My informer told me he participated in the slaughter, and while he would not take fifty dollars for what he saw, and the experience he went through, yet he would not go through it again for $1,000. When my informer got back to Gardiner that day there were four sleigh loads of elk, each load containing from twenty to thirty-five elk, besides thirty-two mules and horses carrying one to two each. This was only a part of the slaughter. Hundreds more were carried to other points; and this was only one day's work.

Hundreds of wounded elk wandered back into the park to die, and others died outside the park. The station at Livingston, Montana, for a week looked like a packing house. Carcasses were piled up on the trucks and depot platform. The baggage cars were loaded with elk going to points east and west of Livingston.

Maybe this is all right. Maybe the government can't stop the elk from crossing the line. Maybe the elk were helped over; but it strikes me there is something wrong somewhere.

THE DIVISION OF HIRED LABORERS.—The scourge of lumber-camps in big-game territory, the mining camps and the railroad-builders is a long story, and if told in detail it would make several chapters. Their awful destructiveness is well known. It is a common thing for "the boss" to hire a hunter to kill big game to supply the hungry outfit, and save beef and pork.

The abuses arising from this source easily could be checked, and finally suppressed. A ten-line law would do the business,—forbidding any person employed in any camp of sheep men, cattle men, lumbermen, miners, railway laborers or excavators to own or use a rifle in hunting wild game; and forbidding any employer of labor to feed those laborers, or permit them to be fed, on the flesh of wild game mammals or birds. "Camp" laborers are not "pioneers;" not by a long shot! They are soldiers of Commerce, and makers of money.

A MOUNTAIN SHEEP CASE IN COLORADO.—The state of Colorado sincerely desires to protect and perpetuate its slender remnant of mountain sheep, but as usual the Lawless Miscreant is abroad to thwart the efforts of the guardians of the game. Every state that strives to protect its big game has such doings as this to contend with:

In the winter of 1911-12, a resident poacher brought into Grant, Colorado, a lot of mountain sheep meat for sale; and he actually sold it to residents of that town! The price was six cents per pound. A lot of it was purchased by the railway station-agent. I have no doubt that the same man who did that job, which was made possible only by the co-operation of the citizens of Grant, will try the same poaching-and-selling game next winter, unless the State Game Commissioner is able to bring him to book.

A WYOMING CASE IN POINT.—As a fair sample of what game wardens, and the general public, are sometimes compelled to endure through the improper decisions of judges, I will cite this case:

In the Shoshone Mountains of northern Wyoming, about fifty miles or so from the town of Cody, in the winter of 1911-12 a man was engaged in trapping coyotes. It was currently reported that he had been "driven out of Montana and Idaho." He had scores of traps. He baited his traps with the flesh of deer, elk calves and grouse, all illegally killed and illegally used for that purpose. A man of my acquaintance saw some of this game meat actually used as described.

The man was a notorious character, and cruel in the extreme. Finally a game warden caught him red-handed, arrested him, and took him to Cody for trial. It happened that the judge on the bench had once trapped with him, and therefore "he set the game-killer free, while the game-warden was roasted."

That wolf-trapper once took into the mountains a horse, to kill and use as bear-bait. The animal was blind in one eye, and because it would not graze precisely where the wolfer desired it to remain, he deliberately destroyed the sight of its good eye, and left it for days, without the ability to find water.

Think of the fate of any wild animal that unkind Fate places at the mercy of such a man!

* * * * *

CHAPTER VIII

UNSEEN FOES OF WILD LIFE

Quite unintentionally on his part, Man, the arch destroyer and the most predatory and merciless of all animal species except the wolves, has rendered a great service to all the birds that live or nest upon the ground. His relentless pursuit and destruction of the savage-tempered, strong-jawed fur-bearing animals is in part the salvation of the ground birds of to-day and yesterday. If the teeth and claws had been permitted to multiply unchecked down to the present time, with man's warfare on the upland game proceeding as it has done, scores upon scores of species long ere this would have been exterminated.

But the slaughter of the millions of North American foxes, wolves, weasels, skunks, and mink has so overwhelmingly reduced the four-footed enemies of the birds that the balance of wild Nature has been preserved. As a rule, the few predatory wild animals that remain are not slaughtering the birds to a serious extent; and for this we may well be thankful.

THE DOMESTIC CAT.—In such thickly settled communities as our northern states, from the Atlantic coast to the sandhills of Kansas and Nebraska, the domestic cat is probably the greatest four-footed scourge of bird life. Thousands of persons who never have seen a hunting cat in action will doubt this statement, but the proof of its truthfulness is only too painfully abundant.

Unhappily it is the way of the hunting cat to stalk unseen, and to kill the very birds that are most friendly with man, and most helpful to him in his farming and fruit-growing business. The quail is about the only game bird that the cat affects seriously, and to it the cat is very destructive. It is the robin, catbird, thrush, bluebird, dove, woodpecker, chickadee, phoebe, tanager and other birds of the lawn, the garden and orchard that afford good hunting for sly and savage old Thomas.

When I was a boy in my 'teens, I had a lasting series of object lessons on the cat as a predatory animal. Our "Betty" was the most ambitious and successful domestic-cat hunter of wild mammals of which I ever have heard. To her, rats and mice were mere child's-play, and after a time their pursuit offered such tame sport that she sought fresh fields for her prowess. Then she brought in young rabbits, chipmunks and thirteen-lined spermophiles, and once she came in, quite exhausted, half dragging and half carrying a big, fat pocket gopher. With her it seemed to be a point of honor that she should bring in her game and display it. Little did we realize then that in course of time the wild birds would become so scarce that their slaughter by house cats would demand legislative action in the states.

In considering the hunting cat, let us call in a credible witness of the effects of domestic cats on the bob white. The following is an eye-witness report, by Ernest B. Beardsley, in Outdoor Life for April, 1912. The locality was Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas.

In the meantime, old Queen was having a high old time up ahead, some hundred feet by then, running up the bank and back down in the draw. We had hardly caught up when up goes Mr. Savage's gun and he gives both barrels. I had seen nothing up to date, but I didn't have long to wait, for by the time I got up to him and the dog, they were both in the high grass and had a great, big, common gray maltese house-cat; and Queen had a half-eaten quail that Mr. Cat was busy with when disturbed.

Well, we followed the draw across the field and got nine of a covey of sixteen that had been ahead of Mr. Cat; and about four o'clock that evening we killed another white-and-gray cat. While driving home that night, Mr. Savage told me that he had killed fifty or more in three or four years. They will get in a draw full of tumble-grass, on a cold day when quail don't like to fly, and stay right with them; and even after feeding on two or three, they will lie and watch, and when the covey moves, they move. When eating time comes around they are at it again, and to a covey of young birds they are sure death to the whole covey.

Well, Will told me never to overlook a house-cat that I found as far as a quarter of a mile from a farm or ranch, for if they have not already turned wild, they are learning how easy it is to hunt and live on game, and are almost as bad. We found Mr. Black-and-White Hunter had eaten two quail just before we killed him that evening. I would rather not write what Mr. Savage said when we found the remains of a partly-eaten bird.

My advice is, don't let tame cats get away when found out hunting; for the chances are they have not seen a home in months, and maybe years,—and say! but they do get big and bad. When you meet one, give it to him good, and don't let your dog run up to him until he is out for keeps. I learned afterwards that was how Will knew it was a cat. Queen had learned to back off and call for help on cats some years before.

In the New York Zoological Park, we have had troubles of our own with marauding cats. They establish themselves in a day, and quickly learn where to seek easy game and good cover. In the daytime they lie close in the thick brush, exactly as tigers do in India, but if not molested for a period of days, they become bold and attack game in open view. One bird-killing cat was so shy of man that it was only after two weeks of hard hunting (mornings and evenings) that it was killed.

We have seen cats catch and kill gray squirrels, chipmunks, robins and thrushes, and have found the feathers of slaughtered quail. Once we had gray rabbits breeding in the park, and their number reached between eighty and ninety. For a time they fearlessly hopped about in sight from our windows, and they were of great interest to visitors and to all of us. Then the cats began upon them; and in one year there was not a rabbit to be seen, save at rare intervals. At the same time the chipmunks of the park were almost exterminated.

That was the last straw, and we began a vigorous war upon those wild and predatory cats. The cats came off second best. We killed every cat that was found hunting in the park, and we certainly got some that were big and bad. We eliminated that pest, and we are keeping it eliminated. And with what result?

In 1911 a covey of eleven quail came and settled in our grounds, and have remained there. Twenty times at least during the past eight months (winter and spring) I have seen the flock on the granite ledge not more than forty feet from the rear window of my office. Last spring when I left the Administration Building at six o'clock, after the visitors had gone, I found two half-grown rabbits calmly roosting on the door-mat. The rabbits are slowly coming back, and the chipmunks are visibly increasing in number. The gray squirrels now chase over the walks without fear of any living thing, and our ducklings and young guineas and peacocks are safe once more.

That cats destroy annually in the United States several millions of very valuable birds, seems fairly beyond question. I believe that in settled regions they are worse than weasels, foxes, skunks and mink combined; because there are about one hundred times as many of them, and those that hunt are not afraid to hunt in the daytime. Of course I am not saying that all cats hunt wild game; but in the country I believe that fully one-half of them do.

