SF
Aor § ee ere
Dp fe ia, é Issued December 31, 1910
t Sle J-S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
a BIOLOGICAL SURVEY—BULLETIN No. 36
| RAISING DEER AND OTHER LARGE GAME
ANIMALS IN THE UNITED STATES
%.
BY
h
DAVID E. LANTZ
Assistant, Biological Survey
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1910
=| 1800) |@&
ees
WRG!
ant
Berry ties
i
te
rot ah
en
v
ie
i
i te
Bul. 36, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
PLATE I.
ELK HERD IN THE NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Issued December 31, 1910
Uo Ser PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY—BULLETIN No. 36
HENRY W. HENSHAW, Chief
RAISING DEER AND OTHER LARGE GAME
ANIMALS IN THE UNITED STATES
BY
DAVID E. LANTZ
Assistant, Biological Survey
D
——— >,
=~
VIE
aN Kite y
ae
Aor RAMA
emirates
. Palast
rap
aS
¥
\
y
RE SoS
WZ ay
WASHINGTON
1910
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
/
pi
1 yo
J a \
ye b/27 /.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
U. S. Department or AGRICULTURE,
BroLocicaL SURVEY,
Washington, D. C., Oct. 4, 1910.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, as Bulletin No. 36 of
the Biological Survey, the results of an investigation by David E.
Lantz concerning the practicability and desirability of raising deer
and other large game animals in the United States.
In most parts of the country the number of game animals is
steadily diminishing and game for table use has already become a
high-priced luxury. Experiments have shown that some species,
— especially of the deer family, can be brought to a state of semidomes-
tication with comparative ease and can be bred and raised at very
“small cost. The chief purpose of the present bulletin is to call atten-
tion to the importance of raising elk and deer for venison, to indicate
the particular species most readily reared in preserves, and to empha-
size the importance of so modifying state game laws as to encourage
the use of private effort and capital in making a marketable com-
modity of venison and placing it within the reach of people of mod-
erate means. Since the distribution in 1908 of our earlier publica-
tion on Deer Farming (Farmers’ Bulletin 330) several States have
changed their game laws in the interest of this industry, and as its
importance becomes known others are sure to follow.
Attention is again directed to the fact that in many parts of the
country there are tracts of land of little or no value for agricultural
purposes which can be more profitably used for raising venison than
for any other purpose.
Respectfully, “Henry W. HeEnsHaw,
Chief, Biological Survey.
Hon. JAmMEs WIrson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
CONTENTS.
HERO st OI OOU oe cmb systray) gee Wes Wee ee Uh ca eke ss Rel be hs
Selection of species for rearing experiments.........--.----------------------
ihe pronchorn., or American antelope: .25. 4-4 oe oes oe ae Se aes
PO LICaMLelOpesecsc eee as eee aie PR ees omen ae em ats o sas mies
HECK CL AN Ciae eepe mack ets ha neta et ean ROY) | eee ENS ENS Sse 2
RUNES Syd DUNE SEE Ee Sr ge oe ea EP ag ream Ee Rt Og Te iets
Smallerantelopesis3 6s° oo Si. Sere ac ew (Saye aS ce Wloctej epee aie A ah he pes
iniporiancevor therdeeriamily:: eae ce 6 ae ee oe ca er cae
Nativyerdeerof North America sgn ore SPDs oot is Soca pee cee
(OBAET OO ese sae cee eae <i aaa sath Mey ee Sete ape ee a ag eee A
Wipitior round-horned, elicss0yse2 ee ee re Se ee ee ee pei
NVianie tall Coed Cer ee ree eine is Coes RE Bhp yh! saa icra 2A hay tcc ee atts ica eae
1ST EWC Vevey IS MR A ps a nee a BEAN Se He ato eee
[NURTURE ONT Sse Sale tele pea cpr 2 coh oi ae a a are eae iene eee Oe
Japameseretlcarcs sp. <p oh Shea So ier keys ea PI CRE i aed 3 alld Ue
RnnepReres avi dud Ceres aye ses ete oe aah ie ni al tay 8 capa)
AR GUAT EAT au TaN Tes ee A te a il Ss eal al A ong ial we pe Aer
Objections to the introduction of foreign animals...........-..-..--------
Mibeavapilvornnocky Mountaimvelki ch. 20s oss Hon obeys tee tie ool
TBI GVA oN Ses ee sth ee Ce ae Ss I Si epee aU Aa Oe ape ea
Rresenvationeotuth eve lass teen ee Ne Shh len Mac nein hs a te Sy ibe Fed oe gee
Wildtelkoimitheeasterm Wmited States: -52- 2.525225 55 5555 sess eee.
Bxpericnee imraisimeelke eet Ves ee es LE De Saka ee
Bilkeimthe Ozark Mountainses...22)-s2sso2 ee 625) ee ee ana samba Renee 2 oes
WosttOl stocks hie mF eR een Be etd Ls Deke MAE ORE ben be o0 32025
Nirerousnessiofnnaless: 780 site Soot ye ER eh 2 Bio FS etwas
The elk as an enemy of wolves and dogs--..--.-..----.-------------
6 CONTENTS.
Page
The-whitetail; or Virginia: deer. ceo. ea se eee ee eae 40
Experiences ot breeders: 2 23ee- ie each une ere eae ee 42
Avidomesticatedvberdyotadee nase err sess ae eran ener eee eee 44
Increase of white-tailed deer in domestication........-....----------- 45
Deer: Hybrids: ee Pete Me 3 Lae ny aie paar a 45
Habits‘and management e542 36-252 ane ta) fae ee 46
Micious: bucke:25 25542 2 aoe ee A ee ee 47
Capturing live deertonshipmente.---eee tae eee eee ae 48
Wild deer im private preserviess2ec-. a= oe oe eee eee eee eee 50
Eiffecton: game supply Ss. vit se see se ee eee 51
Game; propagation/and ‘vame lawssse sce ese see ee eee eee 52
Transportatiomof live deerswiw sos foo ee tee see oe ee 52
Transportation of venison e235 5558e05 Yet et ee eee 52
Killing, deer raised: im private parks! (705-222-022 82 =). 025-0 5e) = ee 53
Salecot vemison 5222253 eee oreo eh ee 54
State laws recognizing private ownership of deer_............-.-.--------- 55
Resolutions by the American Breeders’ Association....-...---.------- oa Straten 58
Summarys ASA Ys ON REE eee a 59
LE LUST RAT TONSe
Page.
Puate I. Elk herd in the National Zoological Park, Washington, D.C.. Frontispiece.
II. Elk in the National Zoological Park, Washington, D. C ........---- 18
III. Fig. 1. Feeding time on farm of C. H. Roseberry, Stella, Mo. Fig. 2.
Mule deer, National Zoological Park, Washington, D. C.......--- 20
IV. Elkin new pasture, near Eureka Springs, Ark..........--......--- 34
VY. Elk park in the Ozarks, showing elimination of underbrush. .......- 34
VI. Tame elk on Indian Rock Game Preserve, owned by C. D. Richard-
VIII.
son, West Brookfield: "Massii 2 552 2h: Saat er eee 36
. Virginia deer in park belonging to Thomas Blagden, Saranac Inn,
Upper Saramac,.N.cYs 220 ses ee ee ey ae 42
Fawns of the Virginia deer at Kent Deer Park, home of C. H. Rose-
berry, Stella, Mo.....-. Pasa Nell NN Yea alti a nN oy 44
RAISING DEER AND OTHER LARGE GAME ANIMALS IN THE
UNITED STATES,
INTRODUCTION.
Under present conditions in the United States, game animals of
most kinds are rapidly diminishing in numbers. As game becomes
scarcer, legal restrictions upon its pursuit and capture are of neces-
sity increased to avoid complete extermination. Even after game
is legally killed, the laws of some States make it impossible for the
nonresident hunter either to carry the meat home to his family or
to sell it. In the zeal for protecting our fast vanishing game ani-
mals, laws have been enacted which, unless modified, will hinder or
permanently prevent the most important movement for game preser-
vation yet tried in this country; namely, the propagation of game
animals, not by the State alone, but by private enterprise as well.
A few States have recently modified their game laws so as to
permit, under limitations, the sale of game from private preserves;
but in many States restrictive laws still prevent the grower of such
game from marketing it outside the State in which it is produced,
or within the State except sometimes during a short open season.
Complaint is made that our game laws favor sportsmen of means
and are unfavorable to the farmer and to those citizens who, while
themselves debarred from the pleasures of the chase, would like
occasionally to have game on their own tables. If they could pur-
chase venison grown in preserves, it would remove cause for com-
plaint, and the traffic could be so regulated as not to hinder but to
aid the protection of wild game.
Tt is here urged that if the natural resources of the country are
the heritage of the people, they should be conserved for the benefit
of all. If private enterprise can help in game preservation, it should
be allowed to profit from investments. The propagation of game is
as legitimate a business as the growing of beef or mutton; and the
producer should be permitted, under reasonable regulations, to dis-
pose of his product at any time, suas for breeding purposes or for
food.
The present bulletin discusses briefly the importance of domesti-
cating wild mammals and the economic objects to be gained by the
process. It calls attention to the species, especially those of the deer
lor
‘
8 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
family, most promising for experiments in meat production, and
relates successful experience in different sections of the United States
with the wapiti, or Rocky Mountain elk, and with the Virginia deer.
It discusses the relation of game laws to the business of growing
venison—a business which, it 1s believed, with proper encouragement
may be made highly profitable, especially since it will be the means
of utilizing much otherwise unproductive land.
IMPORTANCE OF DOMESTICATING MAMMALS.
The question of practical benefits to be derived from domesticating
more species of mammals than we now have is by no means settled.
It is claimed by some that the present list of domesticated kinds is
ample for all economic requirements of the human race; that, so far
as beasts of burden are concerned, we already have enough suited to
every necessity; and, furthermore, that mechanical ingenuity is fast
bringing us to a time when fewer kinds will be required. As to
food animals, we are told that the excellence of our beef, pork, and
mutton leaves nothing further to be desired. For clothing, it is said
that the wools and hairs produced by mammals already under do-
mestication amply supplement the vegetable fibers.
On the other side, we have the argument advanced by the French
zoologist, E. Trouessart, to the effect that mankind should now make
every effort to domesticate as many species of mammals as possible.
He argues that in the course of time the extensive use of electricity
and machinery must inevitably exhaust the coal, petroleum, and
natural gas from the earth’s crust, and that mankind will again be
forced to rely largely upon the labor of animals. He urges immedi-
ate action because of the imminent danger of extermination of some
of the species.¢
Between these opposite views a middle ground may be maintained.
Admitting that we have enough beasts of burden and as great a
variety of animal food as the actual necessities of man demand, we
still find excellent reasons. for desiring to increase the number of
species under domestication. While it is neither necessary nor de-
sirable to domesticate every mammal possible, the field for choice is
large. Preliminary to choosing a species its ultimate usefulness
must be considered. In reply to the oft-repeated argument that it
takes so much time to develop a domestic species that the probable
economic advantage will be overbalanced by the enormous expense
required, it is enough to recall the fact that many wild animals show
remarkable adaptability to the conditions imposed by domesticity.
Canada geese, for instance, reared from the eggs of wild parents
and kept with barnyard fowls show hardly any trace of wildness.
4 Bulletin de la Société d’Acclimatation for 1900, pp. 38-52, 1900.
DOMESTICATING WILD MAMMALS. 9
Young mammals of various kinds when caught wild and reared in
captivity become absolutely tame and tractable. If these tame indi-
viduals can be bred successfully, there would seem to be few obstacles
in the way of domesticating the species.
However, the problems of domestication are not quite so simple
as the above statement might imply. It must be remembered that
captivity and changes of environment often make wild animals
peculiarly susceptible to disease. These and other considerations
complicate the problems, whose solution, after all, will depend mainly
upon the patience of the experimenter.
In considering the reasons for domesticating wild animals and
plants, the esthetic one should not be overlooked. A large number
of the species that have come under human control have been tamed
for the pleasure they afford to their owners. This is true of flower-
ing and other ornamental plants, and of some birds—for instance,
the canary. Probably this consideration always has weight in the
selection of species and individuals for breeding, and it must have
a marked influence in deciding the fitness of wild species of mam-
mals for domestication.
Experiments in breeding wild mammals need not necessarily be
with a view to complete domestication. The animals may be bred in
inclosures giving sufficient range and a habitat as nearly natural as
circumstances will permit, and the problems of ultimate domestica-
tion may be left for future determination. By this means the prac-
tical economic results of full domestication may be largely antici-
pated before the completion of the process, and the dangers incident
to close captivity may be happily avoided.
The chief practical objects to be sought by breeding wild mammals
in captivity are: (1) Preservation of species, (2) use in agriculture
or transportation, (3) use for hides and fur, and (4) use for food.
PRESERVATION OF SPECIES.
The rapacity of man has often threatened the existence of valuable
animals. The danger of extinction of the American buffalo, the
African elephant, the eland, the walrus, the sea otter, and other
species is not imaginary. Within recent times several species of
birds have been lost to the world. Of mammals the quagga and the
blaubok (Hippotragus leucopheus), the latter a small relative of
the roan antelope, have been exterminated in South Africa. Fore-
sight might have preserved them, and foresight, aided by govern-
mental intervention, will be needed to prevent the loss of many
of the larger game animals of the world. Their preservation is in
itself a sufficient reason for attempting their partial or complete
domestication.
63030°—Bull. 36—10-—_2
10 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
USE IN AGRICULTURE AND TRANSPORTATION.
The need of more kinds of beasts of burden is not great. The horse
will never be surpassed in general usefulness in this capacity, and the
other animals used in agriculture and commerce are excellent in their
places. However, there are parts of the world where for special
reasons the domestication of species of the native fauna might be
of immense advantage to the people. The zebra and the elephant for
Africa and the caribou for arctic America are examples.
REARING MAMMALS FOR THEIR FUR.
An important object to be attained by the rearing of wild mammals
is the permanence and increase of our supply of furs. The growing
scarcity of the better kinds of fur and the consequent high prices
make the problem of domesticating fur-bearing animals of immense
economic importance, while present conditions promise good returns
to those who solve it. The beaver, the otter, the marten, the mink,
the silver-gray fox, and the blue fox are among the mammals whose
partial domestication and successful breeding would prove profitable.
REARING MAMMALS FOR THEIR FLESH.
From the economic point of view, the strongest argument for breed-
ing mammals in captivity lies in their utility as food. Tor successful
game propagation a less degree of domestication in mammals will
suffice than when they are reared for fur or for use in agriculture and
transportation. This circumstance greatly favors the game propa-
gator. Besides, there is little probability that breeding game as an
industry will ever be overdone; the demand for the product is likely
to keep pace with the supply.
SELECTION OF SPECIES FOR REARING EXPERIMENTS.
The larger game quadrupeds are the first to suggest themselves as
suitable for propagation for food. The majority of our domestic
mammals belong to the order of hoofed animals (Ungulata), and of
these the most valuable food species are in the cloven-hoofed division
(Artiodactyla). Pigs, goats, sheep, and oxen belong to this sub-
order; and to the wild members of this group we naturally look for
additions to the list of domestic food animals.
The number of animals available for rearing experiments is quite
large; but from any complete list of those adapted to a particular
country a number of promising species would be rejected as super-
fluous. As a rule the kinds native to a region should have first con-
sideration, since they need no acclimatizing. The selection of a for-
eign species for breeding must depend upon a similarity between its
natural and its proposed habitat or upon its probable adaptability to
THE PRONGHORN. 11
the new environment. Adaptation may sometimes be judged from
the history of former attempts to acclimatize it or its near relatives.
In a country so extensive and varied as the United States the same
principles should be considered before transferring a native species
from one locality to another.
Some of the large game mammals whose partial domestication in
the United States has been favored are briefly considered under the
following subheads:
THE PRONGHORN, OR AMERICAN ANTELOPE.
The pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) is a game animal not
closely related to any other living form. While its general characters
ally it, as well as the antelopes of the Old World, to the cattle and
sheep family (Bovide), it differs from other living ruminants in its
deciduous and forked horn sheaths, and is nantly considered as the
type of a distinct family.
A half century ago the range of the pronghorn in the plains region
extended from the valley of the Missouri River westward to the Cas-
eades and from the Saskatchewan in latitude 53° north, south-
ward to the Mexican border. In Mexico the species is represented by
a paler local race. The eastern limit of the original range of the
antelope is not definitely known. According to Baird it was
abundant in Minnesota on the plains of the Red River in 1850,¢ and
it still occurred in the southwestern counties of that State in the early
eighties. Pike found it common in eastern Kansas in 1806. The
statements of the explorers of the plains indicate that it was about as
abundant as the buffalo, although not seen in such vast herds.
The present distribution and numbers of the pronghorn are a sad
commentary upon earlier game protection in the West. A few fugi-
tive bands are now to be found in the cattle country from longitude
101° westward. The story of their decrease in all of the States is
practically repeated in the statements of D. C. Nowlin, state game
warden of Wyoming, in his annual report for 1906. He says that
antelope have decreased to an alarming extent throughout the State;
for instance, in three years the Green River herd had diminished
from about 6,000 to less than 2,000 head. Hundreds had perished
through lack of food during storms, by depredations of wild animals,
and through slaughter by Ute Indians. He repeats the recommenda-
tion of previous reports that the legislature should prohibit all kill-
ing of antelope for a term of years.
In 1909 the legislature of Wyoming at last heeded the repeated
recommendations of the game warden by passing a law protecting
“Report U. S. Com. Patents (Agriculture) for 1851, p. 121, 1852.
12 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
antelope until 1915. Two other States—Montana and Nevada—
passed laws in 1909 protecting antelope indefinitely. Washington
still has an open season, but the animals are practically extinct in
that State. Three Canadian Provinces—Alberta, Manitoba, and
Saskatchewan—have open seasons; and of these, Manitoba has had
none of the animals for more than twenty years.
In the United States antelope are now protected in every State
in which they occur. The close season in Arizona expires March 1,
1911; in Colorado, September 25, 1912; Kansas, March 13, 1918;
New Mexico, March 18, 1914; North Dakota, January 1, 1920; Okla-
homa, November 1, 1914; South Dakota, January 1, 1911; Texas,
July 1, 1912; Utah, March 11, 1913; and Wyoming, September 25,
1915.
