sheldon, the Fairbanks (Alaska) Com- mercial Club and the Fairbanks National Defense Council. It was opposed by the New York Zoological Society, the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, the Camp-Fire Club of America, the American Bison Society, the Wilderness Club of Philadelphia, the New Mexico and Albuquerque Game Protective Associations, and the Missouri Fish and Game League. The above organizations were only a tenth part of the opposition that would have lined up had there been any real contest. The Sulzer Bill was killed in committee by the pro- nounced disapproval of the House Committee on Territories, aided by the opposition voiced at the hearing of February 26, 1918. Apparently all the members of the committee were well aware of the dangerous character of the bill, and were hostile to the whole idea of selling game meat in order to “‘beat the beef trust” of Fairbanks and Nanina. DESTRUCTION OF GAME BY WOLVES. From Juneau there now comes testimony regarding the serious slaughter of game by wolves, and a loud call for relief measures. Mr. Wright Wenrich is a member of the Southeastern Alaska Fish and Game Club, and he is deeply interested in the protection, increase and proper utilization of Alaskan game. He displays more interest in the subject than any BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 21 other Alaskan whom I know. From a letter written by him, dated Juneau, March 31, 1918, I quote his views re- garding the game-destroying animals of Alaska. EXTRACTS FROM LETTER OF MR. WENRICH: “The point that I want to make clear is that we have all of us, heretofore, been working on the game and fish propo- sition from the wrong end. We have been attempting to conserve game by limiting the amount man uses, when the predatory animals destroy many times what man uses, and as yet very little has been done to exterminate these preda- tory animals. “The corrections which our Fish and Game Club of Southeastern Alaska made on the Sulzer bill was to include provisions whereby the wolves would be killed off at the same time that more game was taken. I am firmly of the opinion, Professor, that if the wolves were exterminated, our 65,000 population, including Indians, could not use the surplus nor the natural increase above the present amount, provided there was sufficient restriction placed on killing females and yearlings. ; “In the course of my travels, I have talked with many trappers and hunters and asked these disinterested parties their views and experiences. The wolves are not to be found in the inhabited parts of Alaska, neither is game to be found in abundance in the more thickly populated regions. When I say, in abundance, you understand I mean compara- tively speaking. “It is where sheep roam in bands of hundreds or more, where moose may be encountered many times in a day’s travel, where the caribou roam in herds of thousands that the wolves take their heavy toll of the big game. They exist, too, on some of the islands of Southeastern Alaska in considerable numbers. “T do not believe a wolf can grow to its 100 and even 250 pounds of weight without consuming 1,000 pounds of meat yearly, which is worth not less than ten cents per pound to the inhabitants of Alaska. “T will not burden you with examples of their number and the damage they do. I will cite one or two instances. Za WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND The Fish Brothers, trappers below Eagle, Alaska (I be- lieve they get mail at Wood River or Charley Creek), told me in 1912 or 13 of a catch they made up one of the streams which lead towards the Upper Porcupine on the Yukon. I had heard previously of their big wolf killing. They had killed two moose. They heard the wolves calling from dif- ferent directions, and knew that they dare not stay long enough to cache the moose. They poisoned the carcasses with strychnine. The following day they went back and skinned 60, and told me that they thought they must have killed 200 wolves, but many were torn and others had strayed away. Where they made this killing, it was so difficult to get in and out that they had left them in that winter, as their hides were not worth the trouble to get them out when they could bring out the more valuable furs which they had. These men are conservative, dependable men. If they had obeyed the law to the letter, they could not have poisoned one wolf. You probably know that wolves are not easily taken by bait or poison, when they once become wise to man’s ways. “When they could take such a number, the fact that those that remained were hungry enough to eat their comrades gives you some idea of their number. Your knowledge will give you an idea of the amount of caribou and moose they would have taken, and which those that remain continue to take daily, monthly, yearly, and eternally. “T have had men in that region tell me that they had seen wolves estimated in bands of from 100 to 400. How much game will they destroy annually? “In the winter of 1906-7 I was hunting up toward Mount McKinley, between the Nenana and the Toklat. I had four big buck sheep down, which would weigh not less than 500 pounds or even more, live weight. Not being able to get them out I flagged them with a dirty handkerchief and left them till morning. In the morning even the big horns had been dragged away, and the ground was beaten down like a pavement. “If each one of those wolves had eaten five pounds of meat there must have been a hundred wolves. The fact that they had carried off the bones showed that they were so numerous that 500 pounds of meat did not appease their hunger. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 23 “T think I am safe in saying that all the real hunters who get back in the wolf country will agree with me in conclud- ing that the wolves take greater toll of the caribou than man, and many believe that their destruction of deer, moose and sheep equals or is greater than the amount man takes. “This country is so vast and the amount of funds avail- able so limited, that it seems almost useless to try to en- force the laws, however good or bad they may be. But we can easily offer a sufficient inducement by way of a bounty on all predatory animals, and it is not so difficult nor ex- pensive to administer such a provision. “Under our present bounty law, passed a year ago by the Territory, a wolf skin is brought to the postmaster in the little settled communities with the foreleg bone at- tached. The taker of the animal keeps the skin and the postmaster takes his affidavit, keeping the bone as evidence. “Tt is easier to take a marten or a fox or almost any other kind of a fur animal, and the skin brings on an average more money than a wolf skin. Even with the bounty in- cluded there are many animals at which the trappers can make more money than he can at taking wolves, unless he is permitted to use poison. And in order to collect his bounty he must make oath that the animal was not poi- soned. Would not such an unjust law drive a man to crime? The law against poison is not Territorial, but Federal.” If the big wolves of Alaska really are increasing almost without let or hindrance, as Mr. Wenrich’s information clearly implies, then already the wolf situation is very serious. Moose, sheep and caribou females each bear but one young, annually. The female wolf brings forth from four to seven cubs each year, and each adult wolf will re- quire