I am personally acquainted with a cat in Indiana, on the farm of relatives, which is notorious for its hunting propensities, and its remarkable ability in capturing game. Even the lady who is joint owner of the cat feels very badly about its destructiveness, and has said, over and over again, that it ought to be killed; but the cat is such a family pet that no one in the family has the heart to destroy it, and as yet no stranger has come forward to play the part of executioner. The lady in question assured me that to her certain knowledge that particular cat would watch a nestful of young robins week after week until they had grown up to such a size that they were almost ready to fly; then he would kill them and devour them. Old "Tommy" was too wise to kill the robins when they were unduly small.

In a great book entitled Useful Birds and Their Protection, by E.H. Forbush, State Ornithologist of Massachusetts, and published by the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture in 1905, there appears, on page 362, many interesting facts on this subject. For example:

Mr. William Brewster tells of an acquaintance in Maine, who said that his cat killed about fifty birds a year. Mr. A.C. Dike wrote [to Mr. Forbush] of a cat owned by a family, and well cared for. They watched it through one season, and found that it killed fifty-eight birds, including the young in five nests.

Nearly a hundred correspondents, scattered through all the counties of the state, report the cat as one of the greatest enemies of birds. The reports that have come in of the torturing and killing of birds by cats are absolutely sickening. The number of birds killed by them in this state is appalling.

Some cat lovers believe that each cat kills on the average not more than ten birds a year; but I have learned of two instances where more than that number were killed in a single day, and another where seven were killed. If we assume, however, that the average cat on the farm kills but ten birds per year, and that there is one cat to each farm in Massachusetts, we have, in round numbers, seventy thousand cats, killing seven hundred thousand birds annually.



In Mr. Forbush's book there is an illustration of the cat which killed fifty-eight birds in one year, and the animal was photographed with a dead robin in its mouth. The portrait is reproduced in this chapter.

Last year, a strong effort was made in Massachusetts to enact a law requiring cats to be licensed. On account of the amount of work necessary in passing the no-sale-of-game bill, that measure was not pressed, and so it did not become a law; but another year it will undoubtedly be passed, for it is a good bill, and extremely necessary at this time. Such a law is needed in every state!

There is a mark by which you may instantly and infallibly know the worst of the wild cats—by their presence away from home, hunting in the open. Kill all such, wherever found. The harmless cats are domestic in their tastes, and stay close to the family fireside and the kitchen. Being properly fed, they have no temptation to become hunters. There are cats and cats, just as there are men and men: some tolerable, many utterly intolerable. No sweeping sentiment for all cats should be allowed to stand in the way of the abatement of the hunting-cat nuisances.

Of all men, the farmer cannot afford the luxury of their existence! It is too expensive. With him it is a matter of dollars, and cash out of pocket for every hunting cat that he tolerates in his neighborhood. There are two places in which to strike the hunting cats: in the open, and in the state legislature.

While this chapter was in the hands of the compositors, the hunting cat and gray rabbit shown in the accompanying illustration were brought in by a keeper.

DOGS AS DESTROYERS OF BIRDS.—I have received many letters from protectors of wild life informing me that the destruction of ground-nesting birds, and especially of upland game birds, by roaming dogs, has in some localities become a great curse to bird life. Complaints of this kind have come from New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Usually the culprits are hunting dogs—setters, pointers and hounds.

Now, surely it is not necessary to set forth here any argument on this subject. It is not open to argument, or academic treatment of any kind. The cold fact is:

In the breeding season of birds, and while the young birds are incapable of quick and strong flight, all dogs, of every description, should be restrained from free hunting; and all dogs found hunting in the woods during the season referred to should be arrested, and their owners should be fined twenty dollars for each offense. Incidentally, one-half the fine should go to the citizen who arrests the dog. The method of restraining hunting dogs should devolve upon dog owners; and the law need only prohibit or punish the act.

Beyond a doubt, in states that still possess quail and ruffed grouse, free hunting by hunting dogs leads to great destruction of nests and broods during the breeding season.

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE WIRES.—Mr. Daniel C. Beard has strongly called my attention to the slaughter of birds by telegraph wires that has come under his personal observation. His country home, at Redding, Connecticut, is near the main line of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railway, along which a line of very large poles carries a great number of wires. The wires are so numerous that they form a barrier through which it is difficult for any bird to fly and come out alive and unhurt.

Mr. Beard says that among the birds killed or crippled by flying against those wires near Redding he has seen the following species: olive-backed thrush, white-throated sparrow and other sparrows, oriole, blue jay, rail, ruffed grouse, and woodcock. It is a common practice for employees of the railway, and others living along the line, to follow the line and pick up on one excursion enough birds for a pot-pie.

Beyond question, the telegraph and telephone wires of the United States annually exact a heavy toll in bird life, and claim countless thousands of victims. They may well be set down as one of the unseen forces destructive to birds.

Naturally, we ask, what can be done about it?

I am told that in Scotland such slaughter is prevented by the attachment of small tags or discs to the telephone wires, at intervals of a few rods, sufficiently near that they attract the attention of flying birds, and reveal the line of an obstruction. This system should be adopted in all regions where the conditions are such that birds kill themselves against telegraph wires, and an excellent place to begin would be along the line of the N.Y., N.H. & H. Railway.

WILD ANIMALS.—Beyond question, it is both desirable and necessary that any excess of wild animals that prey upon our grouse, quail, pheasants, woodcock, snipe, mallard duck, shore birds and other species that nest on the ground, should be killed. Since we must choose between the two, the birds have it! Weasels and foxes and skunks are interesting, and they do much to promote the hilarity of life in rural districts, but they do not destroy insects, and are of comparatively little value as destroyers of the noxious rodents that prey upon farm crops. While a few persons may dispute the second half of this proposition, the burden of proof that my view is wrong will rest upon them; and having spent eighteen years "on the farm," I think I am right. If there is any positive evidence tending to prove that the small carnivores that we class as "vermin" are industrious and persistent destroyers of noxious rodents—pocket gophers, moles, field-mice and rats—or that they do not kill wild birds numerously, now is the time to produce it, because the tide of public sentiment is strongly setting against the weasels, mink, foxes and skunks. (Once upon a time, a shrewd young man in the Zoological Park discovered a weasel hiding behind a stone while devouring a sparrow that it had just caught and killed. He stalked it successfully, seized it in his bare hand, and, even though bitten, made good the capture.)

The State of Pennsylvania is extensively wooded, with forests and with brush which affords excellent home quarters and breeding grounds for mammalian "vermin." The small predatory mammals are so seriously destructive to ruffed grouse and other ground birds that the State Game Commission is greatly concerned. When the hunter's license law is enacted, as it very surely will be at the next session of the legislature (1913), a portion of the $70,000 that it will produce each year will be used by the commission in paying bounties on the destruction of the surplus of vermin. Through the pursuit of vermin, any farmer can easily win enough bounties to more than pay the cost of his annual hunting license (one dollar), and the farmers' boys will find a new interest in life.

In some portions of the Rocky Mountain region, the assaults of the large predatory mammals and birds on the young of the big-game species occasionally demand special treatment. In the Yellowstone Park the pumas multiplied to such an extent and killed so many young elk that their number had to be systematically reduced. To that end "Buffalo" Jones was sent out by the Government to find and destroy the intolerable surplus of pumas. In the course of his campaign he killed about forty, much to the benefit of the elk herds. Around the entrance to the den of a big old male puma, Mr. Jones found the skulls and other remains of nine elk calves that "the old Tom" had killed and carried there.

Pumas and lynxes attack and kill mountain sheep; and the golden eagle is very partial to mountain sheep lambs and mountain goat kids. It will not answer to permit birds of that bold and predatory species to become too numerous in mountains inhabited by goats and sheep; and the fewer the mountain lions the better, for they, like the lynx and eagle, have nothing to live upon save the game.

The wolves and coyotes have learned to seek the ranges of cattle, horses and sheep, where they still do immense damage, chiefly in killing young stock. In spite of the great sums that have been paid out by western states in bounties for the destruction of wolves, in many, many places the gray wolf still persists, and can not be exterminated. To the stockmen of the west the wolf question is a serious matter. The stockmen of Montana say that a government expert once told them how to get rid of the gray wolves. His instructions were: "Locate the dens, and kill the young in the dens, soon after they are born!" "All very easy to say, but a trifle difficult to do!" said my informant; and the ranchman seem to think they are yet a long way from a solution of the wolf question.

During the past year the destruction of noxious predatory animals in the national forest reserves has seriously occupied the attention of the United States Bureau of Forestry. By the foresters of that bureau the following animals were destroyed in fifteen western states:

6,487 Coyotes 870 Wild-Cats 72 Lynxes 213 Bears 88 Mountain Lions 172 Gray Wolves 69 Wolf Pups ——- 7,971

In 1910 the total was 9,103.



THE RED SQUIRREL.—Once in a great while, conditions change in subtle ways, wild creatures unexpectedly increase in number, and a community awakens to the fact that some wild species has become a public nuisance. In a small city park, even gray squirrels may breed and become so fearfully numerous that, in their restless quest for food, they may ravage the nests of the wild birds, kill and devour the young, and become a pest. In the Zoological Park, in 1903, we found that the red squirrels had increased to such a horde that they were driving out all our nesting wild birds, driving out the gray squirrels, and making themselves intolerably obnoxious. We shot sixty of them, and brought the total down to a reasonable number. Wherever he is or whatever his numerical strength, the red squirrel is a bad citizen, and, while we do not by any means favor his extermination, he should resolutely be kept within bounds by the rifle.