Experience shows that the antelope does not do well in close con-
finement. In zoological gardens it is short lived and seldom breeds.
Judge J. D. Caton made a number of efforts to raise antelope in his
park at Ottawa, Ill., but the animals died within a year.* Other
breeders have had similar experience. The difficulty seems to be that
of providing a natural environment. Judge Caton stated that the
antelope loses its timidity sooner and more completely than any
other wild animal whose domestication he had attempted. ‘“ When
taken young it soon acquires the attachment of a child for the human
species, and when captured adult in a short time becomes so tame
that it will take food from the hand, and follow one by the hour
walking through the grounds.” None of Judge Caton’s antelope
bred, and he concluded that the climate was too humid, and that his
pasture lacked the vegetation essential to their health.
The experience of those who have tried to rear the antelope outside
its natural range should not deter those who are favorably situated
from undertaking further experiments with it. Visitors to Yellow-
stone National Park have been greatly surprised at the tameness of
the antelope herds. Many western ranchmen have successfully reared
the young. The animals were allowed perfect freedom, but could
not be driven from the premises where they were fed. Reared in
natural surroundings, unconfined, and with sufficient range, they
would undoubtedly thrive and increase. In a few years by careful
and continued taming of the young, one might secure a herd of abso-
lutely tame antelope. Antelope require only a slight fence to con-
fine them. They run very swiftly, but unless closely pressed will not
jump an ordinary fence. y
The flesh of the young antelope is said to be much superior to ordi-
nary venison. That of mature animals, particularly the males, has
a strong flavor; but this might be greatly improved under domesti-
@American Naturalist, X, 197, 1876.
EXOTIC ANTELOPES. 13
eation. A full-grown pronghorn weighs from 100 to 125 pounds,
and will dress from 65 to 80 pounds.
EXOTIC ANTELOPES.
The Old World antelopes belong to the family of Bovide, and
include many valuable food animals. In Africa alone over a hun-
dred species occur, many of them hardy and most of them excellent
game. Fully a score of species would be promising subjects for ac-
climatizing in America. Africa, like our own country, has arid
sections, and some of her antelopes are probably especially adapted
to the desert lands of our Southwest, and might be used to restock
parts of that region from which our own pronghorn has been exter-
minated. Some years ago a society was organized for the purpose
of introducing the gazelle into southern California, but no practical
results followed.
THE ELAND.
The eland (7aurotragus), the largest of the antelope family, is
threatened with extermination over the greater part of its range in
South Africa. Its average weight is from 800 to 1,100 pounds, and
old males have been known to attain a weight of 1,400 to 1,500
pounds. This animal has often been recommended for rearing in
captivity because of the excellence of its flesh, which is superior to
beef. Harris, the African traveler, states that while it resembles
beef in grain and color, it is far better flavored and more delicate,
possessing a pure game flavor and remarkable for the quantity of fat
interlarded between the muscles.
The eland was introduced into Holland by the Prince of Orange
in 1783. It was acclimatized in England by the Earl of Derby in
1842, and was bred successfully in his parks. After his death the
herd passed into possession of the London Zoological Society in 1851,
and continued to increase in numbers for many years. In 1899 the
Duke of Bedford had a fine herd of 14 elands in the park at Woburn
Abbey.
The scarcity of this game animal in a wild state and the conse-
quent cost of obtaining stock would probably make experiments in
breeding it in the United States so expensive as to prohibit the
attempt by individual enterprise. However, the experience with
the animal in Europe gives assurance that, if properly undertaken,
efforts to acclimatize it in the United States would be successful.
THE NILGAT.
The nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) of India is, next to the
eland, the largest of antelope. The animal is ungainly in appear-
ance, and its flesh is somewhat inferior to that of the eland, but its
14 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
size, its hardiness, and its lack of wildness commend it as a species
suitable for domestication. It stands long droughts extremely well,
and its flesh is equal to most venison in quality.
Nilgais were first taken to England in 1767. In 1862 a dozen of the
animals were introduced into the park of Signor Comba at Mandria,
Italy. In ten years the herd increased to 172 head. A small herd
is kept by the Duke of Bedford at Woburn Abbey, England. In
the National Zoological Park, the Philadelphia Zoological Gardens,
and the New York Zoological Park these animals have done well and
bred regularly.
SMALLER AN'TELOPES.
Some of the smaller members of the antelope tribe are excellent ;
subjects for experiments in acclimatization and breeding in the
United States. Among them are the gazelles of Asia and Africa,
the duikers, the springbuck, and the roan antelope of Africa, and
the Indian antelope, or black buck. Of the duikers (Cephalophus)
there are over twenty kinds, ranging in size from that of a medium-
sized donkey to that of a hare; and all are said to afford excellent
venison, while some of them are known to be easily tamed. The
Indian antelope, or black buck, has been bred in many zoological
gardens, and a herd is kept in the park at Woburn Abbey. It is
easily tamed, but, as is the case with many deer and antelope, the
tame males become ill-tempered in the pairing season. In the Phila-
delphia and New York Zoological parks these animals have thrived
and increased rapidly.
IMPORTANCE OF THE DEER FAMILY.
The deer family (Cervide) stands next to the cattle and sheep
family (Bovide) in general utility. The flesh is a valuable food,
while the antlers or horns, as well as the skins, are important articles
of commerce. Venison was more common than beef on the tables of
medieval Europe, and was the flesh most commonly eaten by early
settlers and frontiersmen in North America. Its dietetic value is
enhanced by the fact that it is especially adapted to invalids who
require a nourishing yet easily digested food.
In a recently published table showing the time required to digest
various foods, grilled venison is given first rank with boiled tripe and
boiled rice, as requiring but one hour for complete digestion.
Whipped raw eggs, boiled barley, and boiled trout, as well as
asparagus and a few other. vegetables, require an hour and a half.
Grilled beefsteak and mutton require three hours for digestion, while
erilled or roasted veal and pork require five hours, or even more.?
4 Scientific American, CI., 46, July 17, 1909.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF DEER. 15
Except in a few species like the caribou, only male deer have
antlers. Although these horns are deciduous, they are solid processes
produced from the frontal bone, and have the physical as well as the
chemical properties of true bone. They are of two general types—
those more or less broad and flat and those rounded in shape. Those
of the flattened type are usually the more massive, but the rounded
antlers of the wapiti are exceptionally heavy.
Deerhorn has several uses. It produces much gelatin by decoction,
the product being like that from most animal substances. The rasp-
ings and waste pieces of the horns used in manufacturing knife
handles are either made into gelatin or boiled down into size used in
cloth manufacture. At one time deerhorn was a prominent source of
ammonia. ;
The principal use of deerhorn is in the manufacture of handles for
knives, forks, and other instruments. In Sheffield, England, some
thirty years ago, about 500 tons of deerhorn were used annually in
manufacture. India and Ceylon furnished about four-fifths of this
material, while about 100 tons came from European and English deer
forests. The 500 tons represented the antlers of fully 350,000 deer of
various species.?. In Europe buckhorn is worked up into many useful
articles, as umbrella stands, chandeliers, and ornaments for personal
wear.
The use of deerskins is well known. As tanned and dressed by
the American Indians they are manufactured into a variety of useful
and ornamental articles. The inhabitants of some of the Indian
villages of the North derive a good income from their manufactures
of deerskins into moccasins, rackets, toboggans, and other things
for sale. Deer hide makes an excellent leather, its value depending
upon the size as well as upon the species from which it comes. The
skins of wapiti, for instance, are porous, and the leather does not
wear well, while those of the moose and European elk are so thick
and hard that the leather is said to have resisted musket balls. In
Sweden in former times a pair of elk-hide breeches went as a legacy
through several generations of peasants. Formerly about 200,000
deerskins from North America were sold annually in the London
market. Half of these were skins of the wapiti. Many were bought
for Germany and there manufactured into leggings, but the heavier
skins were tanned and manufactured in England. In recent years
the export of deerskins from America has fallen off greatly.
Deer hair has a peculiar cellular structure, and is used in some
parts of the world for stuffing saddles, for which purpose it is espe-
cially suited.
EE
4 Simmonds, P. L., Animal Products, p. 182 (not dated).
16 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
NATIVE DEER OF NORTH AMERICA.
North America is comparatively rich in species of deer. All of
them are valuable food animals, and nearly all have been of great
commercial and economic value during the development of the
country. While their commercial importance has been greatly les-
sened as their numbers diminished, they still play an important
part in furnishing food in newly settled parts of the United States
and Canada, as well as in feeding the native tribes in the far North.
Except in States that have extensive forested areas and have pro-
tected deer for a series of years, they are rapidly disappearing be-
fore the encroachments of agriculture. The remnant are valuable
chiefly because they are a natural resource which may be indefinitely
developed if carefully husbanded. It is believed that with partial
domestication and careful management in state and private game
preserves, deer of most of our species may again become abundant.
Considering the difficulties, attempts to domesticate them have been
fairly satisfactory. |
THE CARIBOU.
Several species and local races of the caribou, or reindeer, inhabit
the northern part: of North America. According to habitat, they
fall naturally into two groups. The more northern, ranging beyond
the forests, is best represented by the barren-ground caribou (fangi-
fer arcticus). The second group inhabits the forested area south of
the other, and its most important representative is the woodland
caribou (Rangifer caribou). Although they differ little from the
wild Old World reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) in habits and gen-
eral appearance, no attempts to domesticate the American reindeer
seem to have been made. The larger woodland caribou is said to be
exceedingly wild and timid, and for this reason its suitability for
domestication has been questioned. The barren-ground species, al-
though small, appears to be much less wild.
Prof. S. F. Baird was strongly of the opinion that American cari-
bou of both groups are as capable of domestication as the European
species, and he suggested that such a step would be of vast benefit to
Indians of the North. Its success would at once place these people
beyond the vicissitudes which are so rapidly sweeping them off. In
the end they might “‘ become a pastoral people, and possibly, in time,
as agricultural as the nature of the seasons would admit.” ¢
In the same paper from which the above quotation is taken Pro-
fessor Baird suggested further that the domesticated European rein-
deer might itself be successfully imported and propagated in North
4 Report U. S. Com. Patents (Agriculture) for 1851, p. 108, 1852.
THE CARIBOU. 17
America, and that thus the loss of time in attempts to domesticate a
wild species might be avoided. After the purchase of Alaska by the
United States, the introduction of firearms among the natives led to
such slaughter of game that actual starvation threatened some of the
tribes. In 1887 Charles H. Townsend advised that the Government
should import the reindeer and teach the natives how to care for
and use the animals. In 1891 the late Dr. Sheldon Jackson, gen-
eral agent in Alaska of the Bureau of Education, aided by dona-
tions from private sources, purchased a small herd of reindeer
abroad. They arrived in Alaska in 1892. Since 1894 Congress has
made annual appropriations for continuing the experiment. Up to
and including 1904, the total number of reindeer imported from
Siberia and Scandinavia was 1,280, and at that time the herds num-
bered over 8,000. The net annual increase since importations ceased
has been about 25 per cent. In 1907 the herds numbered 15,839
animals and the present number is probably not less than 23,000.
The introduction of these animals has already proved to be of 1m-
mense benefit to the natives, who have been taught how to manage
them by herders from Lapland and Finland, brought to America for
this service.
Through the efforts of Doctor Grenfell, Lapland reindeer have re-
cently been introduced into Labrador and northern Newfoundland,
and the experiment promises great success. W. J. Carroll, of St.
Johns, Newfoundland, in commenting on the work of Doctor Gren-
fell, says:
“Tt is to be hoped that the introduction of reindeer will be the
first step toward the domestication of our own caribou. With a
quarter of a million of caribou running wild in the interior, increasing
at the rate of 10,000 yearly, it will be seen that when Newfoundland
wakes up to the possibilities of its caribou herds we will not only be
able to have thousands of deer for commercial purposes, but also will
have enough to keep this island a paradise for hunters when hunting
big game on the continent becomes a thing of the past. As an in-
stance of how they increase and multiply, Doctor Grenfell thinks
his herd will be increased by 200 fawns this spring.” @
While the domestication of the American caribou has been made
less important by the introduction of the reindeer, good reasons for
breeding the native animals still remain. They would probably be
especially useful for crossing with the Old World species. The cross
with the woodland caribou would doubtless produce animals of
greater size and strength, and the native caribou could constantly
be drawn upon for new blood, just as has often been done in the case
of the wild reindeer of northern Europe and Siberia.
* Forest and Stream, LXX, 611, April 18, 1908.
63030°—Bull. 36—10——3
18 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE MOOSE.
The largest living animal of the deer family is the moose, repre-
sented in America by a widely distributed species (Alces americana).
The Alaskan moose, on account of its great size, has been described
as a separate species (Alces gigas). The European elk (Alces
machlis) differs but slightly from the common moose of North
America.
The moose is still found in some of the wooded parts of Canada,
from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to Manitoba, its range extend-
ing into the United States in northern Maine, Michigan, and Minne-
sota. In the Rocky Mountain region it ranges from northwestern
Wyoming northwestward into Alaska. It is still fairly abundant
in parts of Alaska and in British Columbia. Under a careful system
of protection moose have slowly increased in numbers in Maine. A
promising attempt has been made to reintroduce them into the Adi-
rondacks, where they were exterminated nearly fifty years ago.
Perhaps no other American deer is naturally so well adapted to
domestication as the moose. Professor Baird relates that a pair of
the animals were kept by a man living near Houlton, Me. These
had been trained to draw a sleigh, “ which they did with great steadi-
ness and swiftness, subject, however, to the inconvenience that, when
they once took it into their heads to cool themselves in a neighboring
river or lake, no effort could prevent them.”* Audubon relates
another instance of a moose’s being trained to draw a sleigh. We are
informed by a number of writers that the European species was in
former times fully domesticated in northern Scandinavia and, like the
reindeer, was used to carry couriers from place to place. They were
swifter than reindeer and have been known to draw a sleigh 234 miles
in a day. It is said that this use of elk was finally forbidden under
heavy penalties on account of their having been employed to facili-
tate the escape of prisoners or suspected criminals, and the domestica-
tion of the animals was consequently abandoned.
Dr. W. T. Hornaday says of the moose that in captivity “it is
docile; not foolishly nervous hike most deer, but steady, confiding,
and affectionate. Moose are easily handled and trained to drive in
harness, and in contact with man manifest more common sense than
any other species of deer with which I am acquainted.” ”
In spite of this natural tendency to tameness, the efforts that have
been made to keep moose in confinement have nearly all failed. A
pair were kept in the Cincinnati Zoological Garden for about five
years, but this experience is exceptional. Dr. Hornaday expresses
@ Report U. S. Com. Patents (Agriculture) for 1851, p. 115, 1852.
b’The American Natural History, p. 141, 1904.
PLATE Il.
Bul. 36, Biological Survey, U.S Dept. of Agriculture.
ELK IN THE NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK, WASHINGTON
’
D
.C.
THE WAPITI. 19
the belief that the failure is largely due to lack of vigorous daily
exercise, which he thinks vitally necessary for the proper digestion
and assimilation of their food. Others have suggested that most of
the experiments have been made outside of the natural range of
moose, and that the climate was too warm for them. On the other
hand, individual moose reared away from the parent cow have done
well as long as they had the freedom of the forest; and in large pre-
serves, such as the Blue Mountain Park in New Hampshire, the
animals are said to thrive and increase. The difficulties in the way
of raising them within their natural range are by no means insur-
mountable, and the practicability of breeding them when confined to
forested areas within the Canadian life zone has been proved.
THE WAPITI.
The round-horned elk of North America are best represented by
the Rocky Mountain wapiti (Cervus canadensis) (Plates I and IT);
but, besides the typical form, two species and a geographic race
occur.
Next to the moose, the wapiti or elk is the largest American deer.
Though not a true elk, the name has become too firmly fixed in our
vernacular for change. This magnificent game animal was once
abundant over a large part of the United States, and extended its
range northward in northwest Canada to about latitude 60° in the
Peace River region. Southward it ranged to the southern Alleghe-
nies, northern Texas, southern New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
The limits of its range eastward were the Adirondacks, western New
Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania. Westward it occurred to the
Pacific Ocean.
At present the range of the elk has so far diminished that, out-
side of the larger herds left in the Yellowstone National Park and
the mountainous country surrounding it, the animals occur only in
a few scattered localities. The herds in the national park and its
vicinity are said to number about 30,000 head. Smaller numbers of
the elk still occur in Colorado, Idaho, western Montana, western
Oregon, northwestern California, and the Olympic Mountains in
Washington. A remnant of the dwarf species of southern California
is left in the upper San Joaquin Valley. Outside the United States,
a few elk remain in southern Manitoba, Alberta, and on Vancouver
Island.
In addition to the wild herds, a considerable number of elk are
left in private game preserves and parks, as well as in nearly all
public zoological gardens and parks of the United States. These
form the nucleus from which, with good management, we may expect
*Hornaday, Wm. T., The American Natural History, p. 141, 1904.
20 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
a restocking of some of the former ranges of the elk, and from which
also a profitable business of raising the animals for market may be
developed. At the present time no other member of the deer family
seems to offer so promising a field for ventures in breeding for profit.
Details of management and records of experience in uate the elk
will be given in another part of this bulletin.
WHITE-TAILED DEER.
The common deer of the United States is the whitetail, or Virginia,
deer (Odocoileus virginianus). ‘The species is widely distributed
and, including the half dozen geographic races that occur within
our borders, the range of this deer includes nearly all the United
States, except large parts of Utah, Arizona, California, Oregon,
and Washington. It is extinct in Delaware and practically so in sev-
eral States of the Middle West; but it is still fairly common over
the greater part of its original range. A number of nearly related
Species occur south of our borders.
The whitetail is the best known of our native deer and has been
bred in semidomestication in many localities. Its suitability for
parks is unquestioned, and in large preserves it Increases very rapidly.
Tt has not always done well, owing to diseases, but the difficulties
in the way of rearing it successfully are not greater than those that
attend the management of some of our domestic animals. Its habits
and management are discussed later.