for its annual subsistence 30 mountain sheep, or 15 caribou, or 5 moose. The moose and sheep of Alaska exist in small numbers; they are widely scattered, and all save the adult bull moose are easy prey to large wolf packs. Both those species can easily be exterminated by the unrestricted increase of the huge wolves of the North. The caribou exist in far greater numbers, the large herds are more effective in defense 24 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND against wolves, and the restless, migratory habits of the species tend to discourage and thwart the non-migratory wolves. They will last long after the last moose and white sheep have fallen before their two relentless foes, Man and Wolf. The Alaskan wolf situation should be taken up by the Federal Government, probed to the bottom, and then the logical measures that need to be taken should be instantly applied and diligently maintained. The case seems very serious and urgent, and delays will prove deadly. TWO ALASKAN DEMANDS. I. The Free Killing of Alaskan Brown Bears—For some months past various residents of Alaska have been finding fault with the regulations by which the big Alaskan brown bears are protected against commercial killing for their skins and are reserved for pursuit by sportsmen. In justi- fication of this demand it is cited that in certain localities the brown bears are very destructive to cattle. On this account certain people of Alaska call for the removal of the restrictions which now prevent the hide hunters from oper- ating against those animals. The total number of these bears is so small that their extermination could be accom- plished by hide-hunters in a very few years. The demand for removing protection from the Alaskan brown bears for the reason that they are destructive to domestic flocks and herds would imply that stock raising has become an important industry in our arctic province. This implication—or fact—will be news to most people in the States. While it may be possible that domestic cattle have been killed on Kadiak Island, and perhaps in other places, by Alaskan brown bears, it is difficult to believe that the cattle industry is so important throughout the habitat of the brown bear group, which stretches all the way from Admiralty Island to the Kobuk River, and the southern end he ae nee ! | ‘ \ | f : ALASKAN BROWN BEAR The Alaskan Brown Bears are the largest carnivorous animals now inhabiting the earth. Many residents of Alaska now are demanding that protection be withdrawn from them, in order that they may be killed for their hides. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 2D of the Alaskan peninsula, as to constitute a determining factor in the fate of the most magnificent bears of the whole world. While it may be true that in one or two localities on - Kadiak Island, and possibly in other localities elsewhere, measures should be taken to reduce the number of brown bears, but the idea that the lid should be lifted from the whole brown bear group, throughout a stretch of a thou- sand miles of territory is, it seems to us, not justified by existing conditions. The Alaskan brown bears, of which there are about five species, are the grandest carnivorous animals now inhabiting the earth, and it may as well be now understood that no American zoologist or sportsman ever will sanction any sweeping commercial slaughter of the finest dangerous game of all America. II. The Slaughter of Eagles in Alaska—For several years prominent Alaskans, beginning with ex-Governor Hoggett, have claimed that the people of Alaska are best able to de- cide what should be done with and unto the wild life of Alaska. This proposition always has been open to argu- ment, and it is opened wider still by the action of Alaska in regard to the treatment accorded the eagles of that Ter- ritory. Evidently the people of Alaska entertain no sentiment whatever, either patriotic or otherwise, toward the Ameri- can eagle; or, for that matter, for any other eagle which inhabits the Territory. The Legislature of 1917 passed a law not only specially authorizing the killing of eagles, but placing a bounty of 50 cents on the head of each one in the Territory. At this distance it would seem that a bounty of 50 cents per head would be too small to stimulate eagle- killing as an industry; but that is far from being the case. It would seem that any price placed on the head of a wild bird or quadruped is sufficient to insure its wholesale destruction. It is reported that from April, 1917, to April, 26 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND 1919, 5,600 eagles were killed in Alaska for the bounty of — 50 cents per head. The reason for the enactment of the bounty law was the alleged destructiveness of the eagles to game and fish. Now, so far as game and fish are concerned, it is in order to in- quire whether the destruction of eagles for their benefit is any more necessary today than it was 100 years ago, except for the destruction of game and fish that have been wrought by man himself. Usually half a dozen vociferous kickers about the destructiveness of some wild bird species to some one of man’s sovereign rights is by many regarded as “evidence” that the extermination of the offending spe- cies is Justified and necessary. It is a curious commentary on the contention of some of the people of Alaska, regard- ing their ability to administer the game of Alaska without any aid from the States, that one of their first independent acts is an act of wholesale destruction, of a thoroughly exterminatory character. In justice to the minority it should be noted that not all the people of Alaska are in favor of this destruction. For example, we know that Senator D. A. Sutherland is very much opposed to it, and that the last session of the Legisla- ture was asked to repeal the law, but refused to do so. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” V. IS GAME DECREASING IN ALASKA OR NOT? There are a great many men who say that the big game of Alaska is rapidly decreasing, and they state their reasons for so thinking. There are a few persons who claim that Alaskan game is holding its own, and is not decreasing to an extent that can be called alarming. We hold that Alas- kan big game is rapidly decreasing. We have sent out no questionnaire on the subject, because our general corre- spondence has seemed sufficient. We will quote here only from the published reports of the hearings on the Sulzer Bill. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX seal | TESTIMONY DECLARING DECREASE. R. E. W. NELSON .—Formerly there were enormous herds of cari- bou all through the coastal region of Bering Sea, around the entire north coast of Alaska, and back well into the interior. These herds have been exterminated. This was due to their being overkilled in those areas mainly before the present mining development took place. Mr. MERRITT.—Did the Indians do that? Mr. NELSON.