When a crow nested in our woods, near the Beaver Pond, we were greatly pleased; but with the feeding of the first brood, the crows began to carry off ducklings from the wild-fowl pond. After one crow had been seen to seize and carry away five young ducks in one forenoon, we decided that the constitutional limit had been reached, for we did not propose that all our young mallards should be swept into the awful vortex of that crow nest. We took those young crows and reared them by hand; but the old one had acquired a bad habit, and she persisted in carrying off young ducks until we had to end her existence with a gun. It was a painful operation, but there was no other way.



BIRD-DESTROYING BIRDS.—There are several species of birds that may at once be put under sentence of death for their destructiveness of useful birds, without any extenuating circumstances worth mentioning. Four of these are Cooper's Hawk, the Sharp-Shinned Hawk, Pigeon Hawk and Duck Hawk. Fortunately these species are not so numerous that we need lose any sleep over them. Indeed, I think that today it would be a mighty good collector who could find one specimen in seven days' hunting. Like all other species, these, too, are being shot out of our bird fauna.

Several species of bird-eating birds are trembling in the balance, and under grave suspicion. Some of them are the Great Horned Owl, Screech Owl, Butcher Bird or Great Northern Shrike. The only circumstance that saves these birds from instant condemnation is the delightful amount of rats, mice, moles, gophers and noxious insects that they annually consume. In view of the awful destructiveness of the accursed bubonic-plague-carrying rat, we are impelled to think long before placing in our killing list even the great horned owl, who really does levy a heavy tax on our upland game birds. As to the butcher bird, we feel that we ought to kill him, but in view of his record on wild mice and rats, we hesitate, and finally decline.



SNAKES.—Mr. Thomas M. Upp, a close and long observer of wild things wishes it distinctly understood that while the common black-snakes and racers are practically harmless to birds, the Pilot Black-Snake, —long, thick and truculent,—is a great scourge to nesting birds. It seems to be deserving of death. Mr. Upp speaks from personal knowledge, and his condemnation of the species referred to is quite sweeping. At the same time Mr. Raymond L. Ditmars points out the fact that this serpent feeds during 6 months of the year on mice, and in doing so renders good service. In the South it is called the "Mouse Snake."



* * * * *

CHAPTER IX

THE DESTRUCTION OF WILD LIFE BY DISEASES

Every cause that has the effect of reducing the total of wild-life population is now a matter of importance to mankind. The violent and universal disturbance of the balance of Nature that already has taken place throughout the temperate and frigid zone offers not only food for thought, but it calls for vigorous action.

There are vast sections in the populous centres of western civilization where the destruction of species, even to the point of extermination, is fairly inevitable. It is the way of Christian man to destroy all wild life that comes within the sphere of influence of his iron heel. With the exception of the big game, this destruction is largely a temperamental result, peculiar to the highest civilization. In India where the same fields have been plowed for wheat and dahl and raggi for at least 2,000 years, the Indian antelope, or "black buck," the saras crane and the adjutant stalk through the crops, and the nilgai and gazelle inhabit the eroded ravines in an agricultural land that averages 1,200 people to the square mile!

We have seen that even in farming country, where mud villages are as thick as farm houses in Nebraska, wild animals and even hoofed game can live and hold their own through hundreds of years of close association with man. The explanation is that the Hindus regard wild animals as creatures entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and they are not anxious to shoot every wild animal that shows its head. In the United States, nearly every game-inhabited community is animated by a feeling that every wild animal must necessarily be killed as soon as seen; and this sentiment often leads to disgraceful things. For instance, in some parts of New England a deer straying into a town is at once beset by the hue and cry, and it is chased and assaulted until it is dead, by violent and disgraceful means. New York State, however, seems to have outgrown that spirit. During the past ten years, at least a dozen deer in distress have been rescued from the Hudson River, or in inland towns, or in barnyards in the suburbs of Yonkers and New York, and carefully cared for until "the zoo people" could be communicated with. Last winter about 13 exhausted grebes and one loon were picked up, cared for and finally shipped with tender care to the Zoological Park. One distressed dovekie was picked up, but failed to survive.

The sentiment for the conservation of wild life has changed the mental attitude of very many people. The old Chinese-Malay spirit which cries "Kill! Kill!" and at once runs amuck among suddenly discovered wild animals, is slowly being replaced by a more humane and intelligent sentiment. This is one of the hopeful and encouraging signs of the times.

The destruction of wild animals by natural causes is an interesting subject, even though painful. We need to know how much destruction is wrought by influences wholly beyond the control of man, and a few cases must be cited.

RINDERPEST IN AFRICA.—Probably the greatest slaughter ever wrought upon wild animals by diseases during historic times, was by rinderpest, a cattle plague which afflicted Africa in the last decade of the previous century. Originally, the disease reached Africa by way of Egypt, and came as an importation from Europe. From Egypt it steadily traveled southward, reaching Somaliland in 1889. In 1896 it reached the Zambesi River and entered Rhodesia. From thence it went on southward almost to the Cape. Not only did it sweep away ninety percent of the native cattle but it also destroyed more than seventy-five per cent of the buffalos, antelopes and other hoofed game of Rhodesia. It was feared that many species would be completely exterminated, but happily that fear was not realized. The buffalo and antelope herds were fifteen years in breeding up again to a reasonable number, but thanks to the respite from hunters which they enjoyed for several years, finally they did recover. Throughout British East Africa the supply of big game in 1905 was very great, but since that time it has been very greatly diminished by shooting.

CARIBOU DISEASE.—From time to time reports have come from the Province of Quebec, and I think from Maine and New Brunswick also, of many caribou having died of disease. The nature of that disease has remained a mystery, because it seems that no pathologist ever has had an opportunity to investigate it. Fortunately, however, the alleged disease never has been sufficiently wide-spread or continuous to make appreciable inroads on the total number of caribou, and apparently the trouble has been local.

SCAB IN MOUNTAIN SHEEP.—"Scab" is a contagious and persistent skin disease that affects sheep, and is destructive when not controlled. Fifteen years ago it prevailed in some portions of the west. In Colorado it has several times been reported that many bighorn mountain sheep were killed by "scab," which was contracted on wild mountain pastures that had been gone over by domestic sheep carrying that disease. From the reports current at that time, we inferred that about 200 mountain sheep had been affected. It was feared that the disease would spread through the wild flocks and become general, but this did not occur. It seems that the remnant flocks had become so isolated from one another that the isolation of the affected flocks saved the others.

LUMPY-JAW IN ANTELOPE AND SHEEP.—It is a lamentable fact that some, at least, of the United States herds of prong-horned antelope are afflicted with a very deadly chronic infective disease known as actinomycosis, or lumpy-jaw. It has been brought into the Zoological Park five times, by specimens shipped from Colorado, Texas, Wyoming and Montana. I think our first cases came to us in 1902.

In its early stage this disease is so subtle and slow that it is months in developing; and this feature renders it all the more deadly, through the spread of infection long before the ailment can be discovered.

One of our antelope arrivals, apparently in perfect health when received, was on general principles kept isolated in rigid quarantine for two months. At the expiration of that period, no disease of any kind having become manifest, the animal was placed on exhibition, with two others that had been in the Park for more than a year, in perfect health.

In one more week the late arrival developed a swelling on its jaw, drooled at the corner of the mouth, and became feverish,—sure symptoms of the dread disease. At once it was removed and isolated, but in about 10 days it died. The other two antelopes were promptly attacked, and eventually died.

The course of the disease is very intense, and thus far it has proven incurable in our wild animals. We have lost about 10 antelopes from it, and one deer, usually, in each case, within ten days or two weeks from the discovery of the first outward sign,—the well known swelling on the jaw. One case that was detected immediately upon arrival was very persistently treated by Dr. Blair, and the animal actually survived for four months, but finally it succumbed. From first to last not a single case was cured.

In 1912, the future of the prong-horned antelope in real captivity seems hopeless. We have decided not to bring any more specimens to our institution, partly because all available candidates seem reasonably certain to be affected with lumpy-jaw, and partly because we are unwilling to run further risks of having other hoofed animals inoculated by them. Today we are anxiously wondering whether the jaw disease of the prong-horn is destined to exterminate the species. Such a catastrophe is much to be feared. This is probably one of the reasons why the antelope is steadily disappearing, despite protection.

In 1906 we discovered the existence of actinomycosis among the black mountain sheep of northern British Columbia. Two specimens out of six were badly affected, the bones of the jaws being greatly enlarged, and perforated by deep pits. The black sheep of the Stickine and Iskoot regions are so seldom seen by white men, save when a sportsman kills his allotment of three specimens, we really do not know anything about the extent to which actinomycosis prevails in those herds, or how deadly are its effects. One thing seems quite certain, from the appearance of the diseased skulls found by the writer in the taxidermic laboratory of Frederick Sauter, in New York. The enormous swelling of the diseased jaw bones clearly indicates a disease that in some cases affects its victim throughout many months. Such a condition as we found in those sheep could not have been reached in a few days after the disease became apparent. Now, in our antelopes, the collapse and death of the victim usually occurred in about 10 days from the time that the first swelling was observed: which means a very virulent disease, and rapid progress at the climax. The jaw of one of our antelopes, which was figured in Dr. Blair's paper in the Eleventh Annual Report of the New York Zoological Society (1906) shows only a very slight lesion, in comparison with those of the mountain sheep.

The conclusion is that among the sheep, this disease does not carry off its victims in any short period like 10 days. The animal must survive for some months after it becomes apparent. At least two parties of American sportsmen have shot rams afflicted with this disease, but I have no reports of any sheep having been found dead from this cause.