MULE DEER.
The mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (Plate IT], fig. 2) is larger
than the whitetail, and, though less widely distributed than that
species, had originally a vast range on the western side of the con-
tinent. Including the six subspecies, or geographic races, it occurred
from the Missouri River westward to California and southward into
Lower California and Sonora. East of the Continental Divide its
range extended north into British Columbia, Alberta, and other
provinces to latitude 56° or 57°, and south into Texas. This range
has been greatly diminished by the encroachments of settlements
and the lack of protecting laws, but the animals are still fairly com- |
mon in scattered localities except in the open plains country.
Outside of its natural range the mule deer has seldom thrived.
Indeed, many of the attempts to acclimatize it east of the Mississippi
have failed. In zoological gardens the animals often die of dis-
eases of the digestive organs, but in several places they do fairly
well and have bred. They seem to have been thoroughly acclima-
tized in the large park belonging to the late William C. Whitney,
PLATE III.
Bul. 36, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Fia. 1.—
FEEDING TIME ON FARM OF C. H. ROSEBERRY,
STELLA, Mo.
Fic. 2
—MuLe DEER, NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
EXOTIC DEER. 21
near Lenox, Mass., and they have bred regularly and done well in
a small paddock at Crawfordsville, Ind.
The mule deer has been crossed with the Virginia and other deer,
and hybrids with the southern Virginia deer have shown a superiority
over that race in size and stamina. The hybridizing experiments al-
ready made give promise of an unexpected usefulness for the mule
deer in captivity. Aside from the difficulty of acclimatizing it in
humid regions, no unfavorable circumstances concerning it are known.
It is prolific, its venison is excellent, and its superior size adds to its
value as a market animal.
COLUMBIA BLACK-TAILED DEER.
The Columbia black-tailed deer (Odocoileus columbianus) is
smaller than the mule deer or the typical Virginia deer. With its
two geographic races it inhabits the Pacific coast west of the Cas-
cades in northern California, Oregon, Washington, and British Co-
lumbia to southern Alaska. Although its home is in a humid country,
it has resisted nearly all efforts to introduce it into the eastern United
States, and the managers of zoological parks and gardens have about
abandoned attempts to keep it. If not closely confined, it does well in
parks and preserves within its natural range.
EXOTIC DEER.
Several species of exotic deer have been acclimatized in America;
and, since the vast extent of our territory affords a great variety of
conditions, it is probable that many more species could be successfully
introduced and bred in suitable localities. The red deer and the fal-
low deer of Kurope seem to be well adapted to diverse climates, and
are now to be found thriving in parks in many parts of the world,
including the United States. A few other species whose habits and
general usefulness commend them as excellent subjects for domestica-
tion are here named. |
THE ALTAI WAPITI.
This wapiti (Cervus asiaticus)* occurs in the Altai and Thian Shan
mountains, and is one of the few deer that have been extensively kept
in sem:domestication. Large herds of these animals were formerly
trapped in inclosures in the Altai Mountains and are kept in captivity
for the sake of their antlers, which are cut when in the velvet and ex-
ported to China for use in medicine. About 6,000 of the animals
are said to be in captivity, but owing to their destruction by hunters,
@The proper scientific names of many exotic deer are in doubt. In this and
one or two other instances the names here adopted are those used by Lydekker
in his recent books on big game.
22 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
wild wapiti of this species are now rare. Although this wapiti is
smaller than the American species, the antlers are much larger. They
sell at about 15 roubles ($7.50) a pound, and a single pair sometimes
brings 120 roubles ($60) .2
The Altai wapiti has been kept in parks in various parts of
Europe, notably at Woburn Abbey, where the Duke of Bedford in
1896 introduced three stags and several hinds, purchased from Mr.
Hagenbeck, of Hamburg. They have done well, but are in no way
superior to the American wapiti, with which they interbreed. The
Altai wapiti has bred in the Philadelphia Zoological Gardens. |
THE JAPANESE SIKA.
Experiments in breeding the Japanese sika (Pseudaxis nippon) in
Europe and America show that it is one of the most promising of
the deer family for park purposes. It inhabits northern China,
Manchuria, and Japan, but the Japanese race has been oftenest the
subject, of experiments in breeding.
One of the earliest to try this species in European parks was Vis-
count Powerscourt, of Powerscourt, in Wicklow, Ireland. In 1860
he purchased from Jamrach, the London dealer, a stag and three
hinds and removed them to his estate, where they throve and multi-
plied greatly. In 1884, after twenty-four years of breeding and in-
crease, his herd consisted of over 100 individuals, although 2 or 3
yearly had been shot, many given away, and others sold. Several
deer parks in Ireland, England, and Scotland were stocked with this
species from Powerscourt, and the animals thrived well in every place
to which they were taken.
In 1879: Lord Powerscourt wrote:
Japanese deer require no care of any kind; they are as hardy as fallow or
red deer, and the venison is as good. We had a haunch last year with more
than 2 inches of fat on it. The haunches are small and of a handy size.®
Again, in 1884, he said:
These pretty little deer are the only [introduced] ones which have multiplied,
and have also never required any shelter of any kind, nor any winter feeding, ex-
cept what the ordinary red deer and fallow deer get, such as hay, ete. * * *
The Japanese deer here have undoubtedly interbred with the red deer; there are
three or four deer in the park here which are certainly hybrids, the red hind in
each case being the dam. The Japanese are a most satisfactory little deer; the
venison when dressed is about the size of Welsh mutton and very well flavored.
The little stags, with their black coats and thick necks, like miniature sambur,
are very picturesque and ornamental, and I think they are a decided addition to
our varieties of hardy park deer. Some of them are always to be seen in the
Society’s gardens, but these give no idea of the beauty of the animals when in a
wild state in a park.¢
@ Lydekker, R., Great and Small Game of Europe, Asia, and America, p. 67, 1901.
® Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1879, p. 294, 1879.
¢ Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1884, pp. 208, 208, 1884.
EXOTIC DEER. PAS
Although the Japanese sika will take boughs when offered, it is
- chiefly a grazing animal. Itisa rough feeder and thrives on the same
food that cattle eat. The fact that it flourishes in the humid climates
of Ireland and the Hawaiian Islands shows that it would probably do
equally well in almost all parts of the United States. It has been
successfully bred in most of the zoological parks of this country, and
no obstacle to its successful propagation in open parks is known.
The Peking sika (Pseudawis hortulorum) is larger than the Jap-
anese species, much more vividly colored in summer, and, judging
from the experience of the Duke of Bedford with his herd at Wo-
burn, it also is admirably adapted for private parks in humid parts
of our country.
THE PERE DAVID DEER.
The Pare David deer (Elaphurus davidianus) is mentioned here
because the species is now unknown in a wild state. When discovered
by Pere David none were known outside of the herds in the Imperial
Park of the Emperor of China. The subsequent destruction of the
imperial herds in 1894 left the few individuals that had been taken to
Europe, and their progeny, the only known living representatives of
the species. It is now thought that the herd at Woburn Abbey are
the sole survivors. They seem to be thoroughly acclimatized there
and to be increasing from year to year.
INDIAN SAMBAR.
The Indian sambar (Cervus unicolor) is a large species with
several geographic races. Although Lord Powerscourt failed to
acclimatize these animals in his park in Ireland, they flourish at
Woburn Abbey, where they are kept in the open. At Powerscourt
the dense thickets and lack of sunshine were fatal to these deer.
The species does well in zoological gardens and public parks, and
it has often been recommended for private preserves. Like the
‘ wapiti, the male is vicious during the rutting season.
AXIS DEER, OR CHITAL.
The chital or spotted deer (Cervus axis) of India and Ceylon is
one of the handsomest of ruminants. It is one of the few deer that
is spotted with white throughout the year. The species has been
successfully bred in European parks and in zoological gardens in
many parts of the world. Although native to a warm country, it
does well in England and the United States. At Woburn Abbey
the herd is always in good condition. Its beauty makes it very
desirable for parks. Unlike our native deer it sheds its horns irregu-
larly and breeds at almost any season. It has been crossed with the
Virginia deer.
94 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
SMALL DEER.
The exotic species thus far mentioned are as large as our common
deer, or larger. On our American farms and ranches, especially in
the South, there is a distinct demand for a food animal of smaller
size than the sheep for family use. A number of species of small
Asiatic deer might admirably fill this want. Among them are
several of the muntjacs (Cervulus) and the Chinese water deer
(Hydrelaphus inermis) .
The Indian muntjac (Cervulus muntjac) is probably the best-
known species of this genus. It is a beautiful little deer, with small
horns, and stands 20 to 22 inches high. The animals live in thickets
and tall grass, and are said to be solitary except when pairing.
They are timid and seldom seen except when running away from
beaters. When cornered they defend themselves with the long
canine teeth and not with horns and hoofs like other deer. The
period of gestation is six months, and two young are produced
at a time. The animals feed like sheep on almost any herbage.
They thrive in English parks and would probably flourish in our
Southern States. The flesh is said to be excellent.
The Chinese water deer is less solitary in its habits, but in size and
some other characteristics it is like the muntjacs. It is the most
prolific of all the deer family, the female producing three or four
young at a time. It is suited to marshy lands.
If any one of the various small species of deer or even antelope
could be raised in the Southern States, it would furnish the farmers
a much needed form of meat, which could be provided fresh every
day or two as needed. Aside from fowls most of our domestic ani-
mals are too large for immediate consumption by the ordinary
farmer’s family. The successful introduction and breeding of a
small mammal, in size intermediate between a hare and a sheep,
would be of sufficient economic importance to warrant the expendi-
ture of considerable sums of money in experiments. But this state-
ment is true also of the domestication of any other deer.
OBJECTIONS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF FOREIGN ANIMALS.
In suggesting the acclimatization of foreign game animals, the
Biological Survey does not, advocate their indiscriminate introduction
into the United States nor the immediate release of any of them to
resume their wild life. The history of the introduction of beneficial
animals into new localities should teach caution in such experiments.
Even species fully domesticated have become injurious when neg-
lected and allowed to run wild. Devastations of crops by horses,
cattle, pigs, and goats, introduced into new countries for domestic
use and afterwards abandoned, have been known in many parts of
HABITS OF THE WAPITI. DD
the world. The destruction of native birds and mammals by dogs
and cats that have gone wild furnishes an equally valid argument for
caution. Probably less danger attends the acclimatization and release
of the class of animals under discussion than any other; and yet it
is known that deer and antelope under certain circumstances have
increased so enormously as to destroy important crops. Ordinarily
should they prove injurious in the United States, the removal of
protection would be followed by their speedy extermination as game.
THE WAPITI, OR ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK.
HABITS.
In this bulletin the life history and habits of the Rocky Mountain
elk are discussed only so far as they bear on the care and management
of the animals in captivity or in game preserves.
On account of its size, the elk holds a place among American deer
much like that occupied by the red deer among European Cervide.
Although a larger species, its general resemblance to the red deer
caused early immigrants to apply that name to it. In New England,
where there were no elk, the common Virginia deer was called the
red deer. This confusion of names probably led to the adoption of
the name elk for the wapiti because of its size. In view of its re-
semblance to the red deer so common in parks in the Old World, it
seems strange that attempts to domesticate the wapiti in America
were so long delayed.
The elk is both a browsing and a grazing animal. While it eats
grass freely and can subsist upon it alone, it thrives best where there
are also trees and underbrush. In its former range, when the sur-
roundings permitted, it retreated into mountains and woodlands in
summer, where it fed upon buds, twigs, leaves, and woodland grasses,
while in winter it grazed chiefly in open prairies or glades, unless
driven to timber by deep snows. The Wyoming herds summer chiefly
in the high mountain pastures of the Yellowstone Park, and when
these become covered with deep snow the animals retreat to the val-
leys southward and eastward of the park. They formerly ranged
far out on the plains in winter, but intense summer grazing by cattle
and sheep now leaves the winter pasturage too scant for them.
The American elk is extremely polygamous. The horns of adult
bulls usually drop off in March or April, and new ones attain their
full size within ninety days. The velvet adheres until about August,
when it is gradually shed. The animals hasten the shedding by
thrashing their horns against small trees and bushes. This is often
referred to by hunters as “shaking,” from the fact that the motion
of the trees may be seen at great distances. The bulls usually lead
solitary lives while the horns are growing, but early in September,
63030°—Bull. 36-—10——_4
26 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
when the antlers are fully matured, the rutting season begins, and the
bulls seek the herds of cows. Fights for supremacy then take place,
and the victor takes charge of as many cows as he can round up and
control.
In spring the cows remain in small herds until nearly time for
the calves to be born. Then each seeks a secluded place, where she
remains until the calf is strong enough to follow. In late summer
the cows and calves begin to collect into small herds and are soon
joined by the bulls. The period of gestation in the elk is from 249
to 262 days (average about 84 months). The calves are born in May
or June and, like the young of the common deer, are spotted, but the
spots are not so numerous nor so clearly defined, and they disappear
in September with the first shedding of the hair. The female elk
does not have young until three or four years old, and usually pro-
duces but one calf at a time. The calf follows the cow for a full year
and sometimes even longer.
ELK VENISON.
The flesh of the elk is superior in flavor to most venison. The bulls
are in best condition about the time the velvet is shed. By the time
the rut is over, in October, the flesh is in the poorest condition. As |
the hunting season is usually in October and November and only
males are killed, sportsmen often obtain the venison in poor condition,
and, as a result, many persons have found fault with the flavor of elk
meat. It is not best when freshly killed, but after hanging four or
five days it becomes palatable and nutritious. Of course fat elk are
better than lean, and it is said that the venison from castrated bulls
is superior to that from others.
PRESERVATION OF THE ELK.
The preservation of the Rocky Mountain elk is of even greater
importance than that of the American buffalo. While the destruc-
tion has not gone so far as in the case of the buffalo, absence of the
elk from nineteen-twentieths of its former range is to be even more
regretted. The buffalo was especially adapted to the prairies and
the plains, and economically its place is better filled by the domestic
cattle that now graze there. On the other hand, the elk is equally
well, if not better, suited to rough, wooded areas not well adapted to
cattle. Its preservation, therefore, may economically utilize such
land, and the animals may become a valuable resource to the State as
well as to the private owner.
The value of game to the State is seldom so fully appreciated that
it is properly conserved and made to yield permanent returns. Maine
probably secures the best value from its big game. Deer and moose
WILD ELK IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES. oT
in that State now pay a large part of the cost of game protection:
-the addition of a small resident license fee for hunting would make
the actual revenue exceed considerably the cost of fish and game
preservation. In addition, licensed guides earn about $860,000 a
year, while hotel keepers, railroads, express companies, and others
derive greatly increased incomes from the sportsmen and tourists
who are attracted to the State by its excellent hunting and fishing.
Any State that has big game may profit by its preservation, and
owners of private big game preserves should find them equally re-
munerative.
Its polygamous habit is a favorable factor in preserving the elk.
The extermination of the buffalo was hastened by the fact that
hunters, both white and native, preferred to kill the cows. Their
flesh was superior to that of the bulls, while the robes they produced
were of finer quality. In the course of time polyandry became so
fixed among buffaloes that reproduction fell much below the nor-
mal rate. In the case of the elk, polygamy is the rule; and the de-
struction for trophies of males only, as well as the laws of States
which forbid the killing of does, serves to perpetuate the species.
The breeding of the animals is thus kept at a maximum rate.
The fact that elk congregate in large herds in winter has been
unfavorable to their preservation. Pasture in their winter ranges is
often insufficient for the demand, and the weaker animals perish. In
recent years, because of the encroachments of cattle and other stock
upon the range, elk winter higher up in the mountains, where the
snowfall is great. Poachers wearing snowshoes often approach
and destroy an entire herd. Under adequate protection and with a
proper supply of winter forage the gregarious habits of the elk would
give increased security to the herds, but conditions hitherto have not
genet about such results. On the contrary, wherever elk have
been abundant much unlawful slaughter of the animals has taken
place. Not only have nonresident hunters engaged in the business
of killing them for heads, hides, and tusks, but residents of the game
country have sometimes engaged in the same nefarious practice.
WILD ELK IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES.
Probably the last wild elk of the original stock east of the Mis-
sissippi was killed in November, 1867, in Elk County, Pa., though
possibly a few remained a little longer in the mountains of West
Virginia. A few wealthy men have stocked private preserves with
elk from the Rocky Mountains, and the experiment of acclimatizing
them in the East has proved uniformly successful. A number of
preserves in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and North Carolina have been noted for fine herds of
these animals, the best known, perhaps, being those of Austin Corbin
98 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
and William C. Whitney, both deceased. The Corbin preserve is on
Croyden Mountain, near Newport, N. H., and the Whitney pre-
serve was on October Mountain, near Lenox, Mass. At Mount Po-
cono, Pennsylvania, Carl Tielenius has a considerable herd of elk,
kept on lands over which the wild elk ranged in the early part of
the last century.
The New York Forest, Fish, and Game Commission have made in
the Adirondacks the first systematic efforts in the East to restore
elk to their former ranges. In June, 1901, the late William C.
Whitney presented 22 head of elk—5 bulls and 17 cows—from his
Massachusetts herd. This was followed in 1902 and 1903 by two gifts
of larger herds from the same source and in 1906 by a gift of a herd
of 26 from Mr. Corbin’s Blue Mountain Forest Park, in New Hamp-
shire. The elk were liberated in small bands at various places,
mostly on state lands, and their increase has been satisfactory. It
was estimated that on December 31, 1906, the total number at large
in the Adirondacks was about 350 head.* The elk, under proper pro-
tection, may be expected to become abundant again in the North
Woods. The example of New York might well be followed by all
States that have wild lands suitable for the elk. Pennsylvania has
ideal places for the animals in her game preserves recently estab-
lished, and all the States traversed by the Allegheny Mountain ranges
have abundant wild lands for the introduction of the species. The
cost of stocking with the animals would be slight compared with their
ultimate value to the State. In New Hampshire there is reason to
suppose that the beginning of a wild herd exists in animals that _
have escaped from the Corbin preserve. Forty-eight elk in one
herd are reported to have been recently seen running at large in the
forests.°
EXPERIENCE IN RAISING ELK.