—The Indians and Eskimos largely. They were killed mainly for the skins, which are used for clothing. The natives living in the areas where these herds were plentiful killed them in summer when the skins are in the best condition for clothing. They killed does and fawns especially, because their skins were lighter and better for the purpose, as well as in fall and winter when the animals were better for food. The result was extermination. Unless properly safe- guarded the same fate would no doubt overtake the herds Mr. Riggs has described in the interior. The decrease of game due to modern conditions is taking place in northern Canada. When the Canadian government awakened to the fact that their game was threatened with extinction in the north it began to take active steps to save it. Otherwise the great herds of caribou on the Arctic barrens would certainly disappear, as they have already done from the great areas in Canada. The decrease of game has everywhere followed the increasing occupation of North America. As the people increased in number, and as the means of getting at game were improved, and as the weapons used against them were improved, the game has been saved only where carefully safeguarded. Hearings on the Sulzer Bill, p. 44. * * * * * Mr. NELSON.—It certainly appears to me that I have given some information as to the effect of extinction of game over a large area in Alaska, and the fact that game is now limited to certain districts. Hearings, p. 54. * * * * * Mr. BELMORE BROWNE.—My experience leads me to believe very firmly, and I have a good many facts to back me up, that the exter- mination of Alaskan game has already gone a long way. The large game has already been exterminated to a large extent, and that is easily backed up by these certain facts. When I first went to the Kenai Peninsula, back in 1900, there were numerous caribou on the peninsula, and now they are practically all When I first went to the Susitna Valley, back in 1902, there were still numerous moose in the valley and some caribou. There was quite a heavy moose population. In 1912 I snowshoed through that entire Susitna Valley district for more than 150 miles and never saw but one big buck of any kind. I met one party of Indians who had been hunting for a month and they had found only one moose and killed it. Hearings, p. Zo | WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND VI. NEW CONDITIONS DEMAND NEW MEASURES. At the present hour, six things are troubling the game situation in Alaska. Categorically, they are as follows: | 1—The growing scarcity of game; 2—The destruction of game through the sale of game; 3—The destruction of game by wolves; 4—The waste of meat by those who kill game; 5—Utterly inadequate enforcement of the Alaskan game law, and 6—Insufficient annual appropriations for an adequate force of wardens. Since the passage of the Alaskan game act in 1902 a great deal of water has run under the Alaskan bridge. Conditions today are very different from those that pre- vailed seventeen years ago. Today, with all its wildness, Alaska is far from being the raw territory it then was. New towns and cities have taken their places on the map, new lines of steam transit have been established, and the exploiters are going literally everywhere. The market hunter has been hard at work, and cold-storage plants are not only ready but anxious to handle, on a commercial basis, the moose, mountain sheep and caribou of our arctic province. On one point even the men of Alaska and the men of “the East” are in accord. They agree that it is high time to make some improvements in the game situation; and the obvious conclusion is—-a new game act for Alaska. Up to date, this idea has not taken concrete form in Alaska, but at this end of the long trail an effort has been made to establish certain principles as a foundation on which to build. After much gathering of facts and opinions, and much correspondence with Alaskans, we formulated and. sub- mitted to Hon. James W. Wickersham, Alaskan delegate BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 29 to the House of Representatives, and to Mr. Wright Wen- rich, a member of the Southeastern Alaska Fish and Game Club, of Juneau, the following list of bedrock principles offered as.a foundation on which to build a new Alaskan game act. Our letter of transmittal to Judge Wickersham was as follows: April 11, 1918. HON. JAMES W. WICKERSHAM, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Judge Wickersham: The facts that have been brought to light, and the questions that have arisen through the intro- duction of the Sulzer Bill for the sale of Alaskan game, convince me that the necessity has arisen for an entirely new act for the protection and utilization of Alaskan game, and the destruction of game-destroying animals. This view is based upon a quantity of information that I have re- ceived from Alaskans who are sincerely desirous of doing the right thing by the game of that Ter- ritory, and of conserving and utilizing the game for the greatest good of the greatest number. There seems to be quite a demand for the destruc- tion of wolves, through the initiative of the Fed- eral Government, that are said to be seriously destroying valuable game. I am convinced that a great deal of game law- fully killed in Alaska is being wasted; and I be- lieve that regulations might be devised to prevent that waste and to secure a far greater degree of game utilization without any further game slaugh- ter than now obtains. Along with this I think that the sale of game is a matter that is now a subject for review, and if it is right that any sale of game should continue, that fact should be established along definite lines. My private opinion is that the sale of game is so destructive and exterminatory that it should reso- lutely be discontinued at once all over Alaska. 30 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND I beg you to look over the enclosed memoranda that is intended to reveal a state of existing facts, and the logical conclusions deducible from those - facts. Faithfully yours, W. T. HORNADAY. Here follows the declaration of existing facts, and the proposals based thereon, which accompanied the above letter. The publication in Alaska of the “Proposed Basis” elicited in Valdez strong protests against the writer’s presumption in attempting to benefit both the game and the people of Alaska. VI. PROPOSED BASIS FOR A NEW ee GAME ACT. April 11, 1918. 1. The present status of the game lane ita the game of Alaska is pe aedeagirs 4 and greatly in me of better- ment. 2. A basis should be established that will provide for the best possible utilization of the game that is compatible with its proper conservation and continuance. 3. There is no single course, no matter how well pursued, that will adequately conserve the game of Alaska and provide for its best utilization. 4. The following factors may be set down as definite ob- jects to be attained: Just and wise laws to regulate the killing of game, by natives as well as by white hunters. Strict provisions to prevent the waste of game meat, either by natives or white men. Regulations to promote the full utilization of all game legally killed. A complete discontinuance of the sale of game. Regulations to provide for the wholesale killing of wolves, by poison or otherwise. A game commissioner located in Alaska all the year around. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 31 Funds for an adequate protective system, and an adequate number of game wardens. No attacks to be made on any sea birds for their systematic destruction. 