This disease is well known among domestic cattle, but so far as we are aware it never before has been found among wild animals. The black sheep herds wherein it was found in British Columbia are absolutely isolated from domestic cattle and all their influences, and therefore it seems quite certain that the disease developed among the sheep spontaneously,—a remarkable episode, to say the least. Whether it will exterminate the black mountain sheep species, and in time spread to the white sheep of the northwest, is of course a matter of conjecture; but there is nothing in the world to prevent a calamity of that kind. The white sheep of Yukon Territory range southward until in the Sheslay Mountains they touch the sphere of influence of the black sheep, where the disease could easily be transmitted. It would be a good thing if there existed between the two species a sheepless zone about 200 miles wide.

I greatly fear that actinomycosis is destined to play an important part in the final extinction that seems to be the impending fate of the beautiful and valuable prong-horned antelope. In view of our hard experiences, extending through ten years (1902-1912), I think this fear is justified. All persons who live in country still inhabited by antelope are urged to watch for this disease. If any antelopes are found dead, see if the lower jaw is badly swollen and discharging pus. If it is, bury the body quickly, burn the ground over, and advise the writer regarding the case.

THE RABBIT PLAGUE.—One of the strangest freaks of Nature of which we know as effecting the wholesale destruction of wild animals by disease is the rabbit plague. In the northern wilderness, and particularly central Canada, where rabbits exist in great numbers and supply the wants of a large carnivorous population, this plague is well known, and among trappers and woodsmen is a common topic of conversation. The best treatment of the subject is to be found in Ernest T. Seton's "Life Histories of Northern Animals", Vol. I, p. 640 et seq. From this I quote:

"Invariably the year of greatest numbers [of rabbits] is followed by a year of plague, which sweeps them away, leaving few or no rabbits in the land. The denser the rabbit population, the more drastically is it ravaged by the plague. They are wiped out in a single spring by epidemic diseases usually characterized by swellings of the throat, sores under the armpits and groins, and by diarrhea."

"The year 1885 was for the country around Carberry 'a rabbit year,' the greatest ever known in that country. The number of rabbits was incredible. W.R. Hine killed 75 in two hours, and estimated that he could have killed 500 in a day. The farmers were stricken with fear that the rabbit pest of Australia was to be repeated in Manitoba. But the years 1886-7 changed all that. The rabbits died until their bodies dotted the country in thousands. The plague seemed to kill all the members of the vast host of 1885."

The strangest item of Mr. Seton's story is yet to be told. In 1890 Mr. Seton stocked his park at Cos Cob, Conn., with hares and rabbits from several widely separated localities. In 1903, the plague came and swept them all away. Mr. Seton sent specimens to the Zoological Park for examination by the Park veterinary surgeon, Dr. W. Reid Blair. They were found to be infested by great numbers of a dangerous bloodsucking parasite known as Strongylus strigosus, which produces death by anemia and emaciation. There were hundreds of those parasites in each animal. I assisted in the examination, and was shown by Dr. Blair, under the microscope, that Strongylus puts forth eggs literally by hundreds of thousands!

The life history of that parasite is not well known, but it may easily develop that the cycle of its maximum destructiveness is seven years, and therefore it may be accountable for the seven-year plague among the hares and rabbits of the northern United States and Canada.

Possibly Strongylus strigosus is all that stands between Canada and a pest of rabbits like that of Australia. Just why this parasite is inoperative in Australia, or why it has not been introduced there to lessen the rabbit evil, we do not know. Mr. Seton declares that the rabbits of his park were "subject to all the ills of the flesh, except possibly writer's paralysis and housemaid's knee."

PARASITIC INFECTION OF WILD DUCKS.—The diseases of wild game, especially waterfowl, grouse and quail, have caused heavy losses in America as well as in European countries, and scientists have been carefully investigating the cause and the general nature of the maladies, as well as probable methods of prevention and cure. Mr. Geo. Atkinson, a well-known practical naturalist of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, writes as follows to a local paper on this subject, which I find quoted in the National Sportsman:

The question which has developed these important proportions during the past year is that of the extent of the parasitic infection of our wild ducks and other game, and the possibilities of the extended transmission of these parasites to domestic stock, or even humanity, by eating.

The parasites in question are contained in small elliptical cases found underlying the surface muscles of the breast, and in advanced cases extending deeper into the flesh and the muscular tissues of the legs and wings. They are not noticeable in the ordinary process of plucking the bird for the table, and are not found internally, so that the only method of discovering their presence is by slitting the skin of the breast and paring it back a few inches when the worm-like sacs will be seen buried in the flesh.

These parasites have come to my notice periodically during the process of skinning birds for mounting during the past number of years, but it was only when they appeared in unusual numbers last fall that I made inquiries of the biological bureaus of Washington and Ottawa for information of their life history and the possibilities of their transmission to other hosts.

Replies from these sources surprised me with the information that very little was known of the life history of any of the Sarcosporidia, of which group this was a species. Nothing was known of the method of infection or the transference from host to host or species to species, and both departments asked for specimens for examination.

Authorities are a unit in opinion that the question is one of great importance to game conservation, and although opinions of the dangers from eating differ somewhat, a record is given of a hog fed upon affected flesh developing parasites in the muscles in six weeks' time, while a case of a man's death from dropsy was found to be the result of development of these parasites in the valves of the heart.

The ability of these low forms of life to withstand extremes of heat makes it necessary for more than ordinary cooking to be assured of killing them, and since their presence is unnoted in the ordinary course of dressing the birds for the table, there is little doubt that very considerable numbers of these parasites are consumed at our tables every season, with results at present unknown to us.

The species I have found most particularly infected have been mallards, shovellers, teal, gadwall and pintails, and the birds, outwardly in the best condition, have frequently been found loaded with sacs of these parasites and only the turning back of the breast skin can disclose their presence.

The greatest slaughter of wild ducks by disease occurred on Great Salt Lake, Utah. Until the "duck disease" (intestinal coccidiosis) broke out there, in the summer of 1910, the annual market slaughter of ducks at the mouth of Bear River had been enormous. When at Salt Lake City in 1888 I made an effort to arouse the sportsmen whom I met to the necessity of a reform, but my exhortations fell on deaf ears. Naturally, the sweeping away of the remaining ducks by disease would suggest a heaven-sent judgment upon the slaughterers were it not for the fact that the last state of the unfortunate ducks is if anything worse than the first.

On Oct. 17, 1911, the annual report of the chief of the Biological Survey contained the following information on this subject:

Epidemic Among Wild Ducks on Great Salt Lake.—Following a long dry season, which favored the rearing of a large number of wild ducks, but materially reduced the area of the feeding ponds, resulting in great overcrowding, a severe epidemic broke out about August 1, 1910, among the wild ducks about Great Salt Lake, Utah. Dead ducks could be counted by thousands along the shores and the disease raged unabated until late fall. Shooting clubs found it necessary to declare a closed season. Some of the dead ducks were forwarded to the Biological Survey and were turned over for examination to the Bureau of Animal Industry, by the experts of which the disease was diagnosed as intestinal coccidiosis.

Various plans of relieving the situation were tried. The irrigation ditches were closed, thus providing the sloughs and ponds with fresh water, and lime was sprinkled on the mud flats and duck trails. Great improvement followed this treatment, and experiments proved that ducks provided with abundant fresh water and clean food began to recover immediately. These methods promised success, but later it was proposed that the marshes be drained and exposed to the sun's rays—a course which cannot be recommended. That coccidia are not always killed by exposure to the sun is shown by their survival on the sites of old chicken yards. An added disadvantage of the plan is that draining and drying the marshes would have a bad effect on the natural duck food, and upon the birds themselves.

* * * * *

CHAPTER X

DESTRUCTION OF WILD LIFE BY THE ELEMENTS

It is a fixed condition of Nature that whenever and wherever a wild species exists in a state of nature, free from the trammels and limitations that contact with man always imposes, the species is fitted to survive all ordinary climatic influences. Freedom of action, and the exercise of several options in the line of individual maintenance under stress, is essential to the welfare of every wild species.

A prong-horned antelope herd that is free can drift before a blizzard, can keep from freezing by the exercise, and eventually come to shelter. Let that same herd drift against a barbed-wire fence five miles long, and its whole scheme of self-preservation is upset. The herd perishes then and there.

Cut out the undergrowth of a given section, drain the swamps and mow down all the weeds and tall grass, and the next particularly hard winter starves and freezes the quail.

Naturally the cutting of forests, clearing of brush and drainage of marshes is more or less calamitous to all the species of birds that inhabit such places and find there winter food and shelter. Red-winged blackbirds and real estate booms can not inhabit the same swamps contemporaneously. Before the relentless march of civilization, the wild Indian, the bison and many of the wild birds must inevitably disappear. We cannot change conditions that are as inexorable as death itself. The wild life must either adjust itself to the conditions that civilized man imposes upon it, or perish. I say "civilized man," for the reason that the primitive races of man are not deadly exterminators of species, as we are. I know of not one species of wild life that has been exterminated by savage man without the aid of his civilized peers.

As civilization marches ever onward, over the prairies, into the bad lands and the forests, over the mountains and even into the farthest corner of Death Valley, the desert of deserts, the struggle of the wild birds, mammals and fishes is daily and hourly intensified. Man must help them to maintain themselves, or accept a lifeless continent. The best help consists in letting the wild creatures throughly alone, so that they can help themselves; but quail often need to be fed in critical periods. The best food is wheat screenings placed under little tents of straw, bringing food and shelter together.