Although the American wapiti is less prolific than the common
deer and some other species that have been bred in parks, it increases
quite as fast as the red deer and is more hardy and easily managed.
It has been successfully acclimatized in many parts of the world,
and in England and on the Continent it has been crossed with both
the Altai wapiti and the red deer. The hybrids in both cases were
superior to the native stock in size and stamina.
The elk has been successfully bred in confinement in many parts
of the United States, and in some instances has been domesticated.
Audubon and Bachman say of it:
This species can be easily domesticated, as we have observed it in menageries
and in parks both of Europe and America. The males, like those of the Vir-
@¥Wield and Stream, XII, 598, November, 1907.
> Recreation, XXVII, 129, March, 1908.
EXPERIENCE IN RAISING ELK. 29
ginia deer, as they advance in age, by their pugnacious habits are apt to become
troublesome and dangerous. The elk lives to a great age, one having been kept
in the possession of the elder Peale, of Philadelphia, for thirteen years; we
observed one in the park of a nobleman in Austria that had been received from
America twenty-five years before.?
Professor Baird was of the opinion that the elk could easily be
domesticated, and that, next to the caribou and the moose, it is the
“one to which we are most entitled to look for an increase of our
stock of domestic animals. The great size of the horns of the male.
and his fierceness and uncontrollability during the rutting season,
are certainly obstacles in the way of reducing the elk to the rank of
a servant to man; nevertheless they are not unsurmountable, after
all.” He suggested that, as in the case of the buck of the common
deer, castration would effectually subdue the animal. He suggested
further that if the social instinct is necessary to the complete
domestication of an animal, no deer possesses it in a higher degree
than the elk, which is often found in immense herds.?
One of the earliest successful attempts to domesticate the round-
horned elk was made by Col. John Mercer, of Cedar Park, West
River, Md. Colonel Mercer obtained his stock from St. Louis about
seventy-five or eighty years ago. The animals were transported to
Wheeling by water and thence to West River by way of Cumber-
land on foot. A few other breeders obtained stock from Colonel
Mercer, among them Col. Joseph Tuley, of Millwood, Clarke
County, Va.
Lorenzo Stratton, of Little Valley, Cattaraugus County, N. Y.,
began experiments with this species about sixty years ago. In a
letter addressed to D. J. Browne, and dated January 12, 1859, he
says:
The American elk, with all its claims to attention, is fast disappearing from
the earth, with scarcely an effort for its preservation or domestication. By
domestication I do not mean simply taming, but a course of intelligent breed-
ing and protection. A series of experiments with this animal * * * has
furnished me with sufficient evidence to say confidently that this business may
be made of great importance to the country. * * * TJ have now a herd so
gentle that a visitor at my farm would hardly imagine that their ancestors
only three generations back were wild animals. * * *
The facility for extending this business may easily be conceived. New York
alone might support 100,000 elks on land where our domestic cattle could not
subsist; furnishing an amount of venison almost incredible; while the adjoin-
ing State of Pennsylvania, to say nothing of others, might sustain a still larger
number without encroaching upon an acre of land now used for stock rearing,
or any other purpose connected with agriculture.¢
“The Quadrupeds of North America, II, 92, 1851.
+ Report U. S. Com. Patents (Agriculture) for 1851, p. 118, 1852.
¢ Report U. S. Com. of Patents (Agriculture) for 1858, p. 237, 1859.
30 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
At a meeting of the American Institute in New York January 6,
1862, Mr. Stratton gave a detailed account of his experience in
domesticating the elk, in which he said, in part:
About eight years ago I had an opportunity to purchase two elks. I did so as
a matter of curiosity and because I wished to see a few specimens of this for-
ester preserved, as my place is situated in the region where they used to roam
in countless numbers. They did well and bred. I fenced off a few acres for
them, and found after a while that I could certainly raise venison cheaper than
my neighbors could raise beef. I devoted a large plat of stony, bushy land,
unfit for any other purpose, to them. Since then I have succeeded in breeding
37 elk. I have had no accident of any kind amongst them, and they have fatted
and bred regularly and have become quite domesticated. The does have been
gentle and act like domestic cattle. The bucks have been also gentle until they
were about 4 years old, when they have been difficult to manage in September
and October, like a bull or stud-horse. In such cases I generally made venison
of them. Excepting these instances, however, the animals are quite docile.
The first fawn that I raised was very shy. He was in a lot of about 15 acres,
and when I went to him he would flee from me, so that I could hardly get a
sight at him. The next fawns raised were not so frightened when they saw
me, and now when I go into the field the young fawns are like so many calves.
My lot is fenced with common rails, 6 or 7 feet high, and there is no difficulty
in keeping the animals within bounds. Frequently, when the fence may get
down, they go out into a neighboring piece of woods, but as soon as anything
startles them they run for their own field again, and feel safe only when they
arrive there. They are not inclined to stray off. This lot in which they are
confined they consider as their home, and chase off any dogs that may come
upon it. In four generations, by kind treatment, I have, as I contend, not
merely succeeded in taming them, but in domesticating them. They are as
gentle as sheep that run wild. * * *
* %* % The great profit in raising them, however, is for their meat. They
live and fatten on useless land. Where the feeding ground is brush they will
destroy it; but the grass will come up more profusely on this account in the
summer; and it has the result of giving them better feed in the summer though
not so good in the winter. I paid $400 for the first pair I bought; I have bought
2 does since then, from which, with the first pair, I have raised my whole stock ;
I have been at various unnecessary expenses, from the fact that I did not know
how to manage them; I can now raise elk cheaper than I can sheep; I have a
83-year-old buck, weighing 480 pounds, which has cost me less than any 53-year-old
sheep I have got. I have been anxious to introduce them as common stock and
have sold them for $100 a pair. A great many are afraid to buy them, for fear
they will get away and go wild again. They see me go into the field and all
the flock come about me, and each one tries to get his nose into my pocket; but
they say, “‘I don’t believe I could do that.” They think there is some Rarey secret
about it. When I go into the lot, I generally carry a little handful of salt, or
grain, or something which they like, which makes them come about me. * * *
I think there is no better meat than that of the elk; it is richer and more
juicy than the meat of the deer; I killed a 2-year-old doe this year which had
had no fawn; she was very fat; I took 29 pounds of tallow from her, and she
weighed 282 pounds dressed, the skin weighing 28 pounds.
At the same meeting Mr. Trimble stated that several years pre-
viously, while traveling over the prairie in Illinois, he had seen at a
EXPERIENCE IN RAISING ELK. 81
house where he stopped a full-grown elk perfectly domesticated.
There were no fences about and it never attempted to run away.*
The final outcome of the Stratton experiment at Little Valley was
recorded in a communication to Forest and Stream by Mr. EK. L.
Stratton, of Grand View, Tenn., a brother of Lorenzo Stratton. He
stated that so far as the experiment was carried it was a complete
success. ‘“ Had there been a moderate amount of capital invested,
with a larger territory of cheap mountain land ‘added, and with
close attention to the business, it would have been a profitable invest-
ment and doubtless would have shown handsome dividends. But
when we decided to move South, the elk business had to be aban-
doned. Most of the stock on hand was bought by some foreigners
and shipped by rail to New York, thence some to Italy and the
rest to Germany, and three or four were slaughtered at home.” ?
Tn 1887 T. D. Kellogg, of Whitestone, Long Island, contributed to
the New York Herald an interesting account of his observations on
domesticating the wapiti, made when a pioneer in northwestern Iowa
in the fifties. Mr. Kellogg said that at that time elk roamed over
all the plains of that part of Iowa, but already in diminishing num-
bers. In the spring when a settler had killed a doe elk he would occa-
sionally take home a suckling fawn in his arms and bring it up by
hand. Two settlers whom he knew well had each an elk thus domes-
ticated, and several similar instances came to his knowledge. ‘These
settlers had no inclosure except a small garden patch, from which
stock was excluded by a rude fence.
The tame elk, let loose upon the open prairie, were at full liberty,
and although born in a wild state they never joined a passing herd
nor roamed far from home. They gave no trouble by getting into
the garden or injuring the fence. They were less timid than sheep,
although not so familiar as dogs. “ Probably no animal in existence,”
says Mr. Kellogg, “is naturally fitted to take so kindly to domestica-
tion as this noble creature, so rapidly disappearing from the face of
the earth.” ¢
Judge John D. Caton, of Tlinois, who contributed so much to our
knowledge of the deer family and of their susceptibility to domestica-
-tion, seems to have been unfortunate in having inclosures poorly
adapted to deer. He believed that his pastures contained some kind
of vegetable food that was Larmful to most of the species, but his
elk were always healthy. Writing in 1880, Judge Caton said:
My elk continue to do well and are so prolific that I have had repeatedly to
reduce their numbers and would be glad now to dispose of at least 30. I
“Trans. Am. Institute for 1861-62, pp. 220-228, 1862.
6 Forest and Stream, XLVIII, 445, June 5, 1897.
€The American Field, XXVIII, 126, August 6, 1887.
32 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
have on an average about one old buck a year killed in battle and sometimes
another by some casualty, but all appear healthy. Mine grow very large and
of all the Cervide they seem best adapted to domestication.¢
With few exceptions former attempts to rear elk were made by
men who were wealthy and actuated only by a desire to possess or
to preserve the animals. Care of them was left to servants. The
bucks remained uncastrated until they became old and unmanageable,
when the serious problem of caring for them soon outweighed the
novelty of their possession, and the experiments were abandoned.
This will account for the failure of many of the herds that were
founded a half century or more ago.
But these breeders of the elk have not been without successors, and
at present there are small herds of elk under private ownership in
many places in the United States. The Biological Survey has re-
cently opened communication with owners of herds of ell and deer,
for the purpose of learning their experience in rearing the animals
and obtaining their opinions as to the feasibility of making the busi-
ness profitable. Extracts from recent correspondence referring to
the wapiti, or elk, follow:
Joshua Hill, of Pontiac, Mich., wrote, October 12, 1907, that he has
- elk and bison in his preserve of 300 acres. He finds the sale of elk
meat slow, but thinks that, if properly pushed, the business of grow-
ing it would pay well. In his opinion the elk would be more profitable
than deer, since the animals are larger and the venison better. He has
heard of elk meat bringing 50 cents to $1 per pound.
Isaac A. Bonine, of Niles, Mich., wrote, under date of October 14,
1907, stating that he had been breeding both the elk and deer for
about thirty-five years. He said: “ We find that deer are not so hardy
as elk and require more care. Elk require less care than the domestic
animals, while deer are even more delicate. Deer should have a greater
variety of food than elk. Elk winter well on hay and corn fodder
with a little grain, and they live and thrive during summer months
on blue grass. Deer will live on the foods mentioned here for elk, but
they should have vegetables also. They require an open shed or
shelter of some sort during winter; an elk requires none. The grow-
ing of both elk and deer for park purposes may be made profitable.”
J. W. Gilbert, of Friend, Nebr., states (March 17, 1908) that he has
been growing deer and elk for seventeen years. The deer have not
always done well, but he now has a healthy herd of about 30 head.
The elk have increased and done well all the time. He has never had -
a barren cow elk. Mr. Gilbert’s: range of 75 acres is on the open
prairie, and contains buffalo, deer, and elk.
F. J. Wilson, of Lewisburg, Ohio, began raising elk and deer a few
years ago, with three head of each at first. He has not succeeded so
4@American Naturalist, XIV, 396, April, 1880.
ELK IN THE OZARK MOUNTAINS. 33
well with deer as with the elk. Deer require a higher fence and more
care. The elk do well on hay, corn fodder, and other rough feed; if
they escape from an inclosure they can be driven back lke cattle.
Mr. Wilson paid $165 for 2 adult elk and a fawn. He has sold $300
worth of stock, and, in 1908, had a herd of 12 head, worth $1,000.
The experience of Carl Tielenius with his herd at Mount Pocono,
Pa., is less satisfactory. He began about the year 1890 with 26 head
of 2-year-old elk, 22 of which were cows. The first year they pro-
duced 23 calves, and in the following four years 22, 18, 16, and 12,
respectively. In later years with about 80 cows the number of calves
has ranged from 5 to 10 per year. The herd is healthy, but reproduc-
tion is deficient in spite of the infusion of new blood by the introduc-
tion of bulls from the Whitney herd. It is possible that, as Judge
Caton suspected to be the trouble in his herd, the bulls at Mount
Pocono exhaust themselves by much fighting before the rut begins.
ELK IN THE OZARK MOUNTAINS.
Col. W. C. Wetmore, of St. Louis, writes under date of April 20,
1908, that the St: Louis Park and Agricultural Company, of which he
is a member, owns several thousand acres of land in Taney County,
Mo. The land is in the Ozark Mountains and the ground rough and
hilly, though well watered. A little of the upland and some of the
valleys are tillable, and corn and oats are grown in the former and
corn and alfalfa in the latter—enough to feed the game when snow
prevents their finding their ordinary food. The preserve is sur-
rounded with an 8-foot wire fence, and in it are now about 400 elk
and 1,000 deer.
Colonel Wetmore writes further :
They are hearty and healthy and do well in every way and at all times are
fat and marketable. I am thoroughly convinced that the raising of both elk
and deer can be made very profitable where the ground, water, and other condi-
tions are favorable. Deer increase very rapidly, as a doe usually drops twins
after she is three years old. Elk do not increase so rapidly, cow elk dropping a
calf every other year, but they are hardy, and with an experience of over
twenty years I have not known one to die of natural causes. * * * Tama
lover of all wild game, particularly deer and elk, and I hope you will be suc-
cessful in interesting people in propagating them. Give them plenty of room to
run in and they will do well.
George W. Russ, of Eureka Springs, Ark., has a herd of 93 elk
(1909). They have ample range in the Ozarks on rough land covered
with hardwood forest and abundant underbrush., He reports that the
animals improve the forest by clearing out part of the thicket.
Fully 90 per cent of the females produce healthy young, and Mr.
Russ thinks he could make the business of growing elk for market
profitable if the law would permit him to kill and export the meat.
84 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
He has an offer of 40 cents a pound for the dressed carcasses in St.
Louis. If, as he claims, he can produce elk meat cheaper than beef,
pork, or mutton, this should be a remunerative price. He thinks that
large areas in the Alleghenies and Ozarks not now utilized could be
economically adapted to produce venison for sale, and he regards
the American elk as especially suited for forest grazing.
Mr. Russ, in a letter dated Eureka Springs, Ark., March 7, 1908,
sent the Department of Agriculture, through H. N. Vinall, Bureau
of Plant Industry, the following answers to the several questions
propounded :
Question 1. How many acres per elk of forest land is needed for best results?
Answer. Much depends upon the character of the forest land. In this section
of the Ozark Mountains an average of 5 acres to the head. In other sections a
larger area will be necessary. The larger the area the better the results. One
hundxed elk will fare better in a 500-acre inclosure than one elk confined on 5°
acres.
Question 2. Would it be possible for individuals to raise elk under grazing
permits in large tracts like the national forests without fencing, by some method
of feeding in a certain place or by herding?
Answer. We think it possible to raise elk by individuals having permits in
the national forests, by a system of feeding in certain places, thereby locating
these animals on the range best fitted for them, and by loose herding by well-
trained men familiar with their habits. But there are so many contingencies
to be reckoned with on an open range that in our opinion it would be far
preferable to fence.
Question 3. What is the cost per mile in forest land of an elk fence?
Answer. Again, much depends on distance from railroad, cost of labor, etc. ;
but ordinarily where posts and stays cost nothing but the making of them a
good elk fence can be built for about $200 per mile.
Question 4. Will the elk do any considerable damage to a forest in restricting
the growth of young trees of valuable species?
Answer. Elk will feed on buds and leaves 8 feet above the ground, and any
growth up to or under this is liable to be eliminated, depending upon the amount
of such food. Unless the range is very much restricted they will not eat the
bark from trees, neither will they resort to any species of evergreen. (PI. IV.)
Question 5. What has been the per cent of increase in your herd under domes-
tication ?
Answer. The increase in elk under domestication is equal to that of cattle.
Question 6. What is the average weight of an adult male? Of a female?
Answer. Male, 700 to 1,000 pounds; female, 600 to 800 pounds.
Question 7. Will they not give a greater per cent of dressed meat than
cattle?
' Answer. Yes; but owing to the game laws our experience has been limited
to a few animals. The per cent of dressed meat is much more.
PLATE IV.
Bul. 36, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
ELK IN NEW PASTURE
NEAR EUREKA SPRINGS,
ARK
ai
ner
Nee |
‘HSNYAYSAGN(] JO NOILVNIWITQ ONIMOHS ‘SMuvZO SHL NI MYVd W19
Bul. 36, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
sf
ELK IN THE OZARK MOUNTAINS. 35
Question 8. Is there at this time, or would there be in case the laws were
revised, any general demand for elk meat? At what price?
Answer. In answer to this question, we can be guided only by the very
limited demand, owing to the law prohibiting the sale of elk meat. We do,
however, receive orders from parties not familiar with the law, and letters
from many asking us if we are permitted to sell. From the fact that as
high as $1.50 per pound has been paid for this meat in New York City and
Canada, and that the best hotels and restaurants pronounce it the finest of all
the meats of mammals, we are of the opinion that if the laws were such that
domesticated elk meat could be furnished it would be many years before the
supply would make the price reasonable compared with other meats.
Question 9. What price per pound would you consider necessary to make the
production of elk meat profitable?
Answer. Elk meat can be produced in many sections of this country for
less cost per pound than beef, mutton, or pork.
Question 10. What laws, state or national, at present interfere with the
production and sale of elk meat? What are your recommendations for revising
these laws?
Answer. The remedy to the state and national laws is very simple, and at
the same time just and equitable. By simply adding or inserting the word
“wild” before the name of the animal protected. To guard against abuses,
a certificate from the owner of domesticated animals should follow them, and
proper penalties should be imposed for any violation of the laws.
Question 11. Would the elk be adapted for browsing in the Appalachian
forests from Pennsylvania south to Georgia?
Answer. Yes; I am quite familiar with the Appalachian range, and consider
it ideal.