5. For the working out of an entirely new Alaskan game act, an unofficial committee of five persons to take tes- timony and evolve a comprehensive plan, would be the logical initiative. On this committee there should be two Alaskans, familiar with conditions, but in no way in- terested in the commercial exploitation of Alaskan game. Vil. A CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAM. We have not entered into a discussion of the whole game situation in Alaska. That subject is too wide for anything less than a volume. From an array of Alaskan books, arti- cles, reports, letters and telegrams, and from conferences with many Alaskans, a great mass of facts now lies before us. Presumably other persons interested in Alaska are similarly provided. Our interest in the wild life of Alaska began in 1880. Ever since that year, even though “Mr. Hornaday never has been to Alaska,” he has followed with unflagging in- terest and industry the varying fortunes of the wild life of our great Arctic province. | As we pointed out at the beginning, certain new activities now demand new measures; and it seems that a new game act for all Alaska has become an urgent necessity. From the facts already in hand, certain logical conclusions rise into notice, and will now be put down. They, not I, pro- pose the following program of procedure: It is perfectly clear that there are today several condi- tions in the game situation in Alaska that stand in need of radical improvement. I think that those conditions and improvements may be listed, in the order of their impor- tance, as follows: Se) WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND PROGRAM. . There should now be a complete stoppage of the sale of game, everywhere in Alaska. . There now is necessary a legal system for the more thorough utilization of game, and less waste of game. . There should be created a system of regulated hunting by proxy, by which persons living in remote and diffi- cult regions, and who positively require some wild meat in order to live in good health, may procure their right- ful annual proportion of game. . All persons lawfully in possession of game meat for their own use should be permitted to preserve the same in any manner they choose, and consume it at any and all times throughout the year. . There should now be a stoppage of all wasteful game killing, and especially of cow moose, by Indians; and the killing of game by Indians and Eskimo should be strictly regulated. . There should be a full investigation of the destruction of game by wolves and other animals, to disclose the actual facts. . The destruction of game by wolves should be checked by a relentless war of extermination on the latter. The proper utilization of poison in the destruction of wolves should be determined, and provided for by regulation. . It being the bounden duty of the Federal Government and the Territory of Alaska jointly to protect the game of Alaska from over-killing and extermination, an ade- quate establishment of a game commissioner and a larger force of game wardens now has become neces- sary. The cost of that establishment, and the general cost of the protection of the game of Alaska, should be torne equally by the Federal Government and the Ter- ALASKAN CARIBOU, BARREN GROUND GROUP (Rangifer Granti) The Caribou furnish thelargest and most valuable wild meat supply of northern Alaska. If properly conserved and utilized, the Caribou herds should be available for food until they are finally replaced by herds of domesticated reindeer. If wastefully killed, the Caribou will disappear, even where now most numerous. ate Rein Me ‘4 hes Ua a ims! et i BULLETIN NUMBER SIX SS ritory of Alaska. This establishment should be sup- ported upon an adequate scale, both as to salaries and expenses. There should be a paid deputy game warden in every settlement large enough to have a post-office. | 9. The Territory of Alaska should be empowered to charge a license fee, to both resident and non-resident hunters, and apply the proceeds thereof to the cost of game pro- tection to the Territory. No person should be permitted to hunt large game in Alaska without a license. 10. The Federal Government should retain its authority to close any area to hunting whenever the decrease of game therein seems to threaten the local extinction of a valu- able species. The First Step.—I repeat here my previous suggestion, that the best way to frame a new Alaskan game act is by the formation of a committee of five, to represent both the good-will of “the East” and the practical good sense of Alaska. Beyond question, the best citizens of Alaska are sincerely interested in making the most of the game of Alaska, without destroying the permanency of the supply. | The letters of Mr. Wright Wenrich and the address of Mr. C. D. Garfield before the annual convention of the Amer- ican Game Protective and Propagating Association (New York, March 5, 1918) are highly encouraging exhibits. The drafting of a new Alaskan game act is not a one-man job. It requires the best thought of the best minds of both Alaska and the East, including the Congress of the United States. If a sane method is pursued it should easily be possible to produce a draft of a new game bill so carefully wrought out and approved in advance, and so free from objections, that it would be accepted by Congress without a prolonged struggle between rival interests or opposing factions. 34 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND The question is: are those who are most interested in the welfare of the people of Alaska sufficiently large-minded to adopt such a course? If this suggestion is carried into effect by the creation of an unofficial Commission on Alaskan Game Laws, and the personnel thereof meets the approval of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, that Fund will provide $500 as a subscription toward the expenses of the Commission. Other interests would be expected to subscribe the neces- sary remainder. It is most sincerely to be hoped that whenever a new game bill is drawn and perfected by ‘‘a conference of the powers,” for the greatest good of the greatest number, Con- gress will PASS IT, promptly, and not require the friends of Alaska to lay siege to the Senate and the House through a long series of months, or to beg, hat in hand, for the action that should be given quickly and generously. TEXT OF THE EXISTING ALASKAN GAME LAW. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS FROM THE REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR OF ALASKA FOR 1915. The first comprehensive law for the protection of game in Alaska was the act of June 7, 1902 (32 Stat., 327). Under this act regula- tions were promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture, to take effect October 1, 1903, imposing local restrictions for the protection of caribou and walrus, modifying the seasons for waterfowl in certain localities, and prescribing rules for the shipment of trophies, speci- mens for scientific purposes, and five animals and birds for exhibi- tion or propagation. In 1904 the regulations were amended by estab- lishing three game districts, modifying the seasons for certain kinds of game, and prohibiting the use of dogs in hunting deer, moose, or caribou. THE NEW LAW. The Sixtieth Congress made important amendments to the original law. Under the new law (35 Stat., 102), approved May 11, 1908, Alaska is divided at latitude 62° into two game districts, with special seasons for each district; caribou on the Kenai Peninsula are pro- tected until 1912; nonresidents hunting big game other than deer or goats, and residents desiring to export heads or hides of big game from Alaska are required to obtain licenses; authorization is also given for the employment of wardens and registration of guides. All matters relating to the issue of licenses, employment of wardens, and the registration of guides are placed in charge of the governor of Alaska. Hereafter all correspondence on these subjects or concerning the shipment of heads or trophies should be addressed to the governor of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. The Department of Agriculture will continue as heretofore to issue permits for the collection and ship- ment of specimens for scientific purposes and for live animals and birds for exhibition or propagation. Correspondence relating to these matters should be addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture, Wash- ington, D. C. The law as amended reads as follows: TEXT OF THE ALASKAN GAME ACT OF 1908, NOW IN FORCE. [35 Stat. L., 102; Comp. Laws of Alaska, 1918, secs. 330-337.] AN ACT to amend an act entitled “An act for the protection of game in Alaska, and for other purposes,” approved June seventh, nineteen hundred and two. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an act entitled “An act for the protection of game in Alaska, and for other pur- poses,” approved June seventh, nineteen hundred and two, be amended to read as follows: “From and after the passage of this act the wanton destruction of wild game animals or wild birds, except eagles, ravens, and cormor- ants, the destruction of nests and eggs of such birds, or the killing 36 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND of any wild birds, other than game birds, except eagles, for the pur- poses of selling the same or the skins or any part thereof, except as hereinafter provided, is hereby prohibited. “Game defined.—The term ‘game animals’ shall include deer, moose, caribou, mountain sheep, mountain goats, brown bear, sea lions, and walrus. The term ‘game birds’ shall include waterfowl commonly known as ducks, geese, brant, and swans; shore birds, commonly known as plover, snipe, and curlew, and the several species of grouse and ptarmigan. “Haemptions.—Nothing in this act shall affect any law now in force in Alaska relating to the fur seal, sea otter, or any fur-bearing animal or prevent the killing of any game animal or bird for food or clothing at any time by natives, or by miners or explorers, when in need of food; but the game animals or birds so pstllesd during close season shall not be shipped or sold. “Sec. 2. Season.—That it shall be unlawful for any person in Alaska to kill any wild game animals or birds, except during the season hereinafter provided: North of latitude sixty-two degrees, brown bear may be killed at any time; moose, caribou, sheep, walrus, and sea lions from August first to December tenth, both inclusive; south of latitude sixty-two degrees, moose, caribou, and mountain sheep from August twentieth to December thirty-first, both inclusive; brown bear from October first to July first, both inclusive; deer and mountain goats from April first to. February first, both inclusive; grouse, ptarmigan, shore birds, and waterfowl from September first to March first, both inclusive: Provided, That no caribou shall be killed on the Kenai Peninsula before August twentieth, nineteen hun- dred and twelve: And provided further, That the. Secretary of Agri- culture is hereby authorized, whenever he shall deem it necessary for the preservation of game animals or birds, to make and publish rules and regulations prohibiting the sale of any game in any locality modifying the close seasons hereinbefore established, providing dif- ferent close seasons for different parts of Alaska, placing further restrictions and limitations on the killing of such animals or birds in any given locality, or prohibiting killing entirely for a period not exceedng two years in such locality. “Sec. 3. Number.—That it shall be unlawful for any person to kill any female or yearling moose or for any one person to kill in any one year more than the number specified of each of the following animals: ‘Two moose, one walrus or sea lion, three caribou, three mountain sheep, three brown bear, or to kill or have in his possession in any one day more than twenty-five grouse or ptarmigan or twenty- five shore birds or waterfowl. “Guns and boats.—That it shall be unlawful for any person at any time to hunt with dogs any of the game animals specified in this act; to use a shotgun larger than number ten gauge, or any gun other than that which can be fired from the shoulder; or to use steam launches or any boats other than those propelled by oars or paddles in the pursuit of game animals or birds. “Sec. 4. Sale.—That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons at any time to sell or offer for sale any hides, skins, or heads of any game animals or game birds in Alaska, or to sell, offer for sale, or purchase, or offer to purchase, any game animals or game birds, or BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 37 parts thereof, during the time when the killing of such animals or birds is prohibited: Provided, That it shall be lawful for dealers having in possession game animals or game birds legally killed during the open season to dispose of the same within fifteen days after the close of said season. “Src. 5. Licenses.——That it shall be unlawful for any nonresident of Alaska to hunt any of the game animals protected by this act, except deer and goats, without first obtaining a hunting license, or to hunt on the Kenai Peninsula withont a registered guide, and such license shall not be transferable and shall be valid only during the calendar year in which issued. Each applicant shall pay a fee of one hundred dollars for such license, unless he be a citizen of the United States, in which case he shall pay a fee of fifty dollars. Each license shall be accompanied by coupons authorizing the shipment of two moose if killed north of latitude sixty-two degrees, four deer, three caribou, three mountain sheep, three goats, and three brown bear, or any part of said animals, but no more of any one kind. “A resident of Alaska desiring to export heads or trophies of any of the game animals mentioned in this act shall first obtain a shipping license, for: which he shall pay a fee of $40, permitting the shipment of heads or trophies of one moose, if killed north of latitude sixty- two degrees, four deer, two caribou, two sheep, two goats, and two brown bear, but no more of any one kind; or a shipping license, for which he shall pay a fee of $10, permitting the shipment of a single head or trophy of caribou or sheep; or a shipping license, for which he shall pay a fee of $5, permitting the shipment of a single head or trophy of any goat, deer, or brown bear. Any person wishing to ship moose killed south of latitude sixty-two degrees must first obtain a special shipping license for which he shall pay a fee of $150, per- mitting the shipment of one moose, or any part thereof. Not more than one general license and two special moose licenses shall be issued to any one person in one year: Provided, That before any trophy shall be shipped from Alaska under the provisions of this act the person desiring to make such shipment shall first make and file with the customs office at the port where such shipment is to be made an affidavit to the effect that he has not violated any of the provisions of this act; that the trophy which he