In the well settled portions of the United States, such species as quail, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, pinnated grouse and sage grouse hang to life by slender threads. A winter of exceptionally deep snows, much sleet, and a late spring always causes grave anxiety among the state game wardens. In Pennsylvania a very earnest movement is in progress to educate and persuade farmers to feed the quail in winter, and much good is being done in that direction.

Mr. Erasmus Wilson, of the Pittsburgh Gazette-Times is the apostle of that movement.

Quail should be fed every winter, in every northern state. The methods to be pursued will be mentioned elsewhere.

By way of illustration, here is a sample game report, from Las Animas, Colorado, Feb. 22, 1912:

"After the most severe winter weather experienced for twenty years we are able to compute approximately our loss of feathered life. It is seventy-five per cent of the quail throughout the irrigated district, and about twenty per cent of meadow-larks. In the rough cedar-covered sections south of the Arkansas River, the loss among the quail was much lighter. The ground sparrows suffered severely, while the English sparrow seems to have come through in good shape. Many cotton-tail rabbits starved to death, while the deep, light snow of January made them easy prey for hawks and coyotes." (F.T. Webber).

It would be possible to record many instances similar to the above, but why multiply them? And now behold the cruel corollary:

At least twenty-five times during the past two years I have heard and read arguments by sportsmen against my proposal for a 5-year close season for quail, taking the ground that "The sportsmen are not wholly to blame for the scarcity of quail. It is the cold winters that kill them off!"

So then, because the fierce winters murder the bob white, wholesale, they should not have a chance to recover themselves! Could human beings possibly assume a more absurd attitude?

Yes, it is coldly and incontestably true, that even after such winter slaughter as Mr. Webber has reported above, the very next season will find the quail hunter joyously taking the field, his face beaming with health and good living, to hunt down and shoot to death as many as possible of the pitiful 25 per cent remnant that managed to survive the pitiless winter. How many quail hunters, think you, ever stayed their hands because of "a hard winter on the quail?" I warrant not one out of every hundred! How many states in this Union ever put on a close season because of a hard winter? I'll warrant that not one ever did; and I think there is only one state whose game commissioners have the power to act in that way without recourse to the legislature. This situation is intolerable.

Thanks to the splendid codified game laws enacted in New York state in 1912, our Conservation Commission can declare a close season in any locality, for any length of time, when the state of the game demands an emergency measure. This act is as follows; and it is a model law, which every other state should speedily enact:

* * * * *

THE NEW YORK CLOSE-SEASON LAW.

152. Petition for additional protection; notice of hearings; power to grant additional protection; notice of prohibition or regulation; penalties.

1. Petition for additional protection. Any citizen of the state may file with the commission a petition in writing requesting it to give any species of fish, other than migratory food fish of the sea, or game protected by law, additional or other protection than that afforded by the provisions of this article. Such petition shall state the grounds upon which such protection is considered necessary, and shall be signed by the petitioner with his address.

2. Notice of hearings. The commission shall hold a public hearing in the locality or county to be affected upon the allegations of such petition within twenty days from the filing thereof. At least ten days prior to such hearing notice thereof, stating the time and place at which such hearing shall be held, shall be advertised in a newspaper published in the county to be affected by such additional or other protection. Such notice shall state the name and the address of the petitioner, together with a brief statement of the grounds upon which such application is made, and a copy thereof shall be mailed to the petitioner at the address given in such petition at least ten days before such hearing.

3. Power to grant additional protection. If upon such hearing the commission shall determine that such species of fish or game, by reason of disease, danger of extermination, or from any other cause or reason, requires such additional or other protection, in any locality or throughout the state, the commission shall have power to prohibit or regulate, during the open season therefor, the taking of such species of fish or game. Such prohibition or regulation may be made general throughout the state or confined to a particular part or district thereof.

4. Notice of prohibition or regulation. Any order made by the commission under the provisions of this section shall be signed by it, and entered in its minute book. At least thirty days before such prohibition or regulation shall take effect, copies of the same shall be filed in the office of the clerk issuing hunting and trapping licenses for the district to which the prohibition or regulation applies. It shall be the duty of said clerks to issue a copy of said prohibition or regulation to each person to whom a hunting or trapping license is issued by them; to mail a copy of such prohibition or regulation to each holder of a hunting and trapping license theretofore issued by them and at that time in effect, and to post a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in their office. At least thirty days before such prohibition or regulation shall take effect the commission shall cause a notice thereof to be advertised in a newspaper published in the county wherein such prohibition or regulation shall take effect.

5. Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of such prohibition, rule or regulation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not to exceed one hundred dollars, or shall be imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both, for each offense, in addition to the penalties hereinafter provided for taking fish, birds or quadrupeds in the close season.

* * * * *

I want all sensible, honest sportsmen to stop citing the killing of game birds by severe winters as a reason why long close seasons are not necessary, and why automatic guns "don't matter." And I want sportsmen to consider their duty, and not go out hunting any game species that has been slaughtered by a hard winter, until it has had at least five years in which to recover. Any other course is cruel, selfish, and shortsighted; and a word to the humane should be sufficient.

The worst exhibitions ever made of the wolfish instinct to slay that springs eternal in some human (!) breasts are those brought about through the distress or errors of wild animals. By way of illustration, consider the slaughter of half-starved elk that took place in the edge of Idaho in the winter of 1909 and 1910, when about seven hundred elk that were driven out of the Yellowstone Park at its northwestern corner by the deep snow, fled into Idaho in the hope of finding food. The inhabitants met the starving herds with repeating rifles, and as the unfortunate animals struggled westward through the snow and storm, they were slaughtered without mercy. Bulls and cows, old and young, all of the seven hundred, went down; and Stoney Indians could not have acted any worse than did those "settlers."

On another occasion, it is recorded that the prong-horned antelope herd of the Mammoth Hot Springs wandered across the line into Gardiner, and quickly met a savage attack of gunners with rifles. A number of those rare and valuable animals were killed, and others fled back into the Park with broken legs dangling in the air.

In the interest of public decency, and for the protection of the reputation of American citizenship, one of two things should be done. The northern boundary of the Park should be extended northward beyond Gardiner, or else the deathtrap should be moved elsewhere. The case of the town of Gardiner is referred to the legislature of Montana for treatment.

Beyond question, the highest sentiments of humanity are those that are stirred by the misfortunes of killable game. During the past thirty years, I have noticed some interesting manifestations of the increased sympathy for wild creatures that steadily is growing in a large section of the public mind. Thirty years ago, the appearance of a deer or moose in the streets of any eastern village nearly always was in itself a signal for a grand chase of the unfortunate creature, and its speedy slaughter. Today, in the eastern states, the general feeling is quite different. The appearance of a deer in the Hudson River itself, or a moose in a Maine village is a signal, not for a wild chase and cruel slaughter, but for a general effort to save the animal from being hurt, or killed. I know this through ocular proof, at least half a dozen lost and bewildered deer having been carefully driven into yards, or barns, and humanely kept and cared for until they could be shipped to us. Several have been caught while swimming in the Hudson, bewildered and panic-stricken. The latest capture occurred in New York City itself.

A puma that escaped (about 1902) from the Zoological Park, instead of being shot was captured by sensible people in the hamlet of Bronxdale, alive and unhurt, and safely returned to us.

In some portions of the east, though not all, the day of the hue and cry over "a wild animal in town" seems to be about over. On Long Island some humane persons found an injured turkey vulture, and took it in and cared for it,—only to be persecuted by ill-advised game wardens, because they had a forbidden wild bird "in their possession!" There are times when it is the highest (moral) duty of a game warden to follow the advice of Private Mulvaney to the "orficer boy," and "Shut yer oye to the rigulations, sorr!"

Such occurrences as these are becoming more and more common. The desire of "the great silent majority" is to SAVE the wild creatures; and it is in response to that sentiment that thousands of people are today in the field against the Army of Destruction.

It is the duty of every sportsman to assist in promoting the passage of a law like our New York law which empowers the State Game Commission to throw extra protection around any species that has been slaughtered too much by snow or by firearms, by closing the open season as long as may be necessary. Can there be in all America even one thinking, reasoning being who can not see the justice and also the imperative necessity of this measure? It seems impossible.

Give the game the benefit of every doubt! If it becomes too thick, your gun can quickly thin it out; but if it is once exterminated, it will be impossible to bring it back. Be wise; and take thought for the morrow. Remember the heath hen.

SLAUGHTER OF BLUEBIRDS.—In the late winter and early spring of 1896 the wave of bluebirds was caught on its northward migration by a period of unseasonably cold and fearfully tempestuous weather, involving much icy-cold rain and sleet. Now, there is no other climatic condition that is so hard for a wild bird or mammal to withstand as rain at the freezing point, and a mantle of ice or frozen snow over all supplies of food.

The bluebirds perished by thousands. The loss occurred practically all along their east-and-west line of migration, from Arkansas to the Atlantic Coast. In places the species seemed almost exterminated; and it was several years ere it recovered to a point even faintly approximating its original population. I am quite certain that the species never has recovered more than 50 per cent of the number that existed previous to the calamity.

DUCK CHOLERA IN THE BRONX RIVER.—In 1911, some unknown but new and particularly deadly element, probably introduced in sewage, contaminated the waters of Bronx River where it flows through New York City, with results very fatal in the Zoological Park. The large flock of mallard ducks, Canada geese, and snow geese on Lake Agassiz was completely wiped out. In all about 125 waterfowl died in rapid succession, from causes commonly classed under the popular name of "duck cholera." The disease was carried to other bodies of water in the Park that were fed from other sources, but made no headway elsewhere than on lakes fed by the polluted Bronx River.