Question 12. Are they as useful as goats in clearing out underbrush? Is it
best to use both goats and elk?
Answer. They are more useful, as they will browse as low as goats and twice
as high. I would earnestly recommend the use of both goats and elk for clearing
up brushy land and fitting it for tame grasses. Hlk and goats get along well in
the same inclosure.
Question 13. What area will they clear up per year in your section? Keep
cleared ?
Answer. So much depends on the amount of underbrush as to the average
amount elk and goats will keep cleared. The conditions in a mountainous
country are much more diversified than in a level one, the growth of underbrush
and timber often changing radically in a fourth of a mile. The average condi-
tions in this range of mountains can only be estimated approximately. Our ex-
perience has taught us that to get the best results, after stocking with elk and
goats, it is best to wait one year before seeding, then continue with elk and
goats two years more; when, if properly seeded and pastured, an open wood-
land pasture of tame grasses will be obtained (Plate V). To accomplish this,
our estimate would be an average of one elk and two goats to 5 acres. When
the underbrush and weeds have been eliminated by elk and goats, they will be
very Slow in coming in again. The life has been destroyed by the continued
browsing on bud and leaf, and not only is the stem dead but the root also, The
86 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
perennial weeds have been treated the same way. Those coming from seed
must come from outside the fence, and will find the tame grasses in possession.
Elk and goats fed on the falling leaves in the fall, thus lessening the covering
of grasses. Tame grasses will not thrive under a thick coating of dead leaves.
Question 14. Is the forest open enough after their work to permit the growth
of grass? ?
Answer. Elk and goats do not open up dense forests, except undergrowth.
It is necessary to have considerable light and sun for the growing of tame
grasses.
Question 15. After the forest land has been cleared and seeded to tame grass,
could sheep be grazed in the same lot as the elk?
Answer. In reply to this question, we answer from long experience that
eattle, sheep, and goats can be grazed in the same lots with elk, providing,
however, that the lots or inclosures are not small—the larger the area the bet-
ter; and we know of no more appropriate place to call attention to the great
benefit of a few elk in the same pasture with sheep or goats. An elk is the
natural enemy of dogs and wolves. We suffered great losses to our flocks until
we learned this fact; since then we have had no loss from that cause. A few
elk in a thousand-acre pasture will absolutely protect the flocks therein. Our
own dogs are so well aware of the danger in our elk park that they can not
be induced to enter it.
In your note you invite us to suggest any other points not covered by your
questions. We think of nothing but feed and shelter. Nature has provided the
elk with a winter coat of hair, which is in itself ample protection from any
weather conditions, and which makes artificial protection unnecessary. All that
is needed is feed, and on account of their browsing on that which is already in
our hills and low mountains but little provision is needed. Like cattle, they are
fond of grain and can be fattened on it, but may be kept in good condition
during the winter on very little roughness. To be more explicit, one-half the
ration per pound required for cattle will do for elk. We have opinions about
caring for and domesticating the wild elk, saving to the nation what yet remains,
and using them as a nucleus for general domestication and distribution. These
views we will gladly furnish if desired.
MANAGEMENT OF ELK IN INCLOSURES.
The experience of Mr. Stratton at Little Valley, N. Y., recounted
in the preceding pages, gives an excellent foundation for practice in
developing a true domesticity in the wapiti; but for economic reasons
it may not always be possible for the raiser of the elk to adopt the
same methods. He may wish to grow the animals for venison only
and on large preserves where the calves can not be tamed when young.
But when the elk is grown for stocking parks and private preserves,
the tamer the herd the easier will it be to handle and ship the stock.
RANGE.
The natural food supply is an important consideration in choosing
a range for the elk. While elk have done well in blue-grass pas-
ture and on the prairie grasses alone, they do far better on preserves
PLATE VI.
Bul. 36, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. ot Agriculture.
TAME ELK ON INDIAN ROCK GAME PRESERVE, OWNED By C. D. RICHARDSON, WEST BROOKFIELD, MASs.
MANAGEMENT OF ELK. aif
which have a variety of food—grasses, bushes, and trees. Rough
lands well watered by streams and having a considerable proportion
of forested area are best adapted to their wants. On an average such
lands will support about the same number of elk as of cattle on the
same area without impairing the range. There should be thickets
enough to furnish winter browse for the animals. A supply of winter
forage of other kinds will prevent the too rapid destruction of shrub-
bery in thickets.
FOOD.
Except in times of snow, elk will keep in excellent condition on
ordinary grass pasture, but a system of management which regularly
furnishes other food to the animals will be found better. For winter,
hay and corn fodder furnish excellent forage; but alfalfa hay has
proved to be the most satisfactory dry food that can be given to
either elk or deer. A little oats or corn, whole or chopped, may be
fed each day. Elk are fond of corn, and feeding corn and salt
affords the best opportunities for winning confidence of the animals
and taming them. Salt should be furnished liberally to all deer kept
in inclosures. Running water, although not essential, is of great im-
portance in maintaining elk in good condition. (Plate VI shows
a small herd of elk at feeding place in winter.)
FENCE.
Elk are not nervous like the common deer and seldom jump an
ordinary fence. <A fence 5 feet in height is usually sufficient to con-
fine elk, and Henry Binning, of Cora, Wyo., thinks a 4-foot woven-
wire fence is ample. When they escape from an inclosure in which
they have been fed they usually return of their own accord. Some
herds may be driven like ordinary cattle. A small inclosure for a
vicious bull elk should have a strong fence, 7 or 8 feet high. Mr. Russ
tells us that where lumber for posts is cheap a good elk fence can be
built for $200 a mile, but the actual cost will, of course, vary greatly,
according to style, cost of labor, nearness to market, and other
circumstances.
COST OF STOCK.
The cost of stocking an elk preserve is not great. Young elk in
perfect condition may be bought for $100 per head or less. A few
years ago Mr. Wilson, of Lewisburg, Ohio, paid $165 for 3 head.
A Michigan breeder recently offered a dozen head, all fine specimens,
but age and sex not given, for $500. This is, of course, a low price,
not more than cattle would bring, and less than the venison would be
worth if they could be sold in that form. The price of such stock is
determined by the law of supply and demand, and as long as the
38 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
present restrictions on the sale of deer and elk are maintained, low
prices are likely to prevail. Live elk sold at forced sale have been
known to net the owners less than $25 a head, but conditions would
soon change if the laws concerning the sale and shipment of venison
were generally made favorable for producing it in preserves. The
demand for breeding stock would grow and increase the cost of start-
ing, as well as the returns from the business.2
VICIOUSNESS OF THE MALE ELK.
Notwithstanding the viciousness of the male elk in the rutting
season, he is ordinarily docile, probably more so than the buck of the
common deer. Male elk have frequently been trained to harness
and driven in public. Lorenzo Stratton trained a pair to harness
and began exhibiting them at the Cattaraugus County (N. Y.) fair in
1853. They were a feature of the fair for several years, until he sold
them in Europe. Exhibitions of trotting elks were common at county
fairs in the Middle West a few years ago. W. H. Barnes, of Sioux
City, Iowa, trained a pair and drove them harnessed to a light vehicle.
He afterwards taught one of them to dive from a platform 30 feet
high into a pool of water, and later he exhibited the animal in this
act to admiring crowds in Europe.
The intractability of the male elk is not exceptional among deer
kept in confinement, but his great size, his long, sharp-pointed antlers,
and his thick skin, that renders him insensible to pain, make him
much more formidable than the common deer. Several tragedies
connected with attempts to domesticate the elk are matters of history.
One recorded by Judge Caton occurred in his park.? Another took
place at Bull City, Osborne County, Kans., October 12, 1879, in which
Gen. H. C. Bull was instantly killed, two other men mortally
wounded, and a fourth seriously injured by the attacks of an infuri-
ated elk that had previously been regarded as tame and docile.
Deer and elk that are wild and unconfined will, under nearly all
circumstances, run from man. When wounded they have been known
to attack hunters; but it is unlikely that an uninjured wild bull elk
would attack a human being even during the rut. The tame or par-
tially tame animals that have become familiar with man are the ones
to be feared. However, not all individuals become ill-tempered or
vicious.
It should be borne in mind that all deer when confined in small in-
closures and partly domesticated are likely to become dangerous
@Since the above paragraph was written Farmers’ Bulletin No. 380, Deer
Farming in the United States, has been issued, and an unusual demand for deer
and elk for breeding purposes has developed. Consequently prices are consider-
ably higher.
6 The Antelope and Deer of America, p. 285, 1877.
THE ELK AN ENEMY OF WOLVES AND DOGS. 39
whether they have antlers or not. They can strike a vicious blow
with the front feet; and a strong man, taken unawares, may easily
be disabled or even killed by a doe of the common deer. To over-
come the tendency to bad temper in deer would require many genera-
tions of breeding under domestication. It can not be quickly eradi-
cated by petting the animals; on the contrary, it is usually increased
by overfamiliarity. Children and strangers should be excluded from
parks and paddocks that contain deer known to be vicious. Special
precautions should be taken during the rut and when does have very
young fawns. Persons with whom the animals are familiar should
be constantly on the alert against surprise. In the rutting season no
adult male deer or elk, however mild he may be at other times, should
be trusted.
The remedy for viciousness in the male deer is castration. This
makes the animal docile. It is unsafe to keep an uncastrated male
elk over 4 years old, except in a strongly fenced inclosure. If the
operation is performed when the horns are fully developed, they will
be shed at the usual time and a new pair will take their place, but
will not fully mature nor lose the velvet.
Another effect of castration is improvement in the quality of the
meat, just as in the production of beef, pork, and mutton. Venison
erown in preserves under a system in which all the male animals
intended for slaughter are castrated should be uniformly of the
highest quality, far superior to that obtained in the wild state during
the usual open season for hunting, which comes during the rut or soon
after. This is cf great importance in fixing the final status of veni-
son grown in private preserves.
THE ELK AS AN ENEMY OF WOLVES AND DOGS.
The statement by Mr. Russ in his report on raising the elk in the
Ozarks, to the effect that elk are enemies of dogs and wolves, is of
more than passing interest. Judge Caton reported a similar ani-
mosity of his elk toward dogs, and stated that the does always led
in the chase of dogs that got into the elk park. If it is true that
these animals when umhampered by deep snow will attack and van-
quish dogs and wolves and thus help to protect domestic animals
grazing in the same pastures, a knowledge of the fact may prove use-
ful to stockmen and especially to sheep’ growers. It should be of
great advantage in changing from a system of herding to the use
of fenced pastures for flocks.
It is doubtful whether the enmity of elk for dogs and wolves ex-
tends to the animals outside of fenced pastures. Ex-President Roose-
velt in Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter reports having
seen a coyote walking unnoticed among a herd of elk in Yellow-
40 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
stone National Park. Thomas Blagden, of Washington, D. C., in-
forms the writer that ell taken from the Whitney preserve to Upper
Saranac Lake in the Adirondacks always ran from barking dogs, and
were frequently chased from the grounds of cottages near Saranac
Inn by this means; but possibly the presence of men with the dogs
had much to do with the fleeing of the elk.
THE WHITETAIL, OR VIRGINIA DEER.
Since the whitetail is the most widely distributed of American
Cervide, there can be no question of its adaptability to nearly all sec-
tions of the United States. Testimony as to its hardiness in parks
and preserves is not so unanimous as in case of the wapiti; but the
general opinion of breeders is that with suitable range, plenty of
good water, and reasonable care in winter the business of raising
the animals for stocking parks and for venison may be made as profit-
able as any other live-stock industry. It has the advantage that land
unsuited for cattle may be utilized in raising deer.
Advocates of the Angora goat industry state that in the United
States there are 250,000,000 acres of land not suited for tillage nor
as pasture for horses, cattle, or sheep, which are well adapted to
goats. Much of this land is equally well suited to deer and elk,
which do less injury than goats to the forest cover.
Probably experiments in domestication have oftener been made
with white-tailed deer than with any other North American mammal.
The great beauty of the young fawns appealed to the earliest settlers,
who soon learned how easily they could be tamed and how readily
they attached themselves to those who fed them. The danger from
these same pets, especially the males, when grown, was soon learned
also. Thus the experiment usually ended with the maturity of the
subject, which was soon disposed of or banished to a safe inclosure.
Deer parks were established in early times on a considerable num-
ber of the large estates, or manors, in Maryland, Virginia, and New
York. At least one of those in Maryland dated back to the seven-
teenth century. The early parks seem to have been generally stocked
with fallow deer brought from England. The Revolutionary strug-
gle marked the destruction of nearly all the private deer preserves;
but a few of them, especially in Maryland, continued in existence,
and others were restocked after the end of the war. As few fallow
deer were imported later, and it was generally believed that our
native deer were unsuited for park purposes, private preserves did
not become numerous. The common opinion as to native deer was
expressed by the eminent authority on landscape gardening, A. J.
Downing, who in 1852 wrote as follows:
All attempts to render our native deer really tame on home grounds have,
so far as we know, failed among us, though with patience the thing may
EARLY DEER PARKS. 41
doubtless be done. It would be well worth while to import the finer breeds of
English deer, which are thoroughly domesticated in their habits and the most
beautiful objects for a park.%
When the above was written, both Virginia deer and American
elk were doing well in a number of parks in the United States, and
had been acclimatized in parks in England and on the Continent,
where they were almost as tame and fully as hardy as the fallow
deer. That these facts should have escaped the notice of Mr. Down-
ing seems remarkable.
The American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine for April,
1831, contains a letter from W. E., of Roanoke, N. C., in which he
gave interesting details concerning his berd of domesticated deer.
These he claimed were so tame that his hounds readily distinguished
their track from those of wild deer that occasionally visited the park.
He wrote in part:
One-half of my park being a forest, the deer shelter themselves in it during
bad weather, and they dislike cold so much that frequently they will not leave
their shelter to come to the troughs, which are in an unprotected part of the
inclosure. To prevent fights there should be at least one trough for every two
deer. I feed ghem on Indian meal, having found by experience that raw corn
is apt to swell and kill them. One quart of meal per day is sufficient to keep
a deer always fat. They are very fond of Sweet potatoes, which they will eat
though half rotten; they like the leaves but not the root of turnips.
Deer are very prolific. I have never owned but two does that had less than
two fawns at a birth. A friend of mine owned a doe that had three fawns
three years in succession and they were all females. * * *
I have known but one doe to have fawns before she was 2 years old. * *
They generally bring forth from the 1st to the 20th of June. The earliest
that I have known was the 18th of May and the latest the 12th of July.
Should a doe die leaving fawns, one of the other does attends to the fawns as
well as if they were her own. Just before the time for them to have young,
I put them up in six-sided pens made of rails. The fawns at first are quite
wild. JI do not have them turned out of the pens before they are perfectly
gentle.
*
The raising of deer for profit has seldom or never been undertaken
in a systematic way in the United States. Breeders have stocked
preserves with deer as game for private use or grown the animals in
small inclosures for the pleasure of owning them. But the economic
possibilities are now beginning to be apparent. Some who have
abandoned the business for lack of proper range are yet convinced
that it might be made profitable. From a mass of correspondence,
the writer has selected the experiences which bear most upon eco-
nomic results and upon the proper management of the animals in
semidomestication.
@Rural Hssays, p. 174, 1854.
42 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
EXPERIENCES OF BREEDERS.
While hunting in the Adirondacks in 1874, Thomas Blagden, of
Argyle, near Washington, D. C., captured a pair of fawns and took
them to his home. In due time these deer bred and became the
ancestors of several hundred head. In 1902 Mr. Blagden transferred
48 of his herd to his summer home at Saranac Inn, Upper Saranac
Lake, in the Adirondacks. (Plate VII.) On account of insuffi-
cient range and food, both herds have been greatly reduced by sales,
and the greater part of the Argyle herd has been destroyed by
worthless dogs.
Mr. Blagden is confident that under proper conditions the business
of raising deer may be made to pay well. In his own herd, by secur-
ing new bucks from time to time, he has carefully avoided continued
inbreeding. His stock is vigorous and of the large size character-
istic of the Adirondack and other northern deer. On this account
they command an exceptionally high price, $50 each for bucks and
$75 each for does. He feeds grain, using corn, and a mixture of
bran and meal. During the summer as much wild food as possible
is cut for the deer, which always care more for the rankest weeds
than for the choicest grass. Of hays they prefer alfalfa to other
kinds.
Mr. Blagden regards the water supply of a deer park as extremely
important. Running water should be constantly accessible to the
animals. He attributes the great winter mortality among wild deer
in the Adirondacks entirely to the fact that all water courses are
frozen solid, and to obtain water deer are forced to eat sleet-covered
shrubbery, which, he thinks, poisons them.
W. R. McKeen, of Terre Haute, Ind., has a large herd of deer on
his stock farm near that city. The Sportsmen’s Review quoted an
account of this herd from an Indianapolis newspaper stating that it
is one of the largest, if not the largest, herd of near-domesticated
deer in the State. The herd was started nearly twenty years ago
with about half a dozen animals and with no idea of profit. With
the exception of a few dairy cows, no other stock is now kept on the
farm. The demand for deer is fairly active. Each fall a consider-
able number are sold, and shortly before the Christmas holidays of
1906 between 30 and 40 were disposed of. The deer are sold to per-
sons having parks of their own and to museums, menageries, and the
like. There is also a demand each winter for venison. Altogether
the sales keep the increase of the herd from overstocking the place.?
Writing March 28, 1908, John W. Griggs, of Goodell, Iowa, states
that he has been engaged in raising deer about fourteen years. Until
two years ago he sold his surplus stock for parks, but since then has
«§portsmen’s Review, XXXII, 286, Sept. 14, 1907.
PLATE VII.
, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Biological Survey
Bul. 36,
VIRGINIA DEER IN PARK BELONGING
BREEDING VIRGINIA DEER. 43
disposed of about half of it for venison. For park purposes he gets
$20 to $30 a head; when fattened for venison they bring $20 to $35
a head. The animals do well in captivity. Mr. Griggs says fur-
ther: “In raising a large herd the park should be divided into two
or three lots, and.one plowed each year and sown to red clover, mus-
tard, rape, and seeds of different kinds of weeds. Blue grass and
timothy are useless. Corn is the principal grain I feed. I feed it
winter and summer. In winter I feed also clover hay, oat straw,
and weedy wild hay. Deer when rightly handled are very prolific,
and from 50 does one can count on 75 fawns. Deer can be raised
profitably for venison—very profitably until overdone—but I would
not advise one to go into it on a large scale without previous expe-
rience with deer.”