desires to ship has not been bought or purchased and has not been sold and is not being shipped for the purpose of being sold, and that he is the owner of the trophy which he desires to ship, and if the trophy is that of moose, whether the animal from which it was taken was killed north or south of latitude sixty-two degrees: Provided further, That any resident of Alaska prior to September first, nineteen hundred and eight, may without permit or license ship any head or trophy of any of the game animals herein mentioned upon filing an affidavit with the customs office at the port where such shipment is to be made that the animal from which said head or trophy was taken was killed prior to the passage of this act. Any affidavit required by the provisions of this act may be subscribed and sworn to before any customs officer or before any officer competent to administer an oath. “The governor of Alaska is hereby authorized to issue licenses for hunting and shipping big game. On issuing a license he shall require the applicant to state whether the heads or tronhies to be obtained or shipped under said license will pass through the ports of entry at 38 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, or San Francisco, California, and he shall forthwith notify the collector of customs at the proper port of entry as to the name of the holder of the license and the name and address of the consignee. All proceeds from licenses, except $1 from each fee, which shall be retained by the clerk issuing the license to cover the cost of printing and issue, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts; the amount necessary for the enforcement of this act shall be estimated for an- nually by the Agriculture Department and appropriated for includ- ing the employment and salaries to be paid to game wardens herein authorized. And the governor shall annually make a detailed and itemized report to the Secretary of Agriculture, in which he shall state the number and kind of licenses issued, the money received, which report shall also include a full statement of all trophies exported and all animals and birds exported for any purpose. “And the governor of Alaska is further authorized to employ game wardens, to make regulations for the registration and employment of guides, and fix the rates for licensing guides and rates of compensa- tion for guiding. Every person applying for a guide license shall, at the time of making such application, make and file with the person issuing such license an affidavit to the effect that he will obey all the conditions of this act and of the regulations thereunder, that he will not violate any of the game laws or regulations of Alaska, and that he will report all violations of such laws and regulations that come to his knowledge. Any American citizen or native of Alaska, of good character, upon compliance with the requirements of this act, shall be entitled to a guide license. Any guide who shall fail or refuse to report any violation of this act, or who shall himself violate any of the provisions of this act, shall have his license revoked, and in addi- tion shall be liable to the penalty provided in section seven of this act, and shall be ineligible to act as guide for a period of five years from the date of conviction. “Sec. 6. That it shall be unlawful for any persons, firm, or cor- poration, or their officers or agents, to deliver to any common carrier, or for the owner, agent, or master of any vessel, or for any other person, to receive for shipment or have in possession with intent to ship out of Alaska, any wild birds, except eagles, or parts thereof, or any heads, hides, or carcasses of brown bear, caribou, deer, moose, mountain sheep, or mountain goats, or parts thereof, unless said heads, hides, or carcasses are accompanied by the required license or coupon and by a copy of the affidavit required by section five of this act: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the collection of specimens for scientific purposes, the capture or shipment of live animals and birds for exhibition or propagation, or the export from Alaska of specimens under permit from the Secretary of Agriculture, and under such restrictions and limitations as he may prescribe and publish. “Tt shall be the duty of the collector of customs at Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco to keep strict account of all consignments of game animals received from Alaska, and no consignment of game shall be entered until due notice thereof has been received from the governor of Alaska or the Secretary of Agriculture, and found to agree with the name and address on the shipment. In case consignments arrive without license they shall be detained for sixty days, and if a license BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 39 be not then produced said consignments shall be forfeited to the United States and shall be delivered by the collector of customs to the United States marshal of the district for such disposition as the court may direct. “Sec. 7. Penalties—That any person violating any of the provi- sions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall forfeit to the United States all game or birds in his possession, and all guns, traps, nets, or boats used in killing or capturing said game or birds, and shall be punished for each offense by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars or imprisonment not more than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Any person making any false or untrue statements in any affidavit required by this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall forfeit to the United States all trophies in his possession, and shall be punished by a fine in any sum not more than two hundred dollars or imprisonment not more than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. “Enforcement.—It is hereby made the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals, collectors or deputy collectors of customs, all of- ficers of revenue cutters, and all game wardens to assist in the enforcement of this act. Any marshal, deputy marshal, or warden in or out of Alaska may arrest without warrant any person found violating any of the provisions of this act or any of the regulations herein provided, and may seize any game, birds, or hides, and any traps, nets, guns, boats, or other paraphernalia used in the capture of such game or birds and found in the possession of said person in or out of Alaska, and any collector or deputy collector of customs, or warden, or licensed guide, or any person authorized in writing by a marshal shall have the power above provided to arrest persons found violating this act or said regulations and seize said property without warrant to keep and deliver the same to a marshal or a deputy mar- shal. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, upon request of the governor or Secretary of Agriculture, to aid in carry- ing out the provisions of this act. “Sec. 8. That all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the pro- visions of this act are hereby repealed.” Approved May 11, 1908. AMENDMENT. By act of Congress approved March 4, 1911 (86 Stat., 1360), an open season for game birds is provided in the region north of latitude 620. The act referred to reads as follows: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act it shall be lawful to kill grouse, ptar- migan, shore birds, and waterfowl from September first to March first, both inclusive, anywhere in the Territory of Alaska.” REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE oF AUGUST 1, 1908 PERMITS FOR TROPHIES AND SCIENTIFIC SPECIMENS. In accordance with the proviso in section 6 of the foregoing act, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe restrictions and limitations governing the collection and shipment of specimens for scientific purposes, and of live animals and birds for exhibition or propagation, the following regulations, dated August one, nineteen hundred and eight, were prescribed to take effect October one, nine- teen hundred and eight: 1. PERMITS. Hereafter the Department of Agriculture will not issue permits for the shipment of trophies, including heads or hides of game animals, since the new law requires that such trophies be shipped under regu- lar hunting or shipping licenses issued by the governor of Alaska. Persons desiring to collect specimens of mammals, birds, nests, or eggs in Alaska for scientific purposes must satisfy the department that the specimens are intended for such purposes before permits will be issued, and must forward with the permit to the collector of cus- toms at Seattle, Portland, or San Francisco a list showing the number of each kind of game collected under said permit before the specimens will be released from the customhouse. If several shipments are made under one permit, the permit should accompany the first con- signment and a list of the game contained in each shipment mailed to the collector of customs at the time of such shipment. Permits will be issued only to regular representatives of public museums or, under exceptional circumstances, to persons who are known to be making special investigations. Persons desiring to ship live animals or birds should obtain permits sufficiently in advance of shipment to avoid any delay when the con- signments reach the customhouse. \ Applicants should be careful to state in each case the region where specimens are to be collected and the probable port and date of ship- ment. All permits will expire on December 31 of the year of issue, but consignments actually shipped before such expiration may be admitted upon arrival at Seattle, Portland, or San Francisco. 2. SPECIMENS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES. Packages containing specimens for scientific purposes offered for shipment must be marked “Specimens for scientific purposes,” or words to like effect, and must bear the shipper’s name and address. Inattention to these details will render packages subject to examina- tion and detention by officers of the customs. Packages of specimens addressed to the United States Department of Agriculture, the Smith- sonian Institution, or the United States National Museum, if properly marked, may be shipped without permit and without examination. Packages addressed to individuals, whether officers of executive departments or not, must be accompanied by permit. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX Al 3. LivE ANIMALS AND BIRDS. Live animals or birds for exhibition or propagation may be cap- tured in a close season under permit only, and shipments must be accompanied by permits except as stated in regulation 4. Consign- ments offered for shipment without permit will not be refused trans- portation, but may be forwarded to Seattle, Portland, or San Fran- ee a held there at owner’s risk and expense until permits are obtained. 4. PARKS EXCEPTED. Live animals (not exceeding 10 in one consignment) and live birds (not exceeding 25 in one consignment) may be shipped without permit to the following public zoological parks, if shipped directly to said parks and not to some agent: Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. Lineoln Park, Chicago. Menagerie of Central Park, New York. National Zoological Park, Washington. New York Zoological Society, New York City. Zoological Society, Philadelphia. Consignments for these parks which exceed the above-mentioned limits must be accompanied by regular permits in all cases. 5. RESERVED RIGHTS OF DEPARTMENT. The department expressly reserves the right to examine at Seattle, Portland, or San Francisco any or all specimens, live game animals, or game birds from Alaska, whether shipped as personal baggage or otherwise; to detain, if necessary, at said ports any consignment of game animals or birds or any part thereof not forwarded in confor- mity with these regulations, and to require the return of the same either to original port of shipment or their delivery to the United States marshal for disposition in accordance with the provisions of . sections 6 and 7 of the act. Owners and masters of vessels will accept all consignments subject to these conditions. In ease of return, all expenses of reshipment will be paid by the vessel transporting the goods from Alaska; and the master of said vessel must file at Seattle, aire or San Francisco a customs secon for all goods returned to Alaska. 6. EXAMINATION OF SHIPMENTS. Specimens or live animals and birds arriving at Seattle or San Francisco, not covered by permits or shipped contrary to these regulations, will be held for examination by officers of the customs, promptly reported, and released only upon instructions from the Treasury Department; provided that all goods not released within 60 days after arrival shall be returned to the port of shipment (at the expense of the vessel bringing the same) for disposition in accordance with the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the act. All previous regulations and all special rulings of the department in conflict with these regulations are hereby revoked. SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF MOOSE AND SHEEP IN ALASKA. [Issued Mar. 31, 1914.] By virtue of the authority conferred on the Secretary of Agricul- ture by section 2 of the Alaska game law (385 Stat., 102), approved May 11, 1908, which in part provides— “That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized, whenever he shall deem it necessary for the preservation of game animals or birds, to make and publish rules and regulations prohibiting the sale of any game in any locality modifying the close season hereinbefore established, providing different close seasons for different parts of Alaska, placing further restrictions and limitations on the killing of such animals or birds in any given locality, or prohibiting killing entirely for a period not exceeding two years in such locality”’— the following regulations additional to those of August 1, 1908, July 1, 1912, December 9, 1912, and July 23, 1913, are hereby promulgated to take effect April 1 1914: REGULATION 1. Killing moose in southeastern Alaska.—The killing of moose in southeastern Alaska, east or south of the Lynn Canal, is hereby prohibited until April 1, 1916. REGULATION 2. Killing mountain sheep on the Kenai Peninsula.