Fortunately the work of the Bronx River Parkway Commission soon will terminate the present very unsanitary condition of that stream.

WILD DUCKS IN DISTRESS.—In the winter of 1911-12, many flocks of wild ducks decided to winter in the North. Many persons believe that this was largely due to the prevention of late winter and spring shooting; which seems reasonable. Unfortunately the winter referred to proved exceptionally severe and formed vast sheets of thick ice over the feeding-grounds where the ducks had expected to obtain their food. On Cayuga, Seneca and other lakes in central New York, and on the island of Martha's Vineyard, the flocks of ducks suffered very severely, and many perished of hunger and cold. But for the laws prohibiting late winter shooting undoubtedly all of them would have been shot and eaten, regardless of their distress.

Game wardens and humane citizens made numerous efforts to feed the starving flocks, and many ducks were saved in that way. An illustrated article on the distressed ducks of Keuka Lake, by C. William Beebe and Verdi Burtch, appeared in the Zoological Society Bulletin for May, 1912. Fortunately there is every reason to believe that such occurrences will be rare.

WILD SWANS SWEPT OVER NIAGARA FALLS.—During the past ten years, several winter tragedies to birds have occurred on a large scale at Niagara Falls. Whole flocks of whistling swans of from 20 up to 70 individuals alighting in the Niagara River above the rapids have permitted themselves to float down into the rapids, and be swept over the Falls, en masse. On each occasion, the great majority of the birds were drowned, or killed on the rocks. Of the very few that survived, few if any were able to rise and fly out of the gorge below the Falls to safety. It is my impression that about 200 swans recently have perished in this strange way.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XI

SLAUGHTER OF SONG-BIRDS BY ITALIANS

In these days of wild-life slaughter, we hear much of death and destruction. Before our eyes there continually arise photographs of hanging masses of waterfowl, grouse, pheasants, deer and fish, usually supported in true heraldic fashion by the men who slew them and the implements of slaughter. The world has become somewhat hardened to these things, because the victims are classed as game; and in the destruction of game, one game-bag more or less "Will not count in the news of the battle."

The slaughter of song, insectivorous and all other birds by Italians and other aliens from southern Europe has become a scourge to the bird life of this country. The devilish work of the negroes and poor whites of the South will be considered in the next chapter. In Italy, linnets and sparrows are "game"; and so is everything else that wears feathers! Italy is a continuous slaughtering-ground for the migratory birds of Europe, and as such it is an international nuisance and a pest. The way passerine birds are killed and eaten in that country is a disgrace to the government of Italy, and a standing reproach to the throne. Even kings and parliaments have no right in moral or international law to permit year after year the wholesale slaughter of birds of passage of species that no civilized man has a right to kill.

There are some tales of slaughter from which every properly-balanced Christian mind is bound to recoil with horror. One such tale has recently been given to us in the pages of the Avicultural Magazine, of London, for January, 1912, by Mr. Hubert D. Astley, F.Z.S., whose word no man will dispute. In condensing it, let us call it

* * * * *

THE ITALIAN SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS

This story does not concern game birds of any kind. Quite the contrary. That it should be published in America, a land now rapidly filling up with Italians, is a painful necessity in order that the people of America may be enabled accurately to measure the fatherland traditions and the fixed mental attitude of Italians generally toward our song birds. I shall now hold a mirror up to Italian nature. If the image is either hideous or grotesque, the fault will not be mine. I specially commend the picture to the notice of American game wardens and judges on the bench.

The American reader must be reminded that the Italian peninsula reaches out a long arm of land into the Mediterranean Sea for several hundred miles toward the sunny Barbary coast of North Africa. This great southward highway has been chosen by the birds of central Europe as their favorite migration route. Especially is this true of the small song-birds with weak wings and a minimum of power for long-sustained flight. Naturally, they follow the peninsula down to the Italian Land's End before they launch forth to dare the passage of the Mediterranean.



Italy is the narrow end of a great continental funnel, into the wide northern end of which Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland annually pour their volume of migratory bird life. And what is the result? For answer let us take the testimony of two reliable witnesses, and file it for use on the day when Tony Macchewin, gun in hand and pockets bulging with cartridges, goes afield in our country and opens fire on our birds.

The linnet is one of the sweet singers of Europe. It is a small, delicately formed, weak-winged little bird, about the size of our phoebe-bird. It weighs only a trifle more than a girl's love-letter. Where it breeds and rears its young, in Germany for example, a true sportsman would no more think of shooting a linnet than he would of killing and eating his daughter's dearest canary.

To the migrating bird, the approach to northern Italy, either going or returning, is not through a land of plenty. The sheltering forests have mostly been swept away, and safe shelters for small birds are very rare. In the open, there are owls and hawks; and the only refuge from either is the thick-leafed grove, into which linnets and pipits can dive at the approach of danger and quickly hide.

A linnet from the North after days of dangerous travel finally reached Lake Como, southward bound. The country was much too open for safety, and its first impulse was to look about for safe shelter. The low bushes that sparsely covered the steep hillsides were too thin for refuge in times of sudden danger.

Ah! Upon a hilltop is a little grove of trees, green and inviting. In the grove a bird is calling, calling, insistently. The trees are very small; but they seem to stand thickly together, and their foliage should afford a haven from both hawk and gunner. To it joyously flits the tired linnet. As it perches aloft upon a convenient whip-like wand, it notices for the first time a queer, square brick tower of small dimensions, rising in the center of a court-yard surrounded by trees. The tower is like an old and dingy turret that has been shorn from a castle, and set on the hilltop without apparent reason. It is two stories in height, with one window, dingy and uninviting. A door opens into its base.

Several birds that seem very near, but are invisible, frequently call and chirp, as if seeking answering calls and companionship. Surely the grove must be a safe place for birds, or they would not be here.

Hark! A whirring, whistling sound fills the air, like the air tone of a flying hawk's wings. A hawk! A hawk!

Down plunges the scared linnet, blindly, frantically, into the space sheltered by the grove!

Horrors! What is this?

Threads! Invisible, interlacing threads; tangled and full of pockets, treacherously spanning the open space. It is a fowler's net! The linnet is entangled. It flutters frantically but helplessly, and hangs there, caught. Its alarm cry is frantically answered by the two strange, invisible bird voices that come from the top of the tower!

The grove and the tower are A ROCCOLO! A huge, permanent, merciless, deadly trap, for the wholesale capture of songbirds! The tower is the hiding place of the fowler, and the calling birds are decoy birds whose eyes have been totally blinded by red-hot wires in order that they will call more frantically than birds with eyes would do. The whistling wings that seemed a hawk were a sham, made by a racquet thrown through the air by the fowler, through a slot in his tower. He keeps by him many such racquets.

The door of the tower opens, and out comes the fowler. He is lowbrowed, swarthy, ill kept, and wears rings in his ears. A soiled hand seizes the struggling linnet, and drags it violently from the threads that entangled it. A sharp-pointed twig is thrust straight through the head of the helpless victim at the eyes, and after one wild, fluttering agony—it is dead.

The fowler sighs contentedly, re-enters his dirty and foul-smelling tower, tosses the feathered atom upon the pile of dead birds that lies upon the dirty floor in a dirty corner,—and is ready for the next one.

Ask him, as did Mr. Astley, and he will tell you frankly that there are about 150 dead birds in the pile,—starlings, sparrows, linnets, greenfinches, chaffinches, goldfinches, hawfinches, redstarts, blackcaps, robins, song thrushes, blackbirds, blue and coal tits, fieldfares and redwings. He will tell you also, that there are seven other roccolos within sight and twelve within easy walking distance. He will tell you, as he did Mr. Astley, that during that week he had taken about 500 birds, and that that number was a fair average for each of the 12 other roccolos.

This means the destruction of about 5,000 songbirds per week in that neighborhood alone! Another keeper of a roccolo told Mr. Astley that during the previous autumn he took about 10,000 birds at his small and comparatively insignificant roccolo.

And above that awful roccolo of slaughtered innocents rose a wooden cross, in memory of Christ, the Merciful, the Compassionate!

Around the interior of the entwined sapling tops that formed the fatal bower of death there hung a semicircle of tiny cages containing live decoys,—chaffinches, hawfinches, titmice and several other species. "The older and staider ones call repeatedly," says Mr. Astley, "and the chaffinches break into song. It is the only song to be heard in Italy at the time of the autum migration."

And the King of Italy, the Queen of Italy, the Parliament of Italy and His Holiness the Pope permit these things, year in and year out. It is now said, however, that through the efforts of a recently organized bird-lovers' society in Italy, the blinding of decoy birds for roccolos is to be stopped.

In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the protection of these birds during their breeding season must be very effective, for otherwise the supply for the Italian slaughter of the Innocents would long ago have fallen to nothing.

The Germans love birds, and all wild life. I wonder how they like the Italian roccolo. I wonder how France regards it; and whether the nations of Europe north of Italy will endure this situation forever.

To the American and English reader, comment on the practices recorded above is quite unnecessary, except the observation that they betoken a callousness of feeling and a depth of cruelty and destructiveness to which, so far as known, no savages ever yet have sunk. As an exhibit of the groveling pusillanimity of the human soul, the roccolo of northern Italy reveals minus qualities which can not be expressed either in words or in figures.