Charles Goodnight, of Goodnight, Tex., writing March 26, 1908,
states that he kept deer and elk on his plains pastures for a number
of years, until he became convinced that his ranch was unsuited to
browsing or partly browsing animals. He says: “ With a properly
selected place, the raising of these animals is not only practicable but
very profitable. I should select a rough, broken piece of country
with some prairie and glades, covered with as great a variety of
shrubbery as possible. Deer will not eat ordinary grass if they can
help it, but will eat wild rye and other kinds of soft grasses. With
a properly seleareel place they are of very little expense after the
pasture is fenced.’
R. H. Harris, of Clarksville, To on January 16, 1908, wrote that
he had been mone; in raising Neen deer for sonar years, and
thinks that the business is admirably adapted for the profitable in-
vestment of capital. The Virginia deer is suited to almost every sec-
tion of the United States. It is prolific, each doe usually producing
twins. These grow very rapidly, and become the most beautiful,
graceful, and healthy animals known. The demand for venison and
deerskins is unlimited, the flesh being very high priced in city
restaurants and cafés.
“ No other meat,” says Mr. Harris, “is equal to venison as a diet for
the sick, it being easily digested and agreeing with the most delicate
stomachs. Deer are easily tamed; the wildest fawn, if taken from
the herd when young, will in a few hours become as gentle as a pet
dog. I have for several years been raising them in large numbers.
They run at will in woodlands and fields, are never handled, but fed
occasionally, and are as gentle as a common herd of cattle. They are
easily and cheaply raised and seldom, if ever, die from natural causes.
After years of practical experience, I unhesitatingly state that the
raising of deer is in profitableness second only to the raising of cattle.
“The cost of feeding deer averages about one-half cent each per
day. They feed on all kinds of vegetables, buds, and leaves of trees,
44 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
growing wheat, clover, peas, barley, oats, ete. Cotton seed is also a
very cheap and satisfactory food for them. They eat also corn, bran,
chops, fruit, and in fact anything that man or beast will eat, except
dry hay. They live from twenty to twenty-five years. They are
easily confined by a woven wire or barbed wire fence, 64 feet in
height.”
A DOMESTICATED HERD OF DEER.
C. H. Roseberry, of Stella, Mo., writes under date of January 13,
1908, as follows:
My experience in breeding the common or Virginia deer covers a period of
seventeen years, beginning in March, 1891, when as a boy of 16 I built a small
inclosure of 14 acres to confine a single doe that was captured as a fawn in the
neighboring forest. A buck and other does were secured from year to year until
in 1900 by purchase and natural increase my herd numbered 25 head of all ages.
From 1891 to 1901 I lost every year from disease an average of 20 per cent.
The climax came in the drought year of 1901, when my loss was 50 per cent
from the disease known as “ black tongue.” Iam convinced that, as with cholera
in swine, individuals recovering from this disease are immune from further
attack. Apparently all of my herd were afflicted. The survivors and their
progeny constitute my present breeding stock. I have made no purchases since
1901, nor have I suffered any loss from disease.
For the last seven years my herd has averaged 70 per cent increase, all of
which I have sold at satisfactory prices. I began selling at $20 per pair of
fawns at 4 months of age and $39 per pair of adults. I now get $40 and $60,
respectively. I sell almost exclusively for pets and for propagating purposes,
although a few surplus bucks have been sold for venison, averaging me 15 cents
per pound gross weight.
If we except the goat, I know of no domestic animal common to the farm that
requires so little feed and attention as the deer. My herd has a range of only
15 acres, two-thirds of which is set to white clover, blue grass, and orchard
grass. I provide also a small plat of wheat or rye for winter pasture. With
the above provision in this latitude no feed is required between April 15 and
November 15. During the rest of the year a ration of corn, bran, or other mill
feed, somewhat smaller than that required for sheep, in connection with a
stack of clover or pea hay to which they have free access, is sufficient to keep
them in good condition. Deer eat with relish nearly all of the common coarse
weeds, and for clearing land of brush they are, I think, second only to the
common goat.
Probably the greatest expense connected with the business of raising deer
is the fencing. Another item of trouble and expense when the animals are
raised for pets, requiring that they be handled and shipped alive, is the fact
that the fawns must be taken from the does when 10 days old and raised by
hand on cow’s milk. They are quite easily raised in this way, with but slight
percentage of loss, but require frequent and careful attention for the first
month. (Plate VIII.) When they are allowed to run with the does their nat-
ural wildness can not be overcome, no matter how gentle the does may be.
(Plate ITI, fig. 1.)
I have found the business profitable on the lines indicated. I believe they
could be profitably bred for venison alone, certainly with less trouble and
expense, since the fawns would be reared by the does and the trouble and
expense of raising by hand eliminated.
PLATE VIII.
Bul. 36, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
FAWNS OF THE VIRGINIA DEER AT KENT DEER PARK, HOME OF C.
H. ROSEBERRY, STELLA, Mo.
DEER HYBRIDS. 45
My experience does not coincide with that of some other breeders in respect
to the weakening of reproductive powers of deer by their confinement in parks.4
I have no barren does. Usually they produce a single fawn at 2 years of age;
afterwarus twins, and, in rare cases, triplets.
INCREASE OF WHITE-TAILED DEER IN DOMESTICATION.
Karly in 1900 a pet doe heavy with fawn was delivered at the
Taney County, Mo., game preserve belonging to the St. Louis Park
and Agricultural Company. The doe had been thoroughly domesti-
cated, and, refusing to join the wild deer in the preserve, remained
near the home of the tenant and under the immediate care of his
family. In the spring of 1900 she gave birth to two fawns, both does,
which became as gentle as the mother. In the spring of 1901 the
old doe again dropped 2 fawns. In 1902 there was an increase of
4 fawns, each of the young of 1900 having given birth to a fawn.
By the spring of 1905 the domestic herd had increased to 25 deer,
all the increase of 1 pet doe.?
A herd of mule deer at Crawfordsville, Ind., has increased with
almost equal rapidity. These deer belong to James F. Boots, and
are kept in a 4-acre inclosure. Mr. Boots writes that in 1899 he
brought a buck fawn from Colorado, and nearly four years later he
secured 2 adult does. From this stock he has had fawns as follows:
1904, 4; 1905, 4; 1906, 8; 1907, 10; 1908, 5; 1909, 10: from the 5 does
then kept. All were raised except those born in 1908, the loss of
which was attributed to excessive heat.
DEER HYBRIDS.
However undesirable hybrids among wild animals may be regarded
by naturalists, the production of them among domesticated or semi-
domesticated species is of great economic importance. The experi-
ments of breeders in hybridizing deer, aside from the apparent value
of the results obtained, are highly interesting. Mention has already
been made of hybrids between the American wapiti and the red deer
as well as the Altai wapiti. The first of these crosses was obtained
by the Prince of Pless, in Silesia, about a half century ago.
Judge Caton made experiments at Ottawa, Ill., and obtained a
number of hybrids, the most important being those between the Vir-
ginia deer and the Acapulco deer (Odocotleus toltecus) and between
the Virginia deer and the Ceylon deer (Cervus axis). These deer
exhibited no natural tendency to breed together, but when the male
of the exotic species was absent or accidentally lost he introduced
the buck of the Virginia deer.
“Cf. Caton, J. D., Antelope and Deer of North America, p. 304, 1877
® Second Annual Report Missouri Game and Fish Warden, p. 20, 1907.
46 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
John W. Griggs, of Goodell, Iowa, has succeeded in crossing the
mule deer with several races of the whitetail. The hybrids were ob-
tained by isolating the pairs in separate yards. As long as the dif-
ferent species or races are kept in a common pasture, each kind herds
by itself and no sexual association between the different kinds takes
place. Under such circumstance or in the wild state crosses are ex-
ceedingly rare. Mr. Griggs obtained his hybrids by placing a buck
of the mule deer with whitetail does before the rut began, and the
offspring proved to be highly satisfactory as to size and stamina,
and also were perfectly fertile. As was to be expected, however,
offspring in the second generation of hybrids varied much in form,
size, and other characteristics, and on the whole were not so satisfac-
tory as the first generation. He thinks that his hybrids with the mule
deer have stronger constitutions than the Virginia deer and are less
liable to disease.
Charles Goodnight, of Goodnight, Tex., writes that he crossed the
mule deer with the white-tailed deer with great success, making a
valuable and beautiful animal with greater size and better meat than —
the common deer. The hybrids were fertile also, and Mr. Goodnight
would have continued his experiments further, but, having no shrub-
bery or trees within his range, he found it unsuited to deer and liber-
ated his herd.
HABITS AND MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA DEER.
Deer are polygamous like cattle. The rutting season is in Novem-
ber, the period of gestation is 205 to 212 days (about seven months),
and the fawns are born in May or June. The young does breed
usually when about seventeen months old, and have but one fawn the
first time; afterwards they commonly have twins. The fawns are
spotted, and remain so until the hair is shed in the fall.
The white-tailed deer is even more a browsing animal than the elk;
and yet it can and often does manage to get along in summer on
grass alone. In a cultivated pasture it eats rank weeds and wild
grasses in preference to timothy or blue grass. Observation of deer
feeding in a pasture several hundred feet away is insufficient to
determine accurately what they are eating. A writer in The Ameri-
can Field states that he often saw mule deer apparently eating grass
in the Colorado parks, and he had no doubt that they did so until a
hunter informed him that they would not eat grass unless they
could obtain no other food. Afterwards he had a number of times
examined the stomachs of deer he had killed, and only once found
what was unmistakably grass.*
6 American Field, XXII, 609, Dec. 27. 1884.
HABITS OF VIRGINIA DEER. 47
The Biological Survey has examined a few stomachs of deer killed -
in the United States. A Columbia black-tailed deer taken in the
Chemise Mountains, Mendocino County, Cal., had eaten acorns and
an equal bulk of foliage, mostly willow leaves. A young deer of the
same species taken on Mount Shasta, California, had grass in its
stomach. Three individuals of the Arizona race of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus couesi), taken at different times, had eaten,
respéctively, leaves of the little blue live oak (Quercus grisea),
with some flowers and flower stems of Nolina lindheimeriana; green
foliage, seeds, berries, and the pods, beans, and leaves of Acacia sp.;
and green leaves of Thermopsis montana, vetch, strawberry, gera-
nium, Senecio (two species), aspen, and a flat green lichen—no trace
of grass or acorns. A white-tailed deer killed in Minnesota in April
had nothing but lichens in its stomach.
In captivity deer eat almost every kind of vegetation, including
all sorts of garden stuff. They are fond of acorns, beechnuts, chest-
nuts, and other mast. Lily pads, fallen leaves, lichens, and mosses
are freely eaten; so that, with plenty of range and an abundant
variety of plants, there is little difficulty about food for deer. A
good supply of running water must be provided, and the animals
should have access to rock salt. If the browse and pasture are scant,
some grain should be fed even in summer, and it is best to feed regu-
larly in winter. Of the grains, corn is generally recommended ;
there is no waste in feeding it, as deer pick up every grain. Coarse
hay full of weeds is oer ble to timothy or other tame hays, ex-
cept alfalfa. Of clover hay, deer usually pick out the dry flower
heads greedily, but waste the other parts. In the northern half of
the United States winter shelter should be provided for deer.
The practice of pasturing hogs in deer parks is objectionable, since
they destroy nearly all the mast. For this reason the wild boar is
unsuited for American game preserves intended for deer and wild
turkeys.
VICIOUS BUCKS.
The dangerous character of some deer, especially the males, in semi-
domestication has already been discussed. The whitetail is no excep-
tion. Charles C. Worthington, writing to the Biological Survey of
his experience with vicious bucks, says:
The first serious difficulty I experienced, and one the gravity of which should
not be lost sight of by anyone starting a preserve, was with the tame bucks at
the rutting season. These bucks from being tame and docile would become at
this season fierce and dangerous. They would attack anyone at sight, even a
person on horseback or in a wagon. Some of the gamekeepers had narrow
escapes from being killed; in one or two instances being seriously injured. A
pedestrian’s only chance for escape was to climb a tree. Those bucks which
developed this ferocity had to be systematically hunted and shot on sight.
A8 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
Those left were the ones that had not been originally tamed, and not being
accustomed to the sight of man, had not courage enough to make an attack. My
experience is that a wild buck, even in the rutting season, still retains his nat-
ural fear of man, and, except when wounded, is never dangerous.
Instances of fatalities from attacks of vicious bucks of the Virginia
deer are not lacking. A rather recent one was the death of Herbert
Bradley at Montclair, N. J., November 10, 1906. While working
alone on his grounds, he was attacked by a pet deer and so badly
wounded that he bled to death before aid could be obtained.
The remarks about castrating the elk apply as well to the common
deer. A number of vigorous bucks, however, must form a part of any
considerable herd, for a single buck can serve only a limited number
of does. One buck for each ten or twelve does will probably be
enough. New bucks should frequently be introduced to avoid in-
breeding.
CAPTURING LIVE DEER FOR SHIPMENT.
In 1887 C. W. Marsh, of De Kalb, Ill., in a letter to The American
Field, said:
Thirteen years ago this spring I fenced in a few acres of natural woodland
with a bit of prairie adjoining my residence lot for deer; the fence was 83 feet
high and proportionately strong. I advertised for deer, and during the season
got a buck from Sioux City, caught in Dakota; a doe from Kansas; another
from Missouri; and still another from a gentleman in De Kalb, this last having
been sent to him when a fawn from Arkansas. They were all red or Virginia
deer, but showed considerable difference in size, form, and disposition; and
they were all tame; that is, had been pets and would bear handling; hence had
come quietly and unharmed in their cages. These began breeding at once, the
does dropping two fawns generally. The young deer were as wild probably as
any in the forest at first, but as the does were tame they also soon became
quite tame, though not one has ever submitted to handling. They were rugged,
hearty fellows, and in course of a few years I had a herd of over twenty. Occa-
sionally I killed one for venison, and as they increased so fast I caught and
gave a number to friends and sold a few. While the old does lived the young
were easily caught, as the former would go into any cage or trap for food dur-
ing the winter months and the latter would follow, and although they would
struggle fiercely when caught, they gave up and quieted down as soon as hands
were removed. None were lost in shipping. In due time the old does died, and
all of my present herd except one buck were dropped by does that were bred
in the park. Apparently each succeeding generation became wilder and more
difficult to catch, and I have for some few years past thinned them out in the fall
by shooting and marketing them. Still, they always answer my whistle and
come around me for food. * * *
They are hardy, active, and very shy of anything strange, but manifest strong
attachment for home. Several times during these many years dogs have gotten
into the park and run some of them out. When scared thus, nothing will
stop them, and they will either go through or over any fence—they have
frequently bounded over mine, 84 feet high—but when out they will usually
jump back again of their own volition, even though they had been off in the
woods or about the park outside for weeks. In such instances they hung
CAPTURING DEER FOR SHIPMENT. 49
around for a time seeking an easy entrance apparently (it is useless to try to
drive them in), and failing in that they finally jumped over or smashed through
the fence. When out they are very wild, but when they get in will come up
for feed and be as tame and unconcerned as before.
As a culmination to the increasing wildness of his herd, Mr. Marsh
found that in capturing and crating deer which he sold for stocking
purposes he lost a large per cent as a result of exhaustion from their
struggles. Mr. Blagden relates a like experience in shipping live
deer to purchasers, but later he overcame the difficulty by an ingen-
ious trapping device. Charles C. Worthington uses a similar trap at
his Warren County (N. J.) preserve.
In a recent letter to the Biological Survey, Mr. Worthington de-
scribes his deer trap as follows:
As a demand exists for deer to be used for the restocking of state lands and
for establishing private preserves, I, several years ago, began experiments in
trapping them. It was well known that a wild deer caught in any small in-
closure of wire will kill himself in his efforts to escape, but believing that
he would not do this if the fence were made in such a way as to prevent his
seeing through it, I constructed an oblong trap, about 20 feet wide and 30 feet
deep, of boards 10 feet high, nailed closely together, so that nothing could be
seen through them. A board door of the same height and running loosely in
vertical grooves was fitted to one end, and opposite to it a narrow board
passageway was built just high enough for a deer to enter and about 5 feet
long; at the outer extremity of this passageway was placed a similar sliding
door, big enough to close tightly the end of the passage. The main door is
held open by a wire that extends several hundred feet to a blind, where the
trapper stands concealed. When the snows are on the ground, this trap is
baited with tempting food, which the deer finally enter the trap to secure.
When it is found that they enter the trap without hesitation, a man stations
himself on watch, and at such time as a number of deer are inside, drops the
sliding door and imprisons them. They are left for a few hours until their
first fright is somewhat allayed. Then crates, just large enough to hold one
deer, and having only enough openings to supply sufficient ventilation, are
placed, one at a time, in front of the smaller sliding door at the end of the
passage. The crates are provided with a corresponding door. These being
raised, the deer are made to enter the crates one at a time, and so are secured.
The men, during this entire operation, remain concealed.
This form of trap has proved effective and satisfactory in every way. There
have been caught in it during the last few years over 300 deer, which have been
transferred to various localities throughout the country with a death rate of
less than 4 per cent. The trapping operations have to be discontinued by the
middle of February, owing to the does being then so heavy with fawn that any
attempt to crate and transfer them is attended with too much risk.
The game commissioners of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have purchased
numbers of these deer to be liberated in various parts of their respective States.
The experiment of restocking districts from which these animals disappeared
long ago has proven most successful and popular.
¢ American Field, XX VII, 295, 1887.
50 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
WILD DEER IN PRIVATE PRESERVES.