— The killing of mountain sheep in the eastern part of the Kenai Penin- sula, east of longitude 150° (the location of which is indicated approx- imately by a north and south line passing through the Stalter Place on the Kenai LONE is hereby prohibited until April 1, 1916. D. F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture. AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEER, MOOSE, CARIBOU, SHEEP, AND MOUNTAIN GOATS IN ALASKA. [Issued July 19, 1915.] By virtue of the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Agricul- ture by section 2 of the act of May 11, 1908 (35 Stat., 102), entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act for the protection of game in Alaska, and for other purposes,’ approved June 7, 1902,” regula- tions 2 and 3 of the “Regulations for the protection of deer, moose, caribou, sheep, and mountain goats in Alaska,’? made and published July 14, 1914, are hereby amended, effective on and after August 1, 1915, so as to read as follows: “REGULATION 2. Limits——The number of deer killed by any one person during the open season in southeastern Alaska is hereby limited to three. “REGULATION 38. Sale.—The sale of deer carcasses in southern Alaska is hereby suspended until August 1, 1916.” In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this 30th day of June, 1915. D. F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture. LATEST REGULATIONS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE PROTECTION OF GAME IN ALASKA (1919). By virtue of the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture by section 2 of the act of May 11, 1908 (35 Stat., 103; Compiled Laws of Alaska, section 331) entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act for the protection of game in Alaska, and for other purposes,’ approved June 7, 1902,” the following regulations for the protection of game in Alaska are made and published to take effect July 15: 1919: REGULATION 1.—OPEN SEASON FOR DEER. The killing of deer in southeastern Alaska east of longitude 141° is hereby limited to deer having horns not less than 3 inches long, and the season for killing such deer is limited to the period from August 15 to October 31, both dates inclusive. REGULATION 2.—LIMITS. The number of deer killed by any one person during the open season in southeastern Alaska east of longitude 141° is hereby limited to three. REGULATION 3.—THE KILLING OF FEMALES AND YOUNG OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. The killing of female mountain sheep, female deer, mountain sheep lambs, mountain goat kids, and fawns of deer and caribou, south of the Arctic Circle is hereby prohibited. REGULATION 4.—DEER ON CERTAIN ISLANDS. The killing of deer on Kodiak Island and Long Island; on the islands of Hawkins, Hinchinbrook, and Montague, in Prince William Sound; and on the following islands in southeastern Alaska: Duke Island, near Dixon Inlet, Gravina Island, near Ketchikan, Kruzof Island, west of Sitka, San Juan Island and Suemez Island, near Klawak, and Zerembo Island, near Wrangell, is hereby prohibited until July 15, 1921. REGULATION 5.—SALE OF DEER MEAT IN SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. The sale, directly or indirectly, of deer meat in southeastern Alaska east of longitude 141° is hereby prohibited; and no deer meat shall be procured for serving and served in any boarding house, cafe, can- nery, eating house, hotel, mess house, or restaurant by the proprietor 44 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND thereof or his agent, in southeastern Alaska east of longitude 141°, and no deer meat or caribou meat shall be received or served on board any steamer or other vessel in the waters of the South Coast of Alaska between Unimak Pass and Dixon Inlet. REGULATION 6.—SALE OF MEAT, CARCASSES, OR PARTS THEREOF OF MOOSE, CARIBOU, MOUNTAIN SHEEP, AND MOUNTAIN GOATS IN PARTS OF SOUTHERN ALASKA. The sale, directly or indirectly, of the meat, carcasses, or parts thereof, of moose, caribou, mountain sheep, or mountain goats in | Alaska south of the summit of the Chugatch or Coast Range Moun- tains including all of the Kenai Peninsula, and thence east to longi- tude 141°, and the shipping of the meat, carcasses, or parts thereof, of said animals, for sale from Anchorage, Seward, or other points on the Kenai Peninsula, is hereby prohibited; and no meat, carcasses, or parts thereof, of said animals shall be accepted for shipment to other points in Alaska unless accompanied by affidavit of the owner that they were not purchased and are not intended for sale. The meat of moose, caribou, mountain sheep, or mountain goats shall not be procured for serving and served in any boarding house, café, cannery, eating house, hotel, mess house, or restaurant by the proprietor thereof or his agent in Alaska south of the summit of the Chugatch or Coast Range Mountains, including all of the Kenai Peninsula, and thence east to longitude 141°. REGULATION 7.—HIRING HUNTERS PROHIBITED. The hiring of any person, directly or indirectly, to kill or capture game birds or game animals for any boarding house, café, cannery, eating house, hotel, mess house, or restaurant in Alaska south of the Arctic Circle is hereby prohibited. REGULATION 8.—HUNTING DEER OR MOOSE WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHTS. Hunting or killing deer or moose in southeastern Alaska with the aid of fires or with the use of jacklights, searchlights, or other arti- ficial lights is prohibited. REGULATION 9.—OPEN SEASON FOR MOUNTAIN GOATS. The killing of mountain goats in southeastern Alaska east of longi- tude 141° on the Kenai Peninsula is hereby limited to the period from September 1 to October 31, both dates inclusive. REGULATION 10.—KILLING OF CARIBOU AND MOUNTAIN SHEEP ON THE KENAI PENINSULA. The killing of caribou on the Kenai Peninsula is hereby prohibited until July 15, 1921. The killing of mountain sheep in the eastern part of the Kenai Peninsula east of longitude 150° (the location of which is indicated by a north and south line passing through the Stalter Place on Kenai River) is hereby prohibited until July 15, 1921. BULLETIN NUMBER SIX 45 REGULATION 11.—KILLING GAME TO FEED DOGS OR FOXES. No game animal shall be killed, and no such animal or the carcass or parts thereof shall be sold, purchased, or procured, for the purpose of feeding them to foxes or other fur-bearing animals in captivity or to dogs boarded for pay. REGULATION 12.—PREVENTING DESTRUCTION OF GAME BY DOGS. Killing or permitting the killing of moose, deer, caribou, mountain sheep, or mountain goats with dogs, permitting any of the said animals to be killed by dogs, or permitting dogs to hunt moose, deer, caribou, mountain sheep, or mountain goats, in Alaska south of the Arctie Circle is hereby prohibited. On the Kenai Peninsula no dogs shall be allowed to run at large or, unless accompanied by or under the immediate control of their owners or custodians, shall be allowed outside the immediate vicinity of the towns of Hope, Kenai, Roosevelt, Seldovia, Seward, and Sunrise. For the purposes of this regulation the immediate vicinity of the towns shall be considered to mean one mile in any direction from the post office. On and after July 14, 1919, all regulations for the pro- tection of game in Alaska made and published by the Sec- retary of Agriculture under authority of the Alaska game law prior to the regulations hereby made and published, except the regulations of August 1, 1908, relating to the collection of specimens for scientific purposes and the cap- ture or shipment of live animals and birds for exhibition or propagation, and the export of specimens from Alaska, shall be and are hereby revoked. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal in the District of Columbia, this 7th day of June, 1919. D. F. HOUSTON, [SEAL] Secretary of Agriculture. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIO fim 3 9088 01356 2798