And what is the final exhibit of the gallant knight of the roccolo, the feudal lord of the modern castle and its retainers?

The answer is given by Dr. Louis B. Bishop, in an article on "Birds in the Markets of Southern Europe."

In Venice, which was visited in October and November, during the fall migration, he found on sale in the markets, as food, thousands of songbirds.

"Birds were there in profusion, from ducks to kites, in the early morning, hung in great bunches above the stalls, but by 9 A.M. most of them had been sold. Ducks and shorebirds occurred in some numbers, but the vast majority were small sparrows, larks and thrushes. These were there during my visit by the thousands, if not ten thousands. To the market they were brought in large sacks, strung in fours on twigs which had been passed through the eyes and then tied. Most of these small birds had been trapped, and on skinning them I often could find no injury except at their eyes.[C] One of these sacks which I examined on November 3, contained hundreds of birds, largely siskins, skylarks and bramblings. As a rule the small birds that were not sold in the early morning were skinned or picked, and their tiny bodies packed in regular order, breasts up, in shadow tin boxes, and exposed for sale."

[Footnote C: It is probable that these birds were killed by piercing the head through the eyes.]

"During these visits to the Venetian markets, I identified 60 species, and procured specimens of most. As nearly as I can remember, small birds cost from two to five cents apiece. For example I paid $2.15 on Nov. 8, for

1 Woodcock, 1 Skylark, 1 Jay, 1 Greenfinch, 2 Starlings, 1 Bullfinch, 2 Spotted Crakes, 1 Redpoll. 1 Song Thrush, 3 Linnets, 1 Gold-Crest, 2 Goldfinches, 1 Long-Tailed Titmouse, 6 Siskins, 1 Great Titmouse, 3 Reed Buntings, 1 Pipit, 3 Bramblings, 1 Redstart, —and 5 Chaffinches.

"On November 10, I paid $3.25 for

2 Coots, 1 European Curlew, 1 Water Rail, 2 Kingfishers, 1 Spotted Crake, 2 Greenfinches, 1 Sparrow Hawk, 2 Wrens, 2 Woodcock, 2 Great Titmouse, 1 Common Redshank, 2 Blue Titmouse, 1 Dusky Redshank, 1 Redbreast, and 2 Dunlins."

Of course there were various species of upland game birds, shore-birds and waterfowl,—everything, in fact, that could be found and killed. In addition to the passerine birds listed above. Dr. Bishop noted the following, all in Venice alone:

Skylark ("in great numbers"), Crested Lark, Crossbill, Calandra, House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow, Stonechat, Hawfinch, Coal, Yellow-Hammer, Goldcrest, Blackbird, Rock Pipit, Fieldfare, White Wagtail, Song Thrush, Redwing.

"In Florence," says Dr. Bishop, "I visited the central market on November 26, 28, 29, 30, December 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and found birds even more plentiful than in Venice." Besides a variety of game birds, he found quantities of the species mentioned above, seen in Venice, and also the following:

Green Sandpiper, Brown Creeper, Dotterel, Nuthatch, Magpie, Black-Cap Warbler, Corn Bunting, Black-Headed Warbler, Migratory Quail, Fantail Warbler, Green Woodpecker, Missel Thrush, Spotted Woodpecker, Ring Ouzel, Wood Lark, Rock Sparrow, and Gray Wagtail.

"Here, too [at Florence] we saw often, bunches and baskets of small birds, chiefly redbreasts, hawked through the streets.... Every Sunday that we went into the country we met numbers of Italians out shooting, and their bags seemed to consist wholly of small birds.

"At Genoa, San Remo, Monte Carlo and Nice, between December 13 and 29, I did not visit the central markets, if such exist, but saw frequently bunches of small birds hanging outside stores.... A gentleman who spent the fall on an automobile trip through the west of FRANCE from Brittany to the Pyrenees, tells me he noticed these bunches of small birds on sale in every town he visited.

"That killing song-birds for food," continues Dr. Bishop, "is not confined to the poor Italians I learned on October 27, when one of the most prominent and wealthy Italian ornithologists—a delightful man—told me he had shot 180 skylarks and pipits the day before, and that his family liked them far better than other game. Our prejudice against selling game does not exist in Europe, and this same ornithologist told me he often shot 200 ducks in a day at his shooting-box, sending to the market what he could not use himself. On November 1, 1910, he shot 82 ducks, and on November 8, 103, chiefly widgeon and teal."

An "ornithologist" indeed! A "sportsman" also, is he not? He belongs with his brother "ornithologists" of the roccolos, who net their "game" with the aid of blind birds! Brave men, gallant "sportsmen," are these men of Italy,—and western France also if the tale is true!

If the people of Europe can stand the wholesale, systematic slaughter of their song and insectivorous birds, we can! If they are too mean-spirited to rise up, make a row about it, and stop it, then let them pay the price; but, by the Eternal, Antonio shall not come to this country with the song-bird tastes of the roccolo and indulge them here!

The above facts have been cited, not at all for the benefit of Europe, but for our own good. The American People are now confronted by the Italian and Austrian and Hungarian laborer and saloon-keeper and mechanic, and all Americans should have an exact measure of the sentiments of southern Europe toward our wild life generally, especially the birds that we do not shoot at all, and therefore are easy to kill.

When a warden or a citizen arrests an alien for killing any of our non-game birds, show the judge these records of how they do things in Italy, and ask for the extreme penalty.

I have taken pains to publish the above facts from eye-witnesses in order that every game commissioner, game warden and state legislator who reads these pages may know exactly what he is "up against" in the alien population of our country from southern Europe. For unnumbered generations, the people of Italy have been taught to believe that it is perfectly right to shoot and devour every song-bird that flies. The Venetian is no respecter of species; and when an Italian "ornithologist" (!) can go out and murder 180 linnets and pipits in one day for the pot, it is time for Americans to think hard.

We sincerely hope that it will not require blows and kicks and fines to remove from Antonio's head the idea that America is not Italy, and that the slaughter of song birds "don't go" in this country. I strongly recommend to every state the enactment of a law that will do these things:

1.—Prohibit the owning, carrying or use of firearms by aliens, and

2.—Prohibit the use of firearms in hunting by any naturalized alien from southern Europe until after a 10-years' residence in America.

From reports that have come to me at first hand regarding Italians in the East, Hungarians in Pennsylvania and Austrians in Minnesota, it seems absolutely certain that all members of the lower classes of southern Europe are a dangerous menace to our wild life.

On account of the now-accursed land-of-liberty idea, every foreigner who sails past the statue on Bedloe's Island and lands on our liberty-ridden shore, is firmly convinced that now, at last, he can do as he pleases! And as one of his first ways in which to show his newly-acquired personal liberty and independence in the Land of Easy Marks, he buys a gun and goes out to shoot "free game!"

If we, as a people, are so indolent and so somnolent that Antonio gets away with all our wild birds, then do we deserve to be robbed.

Italians are pouring into America in a steady stream. They are strong, prolific, persistent and of tireless energy. New York City now contains 340,000 of them. They work while the native Americans sleep. Wherever they settle, their tendency is to root out the native American and take his place and his income. Toward wild life the Italian laborer is a human mongoose. Give him power to act, and he will quickly exterminate every wild thing that wears feathers or hair. To our songbirds he is literally a "pestilence that walketh at noonday".

As we have shown, the Italian is a born pot-hunter, and he has grown up in the fixed belief that killing song-birds for food is right! To him all is game that goes into the bag. The moment he sets foot in the open, he provides himself with a shot-gun, and he looks about for things to kill. It is "a free country;" therefore, he may kill anything he can find, cook it and eat it. If anybody attempts to check him,—sapristi! beware his gun! He cheerfully invades your fields, and even your lawn; and he shoots robins, bluebirds, thrushes, catbirds, grosbeaks, tanagers, orioles, woodpeckers, quail, snipe, ducks, crows, and herons.

Down in Virginia, near Charlottesville, an Italian who was working on a new railroad once killed a turkey buzzard; and he selfishly cooked it and ate it, all alone. A pot-hunting compatriot of his heard of it, and reproached him for having-dined on game in camera. In the quarrel that ensued, one of the "sportsmen" stabbed the other to death.

When the New York Zoological Society began work on its Park in 1899, the northern half of the Borough of the Bronx was a regular daily hunting-ground for the slaughter of song-birds, and all other birds that could be found. Every Sunday it was "bangetty!" "bang!" from Pelham Bay to Van Cortlandt. The police force paid not the slightest attention to these open, flagrant, shameless violations of the city ordinances and the state bird laws. In those days I never but once heard of a policeman on his own initiative arresting a birdshooter, even on Sunday; but whenever meddlesome special wardens from the Zoological Park have pointedly called upon the local police force for help, it has always been given with cheerful alacrity. In the fall of 1912 an appeal to the Police Commissioner resulted in a general order to stop all hunting and shooting in the Borough of the Bronx, and a reform is now on.

The war on the bird-killers in New York City began in 1900. It seemed that if the Zoological Society did not take up the matter, the slaughter would continue indefinitely. The white man's burden was taken up; and the story of the war is rather illuminating. Mr. G.O. Shields, President of the League of American Sportsmen, quickly became interested in the matter, and entered actively into the campaign. For months unnumbered, he spent every Sunday patroling the woods and thickets of northern New York and Westchester county, usually accompanied by John J. Rose and Rudolph Bell of the Zoological Park force, for whom appointments as deputy game wardens had been secured from the State.