In many parts of the United States private preserves have been
established by either individuals or associations and stocked with
deer and other big game. Such enterprises have met opposition from
both citizens and sportsmen, the latter being frequently ousted from
favorite hunting grounds by the fencing and posting of such pre-
serves. The feeling against large deer parks in America is in part a
survival of an Old World prejudice against them, but in the main
results from doubt of the wisdom of permitting large holdings of
unproductive land. In a majority of the States private preserves
are still subject to all the game laws of the State, so far as time and
manner of hunting in them are concerned, and thus the owners are
unable to reap the full economic advantage of their possession. While
these conditions prevail, large game preserves are open to the objec-
tion that they are sources of wealth which are not fully utilized.
A few private preserves have been stocked with exotic game—red
deer, wild boars, and the like—and in many of them large expendi-
tures have been necessary to provide good sport. In some of the
States the rights of owners of such preserves to the unrestricted use
of the game within them is not clear, while such rights are clearly set
forth or denied in the laws of others. As long as game within the
preserve is comparatively scarce, owners will be content to use it in
strict conformity to the hunting laws of the State. But when the
game increases so as to overstock the preserve, or to become a source
of revenue to the promoters, greater privileges will be demanded and
will have to be granted, for grades of domesticity in deer and elk
are not sharply drawn, and there is no difference, so far as owner-
ship is concerned, between those raised in parks for venison and those
produced in a fenced preserve for sport.
Full recognition of private ownership in game does not interfere
with the right of the State so to regulate its disposal as not to jeopard-
ize the preservation of wild game. Game regulations must be insisted
upon, and the owners of private preserves will usually be as vigilant
as anyone in helping to enforce them.
The increase of white-tailed deer, when protected within suitable
large fenced preserves, is remarkably rapid, and there is no doubt as
to success in propagating them under natural conditions as wild
game. The experience of a large number of hunting clubs and indi-
viduals that have stocked preserves is favorable. In the ten years
between 1892 and 1902 deer in Buckland Park, the Warren County,
N. J., preserve belonging to Charles C. Worthington, increased from
19 to about 400 head, a number considered too large for the sustain-
ing capacity of the park. The St. Louis Park and Agricultural Com-
pany have about 1,000 deer and 400 elk on their large preserve in
Taney County, Mo. About six years ago the Otzinachson Rod and
BEFFECT OF PRESERVES ON GAME SUPPLY. 51
Gun Club, of Clinton County, Pa., placed about 90 deer, mostly does,
in their 4,000-acre park. These have multiplied to nearly 2,000 head,
and a further increase of about 1,000 fawns was expected during the’
season of 1908. These experiences in stocking large preserves with
deer, although highly successful, are probably not exceptional.
EFFECT ON GAME SUPPLY.
The effect of private preserves on the supply of game in the State
should not be overlooked. While they may temporarily restrict the
hunting privileges of a few citizens, ultimately they become a source
of game supply secondary in importance only to state preserves.
Already a number of private preserves have become overstocked, and
game has escaped or been turned out to become the property of the
people. Both deer and elk are said to have escaped from the Corbin
preserve in New Hampshire and from the Whitney preserve in
Massachusetts. The game in the well-stocked preserve of Dr. W. S.
Webb in the Adirondacks became the property of the State when, in
1903, the owner demolished the fences which for many years had sur-
rounded his 8,000-acre park.
Charles C. Worthington writes, May 21, 1908, that when, in 1902,
the deer in his New Jersey preserve became too numerous to be sup-
ported by the acreage inclosed, several wide gates were left open for a
few months. Few of the animals availed themselves of the oppor-
tunity to escape. Mr. Worthington says: “ There was little incentive
for them to leave the inclosure, and most of those that did probably
returned at the first alarm, their instinct directing them to the in-
closure as a protected, safe retreat. The few that remained outside
have increased in numbers, until now the region round about for a
radius of several miles is well stocked. While some complaint has
been made by the farmers in the neighborhood that the deer destroy
some of their grain, the general sentiment is in favor of having the
laws for their protection rigidly enforced.”
The success of private enterprise in propagating deer in inclosures
is an object lesson for state game commissions and others, and sug-
gests that the State should undertake similar work for the public.
The establishment of game preserves on public lands of the State is
a most important step in game preservation, especially if the lands
are already stocked with wild deer. But the further introduction
of breeding animals will hasten multiplication, until the preserve be-
comes a source of game supply for the surrounding territory. While
more national preserves are needed, a system of state preserves is all-
important. Those already established in Pennsylvania and other
States have proved highly useful, and it may truthfully be said that
in every country that has tried them, public game preserves have been
instrumental in increasing the game supply.
52 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
GAME PROPAGATION AND GAME LAWS.
The chief obstacle to profitable game propagation in the United
States lies in the restrictive character of state laws affecting the kill-
ing, sale, and transportation of game. Many of the States, follow-
ing precedent, lay down the broad rule that all the game in the State.
whether resident or migratory, is the property of the State. <A few
of them, notably Nebraska, North Dakota, and Tennessee, except
such game animals as are “ under private ownership legally acquired.”
A few others encourage private ownership by providing means by
which wild animals may be captured for domestication. Generally,
where private ownership of game is recognized by law, the right to
kill such game is granted, but the owner is hampered by the same
regulations as to season, sale, and shipment that apply to wild game.’
One by one, however, state legislatures are coming to recognize the
interests of game propagators and to modify the game laws to meet
the changed view.
TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE DEER.
Except in a few States that provide for the capture of wild deer
under permits, the only source of stock for private preserves is the
animals already in captivity. Hitherto the shipment of live deer
and elk from private preserves has often been permitted because
game wardens and others interested could see no advantage from
interfering, notwithstanding that a literal construction of the law
in many States would absolutely forbid such shipments. Pennsyl-
vania is one of the few States that give owners of private deer pre-
serves the positive right to sell and ship deer or fawns at any time
for propagating purposes.
TRANSPORTATION OF VENISON.
Under the license system and within specified limitations, some of
the States permit the holder of a hunting license to ship venison
lawfully killed to his home within or without the State. The gen-
eral transportation of venison, as well as its export out of the State
in which it was killed, is usually forbidden. Only a few States
permit the export of deer, and two of them—Delaware and Ohio—
have no deer, so that the animals are not mentioned in recent game
laws of those States. The laws forbidding export usually specify
deer or parts of the carcasses of deer; so that the legal shipment of
live deer is impossible except in States which make provision for their
export for propagating purposes.
Before 1909 the two sections in the game law of New York refer-
ring to the killing and sale of deer specified “ wild deer,” but in the
section relating to transportation the word “ deer” was unqualified.
The manner in which this omission at first affected the owner of a
KILLING DEER RAISED IN PRIVATE PARKS. 53
private preserve is illustrated by the decision rendered in 1907 in the
case of Dieterich v. Fargo."
The American Express Company refused to receive and transport
deer raised and killed in a private preserve in Dutchess County.
The owner of the herd, Charles F. Dieterich, found it necessary to
Ixill some of the bucks each year and ship them to New York for
sale. On the refusal of the express company to transport his venison,
he applied for a temporary injunction against its president, James
C. Fargo, claiming that the law prohibiting transportation did not
apply to domesticated deer. The supreme court of New York
County, in December, 1906, decided in favor of Dieterich. This
decision was reversed by the appellate division of the supreme court
of the State, May 10, 1907, by a majority of the court. The opinion
by Justice O’Gorman was to the effect that the section of the law
prohibiting the transportation of deer from one county to another,
and requiring express companies to refuse to accept deer when not
accompanied by the owner, applied to domesticated as well as to wild
deer. The transportation of deer raised on a private preserve was
held to be subordinate to the police power of the State. One of the
dissenting opinions held that Dieterich had the same natural and
legal right to fence his farm and devote it to the propagation of
deer that he had to use it for raising cattle or sheep.
To market his deer in 1908 Mr. Dieterich resorted to the novel
expedient of paying transportation for a number of men in the city
of New York to go to his country preserve, each shoot a deer and
accompany the carcass to market, as required by the law. However,
the New York court of appeals finally, February 23, 1909, reversed
the decision of the lower court and held—one of the six judges dis-
senting—that the law concerning transportation of venison did not
apply to that from domesticated deer bred in confinement, and that
the owner of such\deer was not restricted as to the number he may
kill and ship during the open season. The law regulating transpor-
tation of venison has recently been amended to provide for shipment
from private preserves.
As would be expected by those familiar with the history of British
deer preserves, the laws of the various Canadian Provinces are in
general more liberal toward the owners of private deer parks. The
general tariff law of Canada permits the export of any home-bred
deer under regulations made by the Governor General in Council.
KILLING DEER RAISED IN PRIVATE PARKS.
The failure to except deer kept in private preserves from the opera-
tion of the laws providing a close season for wild deer prevents
the owner of deer from using the venison for food in his own family.
2102 N. Y., Supp. 720.
54 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
He is restricted to a very short open season at a time when, on account
of the rut, the animals are least desirable for food. If permitted
to sell the venison, even in his own State or county, he must do it
during the same limited period, when, owing to the presence of wild
game in the market, he may be compelled to accept an extremely low
price. To make the business of growing venison profitable, the
grower must be able to choose his own time for marketing the
product, as in case of beef or pork.
SALE OF VENISON.
In more than half the States and Territories the sale of venison
from private preserves is illegal at all times, and until recently the
sale was illegal in nearly all the States. Several States now forbid
the sale of venison produced within them, but permit the sale of that
imported from other States, a most unjust discrimination against
home industry.
A recent experience in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, illustrates
how the law sometimes affects private ownership of deer. The facts
are gathered from newspapers, but in the main have been verified by
correspondence. J. Cuppy, of Avoca, owned a herd of 20 deer, but
died a few years ago without direct heirs and without having made
provision for the deer, which had escaped from their inclosure. The
administrators could not catch the animals nor lawfully kill them.
The herd has increased to nearly 200 head of partly wild deer. They
forage on the farms and gardens of the neighborhood, doing some
damage, especially to stacks of alfalfa and corn shocks. No one may
legally kill them, and prosecutions promptly followed when the county
officials learned that a few of them had been shot and converted into
venison.
The decision in the case of the State of Missouri v. Weber (102
S. W., 955) further illustrates the tendency of courts to give a
literal interpretation to laws in order to uphold police regulations
concerning game. Hight deer, from which the evidences of sex had
been removed, were exposed for sale in the Kansas City market.
They had been raised on a stock farm in Henry County, and came
from a tame herd which had been in possession of the owner for
twenty-five years. They were kept with cattle in a pasture sur-
rounded by a high fence. The animals were never hunted, but the
owner had been accustomed to kill several of them every year for
sale in the Kansas City market. Defendant Weber was arrested and
tried in the Jackson County criminal court in December, 1906. The
defense was that the law did not refer to tame but to wild deer. The
defendant was found guilty, and appealed his case. It was trans-
ferred from the court of appeals to the supreme court, which in its
decision upheld the lower court. The court held that the law applied
STATE LAWS CONCERNING DEER IN PARKS. 55
to tame deer #s well as wild, and further that the act did not violate
the constitutional prohibition of taking private property for public
uses without compensation.
George S. Good, of Lock Haven, Pa., wrote in April, 1908, that
deer had multiplied so rapidly in the preserve belonging to the
Otzinachson Rod and Gun Club that the annual increase would soon
reach about 1,000 animals. He thought the time not far distant when
the club would be compelled to market or dispose of 1,000 deer each
year to prevent overstocking the preserve. But at that time the law
of the State did not permit the club to sell these animals except to
stock other preserves; neither could they be killed except in strict
conformity with the laws of the State concerning wild deer. Each of
the 14 members of the club or guests of the club could take one deer
in the open season.
If the surplus animals from large preserves like that just men-_
tioned could be turned into venison and sold judiciously, they would
become a source of steady revenue. A thousand adult deer marketed
when the time is favorable should yield a gross income of nearly
$25,000 a year. The Pennsylvania legislature of 1909 passed a law
providing a means by which venison from private parks may be sold
in the open season.
Attorney-General Atkinson, of Washington, in 1906, delivered an
opinion concerning game raised in captivity, part of which is of
interest in this connection: z ~
It is a well-known principle of law in States generally that wild birds or ani-
mals which have been kept in captivity and have become more or less domesti-
eated, when reclaimed by the art and power of man, are the subject of qualified
property, and are, as a general rule, under the protection of the law the same as
any other property, and are at the disposal of the owner for using or selling
as he desires. This seems to have been the law for thousands of years in
civilized countries, and it would seem to have been the sensible principle to
follow; for without doubt all animals and birds were once wild in fere nature
state, and by the application of this principle all people have tamed and
acquired domesticity in animals and fowls from the game state, from elephants
and horses and cattle down to chickens and canary birds.
It is my opinion that our laws in this State covering the subject were in-
tended by the legislatures to relate strictly to game, meaning animals and birds
in their wild, free, roving state, and these statutes were not intended in any
manner to limit or prevent any probable or possible occupation or industrial
development relating to the growing and raising and domesticating of any
kinds of birds or animals for food products and the general use of the people.
STATE LAWS THAT RECOGNIZE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF DEER.
Recognition of the rights of private ownership in deer and other
big game is now given in laws of the States named below. It will
be observed that most of the provisions were enacted recently.
Arkansas.—*‘ Nothing in this act shall be so construed as to pre-
vent any person or persons from having in their possession or buying
56 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
or selling or shipping or any railroad from receiving for transporta-
tion any deer or fawn when such deer or fawn is raised in captivity
for domestic purposes and is accompanied by an affidavit from the
raiser to this state of facts.” (Acts of 1907, No. 48.)
Colorado.—No one may maintain a private fish or game preserve
for profit without taking out a license to do so. Owners of licensed
private preserves are permitted to sell and ship deer or other quadru-
peds, if the carcasses or live animals are accompanied by proper
invoice and a permit from the state game and fish commissioner. A
fee is charged for the license and for each animal shipped by permit.
(Laws of 1899, ch. 98.)
Florida—aAn act passed in 1909 protects private preserves from
trespass. Such preserves are limited to 640 acres, and must be care-
fully posted. The game in them may not be killed for three years,
and thereafter only in compliance with the general hunting laws of
the State. (Ch. 5940.)
Titinois—“ Provided, that any person who breeds and raises deer
for market, where the same has been bred and raised within an
inclosure, may kill and sell the same from October 1 to February 1.”
(Laws of 1909, p. 236.)
Indiana.—The section against killing and possession of game has
this clause: “ Provided, that the provisions of this section shall not
apply to any person or persons owning or having under his domain
or control any deer, buck, doe, or fawn bred or raised in any deer
park.” This would permit sale of venison, but probably not its
export. (Laws of 1907, ch. 219.)
Zowa.—The statutes decline it unlawful for any person other than
the owner or person authorized by the owner to kill, maim, trap, or
in any way injure or capture any deer, elk, or goat, except wien dis-
trained as provided by law. As Iowa has no wild deer except the
few that have escaped from a private herd, the sale of venison from
private preserves is not prohibited.
Kentucky.—The state law especially protects game in parks from
poaching and trespass. (Stats., sec. 1250.)
Maine.—The game and fish commissioners are authorized by law to
grant permits to capture moose, caribou, deer, and birds for park
purposes within the State. This does not permit the sale of such
game. (Rev. Stat. 1903, ch. 32, sec. 40.)
Massachusetts—The owner may at any time kill or sell his own
tame deer kept on his own grounds. (Acts of 1907, ch. 307.)
Michigan.—An act passed in 1909 makes it unlawful to capture or
destroy deer kept within or that have escaped from any private
inclosure. (No. 167.)
Minnesota.—Persons who desire to domecniene deer, moose, elk,
or caribou may secure a permit to do so from the state board of game
STATE LAWS CONCERNING DEER IN PARKS. 57
and fish commissioners by paying a fee of 50 cents for each animal in
captivity and a like fee for each animal added later by natural
increase or otherwise. The animals kept in captivity may be sold or
shipped within or without the State by written permission from the
commission. (Laws of 1899, ch. 161.)
Missouri‘ Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the
shipment of deer or elk, alive or dead, from private preserves, when
such elk or deer are raised in captivity.” (Laws of 1909, p. 536.)
New Hampshire.—The Blue Mountain Forest Association may kill
elk, deer, and moose within the confines of its game preserve until
January 15 of each year and transport them outside the State at
any time when accompanied by a certificate from the fish and game
commission. (Pub. Stat. 1901, ch. 131, sec. 6.)
New York.—Deer may be sold during the open season, and moose,
elks, caribou, and antelope from private parks may be sold during the
same period. Common carriers may transport animals into the State
for breeding purposes. The section forbidding transportation of
venison was recently (1909) amended to provide that it “shall not
apply to domesticated deer propagated in wholly inclosed deer parks.
when shipments made from such parks are accompanied by a permit
issued by the forest, fish, and game commission under conditions pre-
scribed by the commissioner.” (Ch. 474.)
North Carolina.—Twenty-two counties permit the owner and
keeper of an inclosed game reserve, who raises deer for use or sale, to
kill, sell, or use those raised or kept in said inclosure. These laws
were Diced in 1907 and 1909.
Noith Dakota—The state game and fish board of control is author-
ized to issue permits to breed or domesticate any of the game birds
or animals mentioned in the law. An annual report is required from
persons holding such permits, and they may sell or ship game within
or without the State upon receipt of written permission to do so from
the board. (Laws of 1909, ch. 128.)
Oklahoma—A section of the law passed in 1909 permits the sale
of domesticated game animals and birds within the State. The law
is silent on the subject of their export. (Ch. 19.)
Pennsylvania.—The state board of game commissioners may issue
propagating certificates to individuals or associations that desire to
raise deer or other large game animals. The land shall be inclosed
by an approved wire fence not less than 8 feet high. All wild deer
must first be driven from the land under the direction of a repre-
sentative of the state board. A careful account of all game raised or
brought to the preserve must be kept and reports of any increase
made annually to the board. Deer may be killed inside the preserve
and shipped only during the open season and for thirty days there-
after. They may be shipped alive for propagating purposes at any
58 RAISING DEER IN THE UNITED STATES.
time. Each deer or carcass of deer shipped from the preserve must
bear a tag furnished by the state board, by which it may be identified
at any time.. (Acts of 1909, No. 204.)
South Dakota.—The state game warden may issue permits to breed
or domesticate deer, moose, elk, caribou, buffalo, or game birds.
Annual reports are required from holders of permits. On receipt of
written permission from the game warden, any of the animals held
in possession in private preserves may be sold or shipped within or
without the State. (Laws of 1909, ch. 240.)
Vermont.—A person may kill, sell, or dispose of deer which were
obtained without the State and are owned and confined by him in a
park or inclosure. (Pub. Stat. 1906, sec. 5326.)
Wisconsin.—The fish and game warden may issue permits to breed
or domesticate deer, moose, elk, or caribou. A system of marking
the animals in preserves established under the permits is authorized,
and such animals may be sold or shipped within or without the State
upon receipt of written permission to do so from the state game and
fish warden. A tag identifying the animal by number must accom-
pany every carcass or part of the carcass shipped or exposed for sale.
(Laws of 1909, ch. 525.)
A few other States except from the declaration of state ownership
of game that which is “ under private ownership legally acquired.”
In the absence of specific laws permitting the sale and export of such
game, there is uncertainty as to how courts would decide concerning
the rights of game propagators in these States.
RESOLUTIONS BY THE AMERICAN BREEDERS’ ASSOCIATION.
At the annual meeting of the American Breeders’ Association held
in Washington, D. C., January 28-30, 1908, the subject of breeding
game and fur mammals had an important place on the programme,
and at the close of the sessions, January 30, the following preamble
and resolution were adopted:
Whereas there are vast possibilities in our wild meat, fur, and game mammals,
and birds, as a basis for stocking our private and public forest reserves and
game preserves with a view to the conservation and fuller utilization of our
natural resources and as a source of blood to be used in forming hybrids with
domestic animals; therefore,
Resolved, That the American Breeders’ Association urge the attention of Con-
gress, of state legislatures, sportsmen’s societies, and private parties to the
preservation of the American bison, the various members of the deer family,
mountain sheep, arctic foxes, grouse, pheasants, quail, and other mammals and
birds, and the carrying out of experiments to determine their wide use on lands
not suited to domestic species and the determination of their value in the foun-
dation of hybrid animals designed for production under wild and semidomesti-
cated conditions.
SUMMARY. 59
At the annual meeting of the same association held at Columbia,
Mo., January 6-8, 1909, the following resolution was adopted:
Resolwed, That state laws regulating shooting, possession, and handling of
game should be amended so as to permit the sale of live game for propagation
at all times. That hand-reared game and game reared in a wild state by breed-
ers (including farmers) should be distinguished by law so that such preserved
game can be sold legally under state regulations, except during the breeding
season.
SUMMARY.
The foregoing information relating to the raising of deer, elk,
and other large game animals in confinement may be briefly summar-
ized in the following conclusions:
The rearing of wild game mammals, both native and introduced,
offers a promising field for experiment, as well as for the practical
investment of capital.
The Rocky Mountain elk and the Virginia deer can be reared suc-
cessfully and cheaply under different conditions in regard to food
and climate, as has been proved by many successful experiments. The
complete domestication of either species is a possibility which, if
realized, would be a source of lasting benefit to the world. With
proper encouragement, the production of venison from both elk and
deer can be made profitable industries on lands unsuited for cattle,
horses, or sheep. The rearing of both species for stocking parks and
game preserves would for a time be even more profitable than the
production of venison.
Instead of hampering breeders by restrictions, state laws should
be modified so as to encourage the raising of deer as a source of wealth
to the individual and the State. Safeguards against the destruction
and sale of wild deer for domesticated deer are necessary. For this
purpose a system of licensing private parks or of inspecting and
tagging or otherwise marking live animals or carcasses sold or shipped
is recommended.
Tt is believed that with proper encouragement much of the other-
wise waste land in the United States may be made to yield profitable
returns from the production of venison, and that this excellent and
nutritious meat, instead of being denied to 99 per cent of the popula-
tion of the country, may become as common and as cheap in our
markets as mutton.
INDEX:
Page
Acclimatization of the eland. .....----------- 13
Olt heat] paises terete 14
Aisthetic reason for domesticating animals. - - 9
Agriculture and transportation, mammals for - 10
ilcesfamericanaasce ee e-seeee eeecee eee s ae 18
MEAS codsonateancaesooospesogsmescapost 18
Machliswenae eee eeee tosses eee 18
American Breeders’ Association. ..---------- 58
resolupionss QU8peeeee see 58
NESOLIONS 1 G09 Naaseee eee eee ee 59
‘Amenicandnstituites ssc. -2-+-22 62-2 o--—e = 30
American antelope... -.-.-------------------- 11
LOleCHOMMea sees eea-e 12
TUTTO, nopesheoososonocoseaneaccpsscncce 11
WARROCK Us soseoososooneanoepbSseucsouse 12
AtitelopessseXO IC sy =a sae sees eee 13
Gone saeceneppastoeenosppRondauooEe 14
Antilocapra americana......-.-.------------- 11
PAttlenssaen hss 25 aS eee ae se eae seneeee 15
Ole Mltainwapluleace este sna ae ee 22
LAS CSPe eas sie eike S eae een eae eye erent 15
Arkansas, deer raised in captivity....-..---- 55
Atkinson, Attorney-General, of Washington . 55
Audubon and Bachman on domestication of
en re ae a hn aS sin A ae Mitts ee a Se afote 28
PACKISHCLECT Sasa Ss sana cto hh be 22 Vy 23
TESTERS os Bh et wan sy pa REAL Se 11, 16, 18, 29
Bedford, Duke of, parks belonging to.. 18, 14, 22, 23
Binney, Henry, fence for elk............---.- 37
Blagden, Thomas, experience with deer... 40, 42,49
Blaubok, extermination .--...-.-.-.--.--.---- 9
Blue Mountain Forest Association. ........-- 57
Blue Mountain Park........-....----.---- 19, 28,57
Bonine, Isaac, experience with elk....-...-.-- 32
Boots, James F., experience with mule deer... 45
Boselaphus tragocamelus..........--.------- 13
Bradley, Herbert, killed by deer........-..-- 48
Buckland Park, New Jersey...--.-.--------- 50
Bunalovextercminavona =e ees eee 27
Bul ee © ska lledubyselkee se == ase eee cca 38
Canada, export of park deer......-.--.--.--- 53
Caribou barren-eround2225-- 242-342 -5-5ee 16
WOO GLAM GEES re See eae ne sac ia aseeclaee 16
WarrolllaWiree essence terse eee ene 17
Caton ei aD eees names ae taney NS 12,31, 38, 39, 45
Cephalophus: = $22 22320 3s sss sss ese eee 14
Cervulus muUNtjaCe ee cceacaase cesses ess- ees 24
Wenvustasiaticuspesescaceeciice renee esses 21
EG paper Ne Seth Sik nth ek AU ee tear ts 23, 45
Gana densis*ss oa Sakccnc one eastern 19, 25
UTICOlOT A ase seas sate eee 23
@hinesetwater deersaa22 2 se acess tse e ees 24
Chiitalis ss 224 23a eee rsp sets crete ia sels 23
Colorado; private parks:-.--.. 222222 22-2-.-5- 56
Corbin preserve (Blue Mountain Park)... 19, 28,57
Cuppy herd of deer in lowa..........--.----- 54
Danger of introducing foreign animals. .-...- 24
Deer vACapuleors sc.0 ease sco e eee eee cee 45
Columbia black-tailed.......-..-..-.-- 21
crating fon shipment): -=25----45--22- 48
OXOPIC Heras eeee il see cisiciaupice Seas See 21
Page.
Deer fallowencoscoe oo ee sees ee Bee eee 21
family importance seme ce ssa eee 14
LOOMS Ree aaa ese sea sinesei ees ete 47
AAT os oe oe eo eae Se so Rare ee 15
Te aRDU (pea SIS Sea ees UE es ems 20
INOTUHWAIIIERI Canes eee ee eee 16
parkiateRioanoke Nm Cheers seco 41
parkswearlyeed- eee eee eee eee eee 40
effect on game supply --..--.----- 51
Pere Davids ens een coms ees astcnes 23
TOMS So eos Rea Sena seater ee 21
(S100 hl Senin a Se ORE SSS SG meee 24
Waren a ose acta) eae eineeeane ees 20,40
white-tailed oo 22 Sagat ea anocelsee sere 20,40
MANASeMEeM bese eee ee eee eee 46
MeerhOrn Ses sss ze see oe Seer -eeee 15
IDGerskins sie ho Se eee ee mae sce aa 15
Dieterich, Charles F., experience with deer. - 53
Os Hargon case) Ole ereer nee sane ees 53
Domestication of antelope. ...-...----------- 12
Caribou ss eases asian Sern eels seine ae 16
(5) RAY Es ACE Ula ece ON eete 20, 29
MAMMA es Ee aa crate) wna rsa 8
esthetic reason for.......--.----- 9
for use in agriculture and trans-
DOGUALON Eee eee Saas 10
LORMOOG hy Sree re ee cee Catan. 10
LORSTUR eee ee ee eels Sia 10
selection of species. -..-.--------- 10
TIVOOSO WY cee se eee ae eee tise Semele 18
wihite=-tailedi deere ss 6 ame en eae 20,40
Downing, A. J., on native deer for parks... -- 40
Wier cae oe i) NN eRe Sei eters ao ae 14
MS Teor ee Ss 8 Se Ma a Oa Bae rete 13
Hlaphuras|dawiGignuses-peoseseoeee eee 28}
TA eae en gels NRA Be Spa ar 19, 25
CASTE AOI ey pee ere ie Melee ieyeat sere a 39
clearing out underbrush..........----- 35
cost..... Hee AI Ayal RIS, ae a SW 37
enmity toward wolves and dogs. ..---- 39
LENCO eS Noa Saree Aeros 34, 37
Pleshieseipes ese a cae cess cae ene 26
TOOG aren atin el eio re ape enters 37
Gestation epee esses eee eee 26
Hap itsee esas Se AN Eee ke weeps 25
Ry ORI Se ses Sess ea Se Seco ea 28
IMvAdITONd aAcksse se eeeee ae see ene 28
in eastern United States........-....-- 27
intOzark MOUNTAINS =eeeeereseaee ceases 33
MaAnapementyes sae se ee eae ees 36
Pabks eee se sae eos eae eee a eecisee 36
preservation: 2 so sseee sano eeeseae= 26
TADS Che Ne ecole Ses Saetae esis esos els ie ai 19
Rocky, Mountaineneenses= es eeee nee 19, 25
TouNnd=hormeds seen wana as eee 19,25
VETLISON Es same re hance romeo eare 26
VACIOUS HIM seee etapa ina se een ely cite 38
(AVE sii hasan atanene tooo Me sesebesal 34
Wiyorinouberds!)-ee sss secne es eae 25
Exotic species, introduction of-...........--- 24
Fence for deer gens us Serer eee ance tela 44
62 INDEX.
Page. Page
MEN Cet OTe lke myaeee ee as els NU cnn PCa 34°37); BeredDavid: deorssaeuen senor aaa 23
Florida, law protecting private parks ...--.- 56 | Powerscourt, Lord, experience with Japanese
Hood ofideer eee ass seek sence eee nae 46 Co [eXoy eE O aa a ame eine Ls 22
Cli) line Ae Nae aman hn e senor Houser 25 experience with Sambar deer.......... 23
Foreign animals, objections to introduction of. 24 | Preservation of species a reason for domesti-
Fur, rearing mammals for........-.--------- 10 CARLO Te Ae ERNE Ra ee 9
Game in Maine. ........------+-+--+--++----- 26 | Private deer preserves..............-.------- 55
preserves, private .......--.----------- 51 Ownership) of deers -2 se es] ee ee eee 55
State...-----+-----2--+-----22-+-- 51 | Protection of antelope..............--------- 12
propagation op Do cEan sooo Spoor sos GSC odo 7, 52 Pronghormy (42) hen aes Se oe eee 11
Gazelles.....--------+++ +++ 222222220222 00 13,14 | Pseudaxis hortolorum............----------- 23
Gestation of CU ECE ACA Naa re Dye bs 26 TIPPOM Lic ree eee a sa Cee ee 29
muntjacs...-.----+--------2--2-+20007 24) @uagealextinchion=ee a) ye an eee aaa 9
___ White-tailed deer... .- Sopsosesesasasace 46 | Range of American antelope.............---- 11
Gilbert, J. W., experience with elk........-- 32 llc Meee eter ee coe ce 19
GoodhGeorSs quoted sess esses sees eee 55 THOOSO Le oe eet ete ee 18
Goodnight, Charles, quoted............------ 43,46 PUIG ASOLO eae 20
Grenfell, W. T., experiments with reindeer. - 17 i etniledictecr eee 20
Griggs, John W., experience with deer....--- 42,46 STN OO. t j j i ; ; ah \ ; : : ie op 36
Harris, R. H., experience with deer........-- 43 Rangifer arcticus...... ie PERO Os) 16
Hill, Joshua, experience with elk........---- 32 ae te nt) TGS Te ae 16
ZENO TOAD REIS Melbteo) IEP. Gao ooo sa aac g farandus, <0 ee nail
Hornaday, W.T., quoted.....--.-.-..--.-.- 18 | Reasons for domesticating mammals.....-.-- 9
Hybrids, Gs onasgssdoouctodoassoouseoss 21,23, 45 Reindeer, Wilaskkan sal 20 so Bo a0) alee 7
elk. .... Ee TEE AR RE Ue 28 Labradors 2.5.26 eee 17
Hydrelaphus TIME TTIGee ae ae Bae eerste 24 NGHTEEGIE CL 17
Mlinois, deer from parks. ..--..--.----------- 56 | Roosevelt, Theodore, quoted............-.-- 39
Increase of deer in domestication..--........ 45 Roseberry, C. H., experience with deer... -.- 44
Indiana, deer from parks......-.------------ 56 | Russ, Geo. W., om raising elk..........------ 33
Introduction of foreign animals.......-..--.- 24) ahialof venison from Parks. 471 sa ee 5d
Iowa, protection of park deer sscdsce Segosbese 56 | St. Louis Park and Agricultural Company... 33,45
Jackson, Sheldon, introduction of reindeer. - . 17 Sambar, Indian sc epsl cic: sos ee ee 93
Japanese Biles Sacnsaoseosoedseoseesoseeacses 22 Sika, Japanese aoe et Any ees io NU 22
Keello geass) amb all exe ll keeien eee ee eet 31 Peking. oo. occlean ieee 23
Kentucky, protection of game in parks....-- 56 South Dakota, private parks Stet yee 58
Killing deer in private parks...........--.--- 53 | Species suitable for domestication....-.-.--- 10
Land not utilized. ........-... qobsesosebeance 40 | State game preserves. .....-----------+:<+--- 51
Laws affecting game propagation....--...-.- 52 laws relating to private ownership of
McKeen, W. R., experience with deer. ...-.- 42 Fy ARAM Peace nie wre I ig eS 55
Maine, permits to tame game.......-.------- 56 | Stratton, E. L., domestication of elk......--- 3l
Managemen tiotellkessesaee-ceee essences 36 | Stratton, Lorenzo, domestication of elk...... 29, 36
Wireinia deer ven. case sweeecossceectee AGE aunObha cS sass = eee ae eee eee eee 13
March, C. W., experience in shipping deer... - 48 | Tielenius, Carl, experience with elk........-- 28, 33
Massachusetts, killing tame deer-......-..--- 56 | Transportation of live deer-....-..---------- 52
Mercer, John, elk in Maryland.........-.-.-- 29 VeniSOM als sceeas eae eect eee 52
Michigan, protection of park deer........-.-- 56 CREO MNS O44 -cegsencséseccasoss 10
Minnesota, private parks..........--+------- 56 | Trapping deer for shipment....-.-.-.--- ees 49
MASSOUD scam C1 Ceaser eee eee eee 57 | Trouessart, E., domesticating mammals...-.- 8
IMTQOSC Ran sE een ones EE ERROR RERe ee asese 18 | Tuley, Joseph, elk in Virginia....-.-.-..---- 29
Miuleideer se sec iacee oe a aero ee ae tece emepere 20,45 | Venison, digestibility.....--.--.------.----- 14
IMEI ACS cos ye ae ae ee epee nine ere ee oer 24 (2) jee Nee NS ene ea See Sod 5 26
New Hampshire, Blue Mountain Park... ... 57 from parks. Sale sees eee eee eee eee 54
New York, deer from parks.........-.------ 57 | Vermont, deer from parks....-..------------ 58
St Kgs pens aI A ENS a DS eee Le 116} Ih Wire R) Gleeir as Sop oscosdeacdedndacscsososssse 47
North) Carolina, park deer-aese eee seeae een Bh Cliche Seas See e ee Ap eter eae eee 38
North akotarip aris po aes operas ess EVGlk AVRO G deosGaeauaee wanes cononsosacedseoteco 19
Nowlin, D. C., quoted concerning antelope. - 11 BACT Gea 22/5 0 ane Set le or oe 21
Odocoileus columbianus.........--..-------- 2) Dil North ATmericaneet ses eeeee eases eee 19, 25
IhEMIONUS Hs eee ae eevee 20 habits sss ee ae eee 25
GOITR CTS Sen Nats PRES repel Acree Abin WVVie DEGLI CASC Ee ae ease nen eee eee 54
VANZIMIATMUS seer ey eee eee ices 20,40 | Wetmore, M. C., experience with elk .....--- 33
VN COUCSI Es em cities ae eect crea err re 47 | Wilson, F. J., experience with elk....-..---- 32
Oklahoma, deer from parks......-...-.--.--- Taal Web Ge=ball 6 Gu Gl CCT a= assert ter 20, 40
Otzinachson Rod and Gun Club..-.-..-.-.---- 50,55 | Whitney, William C.......-.--------------- 20, 28
Parks private Ol GCelse n= aeee se eee 50 | Wisconsin, private parks. -...--.------------ 58
laws relating to private..........------ 55 | Woburn Abbey, parks of Duke of Bedford.. 18,
Peking Sika, (hee eeu pea ee ek ome ors 23 14, 22, 23
Pennsylvania, private parks............--.-- 57 | Worthington, Charles C......--------- 47, 49, 50, 51
essa
Bh
DG
Dy
Tite
Ng
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11