The adventures of that redoubtable trio of man-hunters would make an interesting chapter. They were shot at by poachers, but more frequently they shot at the other fellows. Just why it was that no one was killed, no one seems to know. Many Italians and several Americans were arrested while hunting, haled to court, prosecuted and fined. Finally, a reign of terror set in; and that was the beginning of the end. It became known that those three men could not be stopped by threats, and that they always got their man—unless he got into a human rabbit-warren of the Italian boarding-house species. That was the only escape that was possible.

The largest haul of dead birds was 43 robins, orioles, thrushes and woodpeckers, captured along with the five Italians who committed the indiscretion of sitting down in the woods to divide their dead birds. We saved all the birds in alcohol, and showed them in court. The judge fined two of the Italians $50 each, and the other three were sent to the penitentiary for two months each.

Even yet, however, at long intervals an occasional son of sunny Italy tries his luck at Sunday bird shooting; but if anyone yells at him to "Halt!" he throws away his gun and stampedes through the brush like a frightened deer. The birds of upper New York are now fairly secure; but it has taken ten years of fighting to bring it about.

Throughout New York State, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and even Minnesota, wherever there are large settlements of Italians and Hungarians, the reports are the same. They swarm through the country every Sunday, and shoot every wild thing they see. Wherever there are large construction works,—railroads, canals or aqueducts,—look for bird slaughter, and you are sure to find it. The exception to this rule, so far as I know, is along the line of the new Catskill aqueduct, coming to New York City. The contractors have elected not to permit bird slaughter, and the rule has been made that any man who goes out hunting will instantly be discharged. That is the best rule that ever was made for the protection of birds and game against gang-working aliens.

Let every state and province in America look out sharply for the bird-killing foreigner; for sooner or later, he will surely attack your wild life. The Italians are spreading, spreading, spreading. If you are without them to-day, to-morrow they will be around you. Meet them at the threshold with drastic laws, throughly enforced; for no half way measures will answer.

Pennsylvania has had the worst experience of alien slaughterers of any state, thus far. Six of her game wardens have been killed, and eight or ten have been wounded, by shooting! Finally her legislature arose in wrath, and passed a law prohibiting the ownership or possession of guns of any kind by aliens. The law gives the right of domiciliary search, and it surely is enforced. Of course the foreign population "kicked" against the law, but the People's steam roller went over them just the same. In New York, we require from an alien a license costing $20, and it has saved a million (perhaps) of our birds; but the Pennsylvania law is the best. It may be taken as a model for every state and province in America. Its text is as follows:

Section I. Be it enacted, &c., That from and after the passage of this act, it shall be unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident to hunt for or capture or kill, in this Commonwealth, any wild bird or animal, either game or otherwise, of any description, excepting in defense of person or property; and to that end it shall be unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident, within this Commonwealth, to either own or be possessed of a shotgun or rifle of any make. Each and every person violating any provision of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to pay a penalty of twenty-five dollars for each offense, or undergo imprisonment in the common jail of the county for the period of one day for each dollar of penalty imposed. Provided, That in addition to the before-named penalty, all guns of the before-mentioned kinds found in possession or under control of an unnaturalized foreign-born resident shall, upon conviction of such person, or upon his signing a declaration of guilt as prescribed by this act, be declared forfeited to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and shall be sold by the Board of Game Commissioners as hereinafter directed.

Section 2. For the purpose of this act, any unnaturalized foreign-born person who shall reside or live within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for ten consecutive days shall be considered a resident and shall be liable to the penalties imposed for violation of the provisions of this act.

Section 3. That the possession of a shotgun or rifle at any place outside of a building, within this Commonwealth, by an unnaturalized foreign-born resident, shall be conclusive proof of a violation of the provisions of section one of this act, and shall render any person convicted thereof liable to the penalty as fixed by said section.

Section 4. That the presence of a shotgun or rifle in a room or house, or building or tent, or camp of any description, within this Commonwealth, occupied by or controlled by an unnaturalized foreign-born resident shall be prima facie evidence that such gun is owned or controlled by the person occupying or controlling the property in which such gun is found, and shall render such person liable to the penalty imposed by section one of this act.

Other sections provide for the full enforcement of this law.

It is now high time, and an imperative public necessity, that every state should act in this matter, before its bird life is suddenly attacked, and serious inroads made upon it. Do it NOW! The enemy is headed your way. Don't wait for him to strike the first blow!

Duty of the Italian Press and Clergy.—Now what is the best remedy for the troubles that will arise for Italians in America because of wrong principles established in Italy? It is not in the law, the police, the court and the punishment. It is in educating the Italian into a knowledge of the duties of the good citizen! The Italian press and clergy can do this; and no one else can do it so easily, so quickly and so well!

Those two powerful forces should enter seriously upon this task. In every other respect, the naturalized Italian tries to become a good citizen, and adjust himself to the laws and the customs of his new country. Why should he not do this in regard to bird life? It is not too much to ask, nor is it too much to exact. Does the Italian workman, or store-keeper who makes his living by honest toil enjoy breaking our bird laws, enjoy irritating and injuring those with whom he has come to live? Does he enjoy being watched, and searched, and chased, and arrested,—all for a few small birds that he does not need for food? He earns good wages; he has plenty of good food; and he must be educated into protecting our birds instead of destroying them. The Italian newspapers and clergy have a serious duty to perform in this matter, and we hope they will diligently discharge it.



* * * * *

CHAPTER XII

DESTRUCTION OF SONG BIRDS BY SOUTHERN NEGROES AND POOR WHITES

Before going farther, there is one point that I wish to make quite clear.

Whenever the people of a particular race make a specialty of some particular type of wrong-doing, anyone who pointedly rebukes the faulty members of that race is immediately accused of "race prejudice." On account of the facts I am now setting forth about the doings of Italian and negro bird-killers, I expect to be accused along that line. If I am, I shall strenuously deny the charge. The facts speak for themselves. Zoologically, however, I am strongly prejudiced against the people of any race, creed, club, state or nation who make a specialty of any particularly offensive type of bird or wild animal slaughter; and I do not care who knows it.

The time was, and I remember it very well, when even the poorest gunner scorned to kill birds that were not considered "game." In days lang syne, many a zoological collector has been jeered because the specimens he had killed for preservation were not "game."

But times have changed. In the wearing of furs, we have bumped down steps both high and steep. In 1880 American women wore sealskin, marten, otter, beaver and mink. To-day nothing that wears hair is too humble to be skinned and worn. To-day "they are wearing" skins of muskrats, foxes, rabbits, skunks, domestic cats, squirrels, and even rats. And see how the taste for game,—of some sections of our population,—also has gone down.

In the North, the Italians are fighting for the privilege of eating everything that wears feathers; but we allow no birds to be shot for food save game birds and cranes. In the South, the negroes and poor whites are killing song-birds, woodpeckers and doves for food; and in several states some of it is done under the authority of the laws. Look at these awful lists:

* * * * *

IN THESE STATES, ROBINS ARE LEGALLY SHOT AND EATEN:

Louisiana North Carolina Tennessee Texas Mississippi South Carolina Maryland Florida

IN THESE STATES, BLACKBIRDS ARE LEGALLY SHOT AND EATEN:

Louisiana Pennsylvania Tennessee District of Columbia South Carolina

CRANES ARE SHOT AND EATEN IN THESE STATES:

Colorado North Dakota Nevada Oklahoma Nebraska

In Mississippi, the cedar bird is legally shot and eaten! In North Carolina, the meadow lark is shot and eaten.

IN THE FOLLOWING STATES, DOVES ARE CONSIDERED "GAME," AND ARE SHOT IN AN "OPEN SEASON:"

Alabama Georgia Minnesota Ohio Arkansas Idaho Mississippi Oregon California Illinois Missouri Pennsylvania Connecticut Kentucky Nebraska South Carolina Delaware Louisiana New Mexico Tennessee Dist. of Columbia Maryland North Carolina Texas Utah Virginia

* * * * *

The killing of doves represents a great and widespread decline in the ethics of sportsmanship. In the twenty-six States named, a great many men who call themselves sportsmen indulge in the cheap and ignoble pastime of potting weak and confiding doves. It is on a par with the "sport" of hunting English sparrows in a city street. Of course this is, to a certain extent, a matter of taste; but there is at least one club of sportsmen into which no dove-killer can enter, provided his standard of ethics is known in advance.

With the killing of robins, larks, blackbirds and cedar birds for food, the case is quite different. No white man calling himself a sportsman ever indulges in such low pastimes as the killing of such birds for food. That burden of disgrace rests upon the negroes and poor whites of the South; but at the same time, it is a shame that respectable white men sitting in state legislatures should deliberately enact laws permitting such disgraceful practices, or permit such disgraceful and ungentlemanly laws to remain in force!

Here is a case by way of illustration, copied very recently from the Atlanta Journal:

Editor Journal:—I located a robin roost up the Trinity River, six miles from Dallas, and prevailed on six Dallas sportsmen to go with me on a torch-light bird hunt. This style of hunting was, of course, new to the Texans, but they finally consented to go, and I had the pleasure of showing them how it was done.

Equipped with torch lights and shot guns, we proceeded. After reaching the hunting grounds the sport began in reality, and continued for two hours and ten minutes, with a total slaughter of 10,157 birds, an average of 1,451 birds killed by each man.

But the Texans give me credit for killing at least 2,000 of the entire number. I was called 'the king of bird hunters' by the sportsmen of Dallas, Texas, and have been invited to command-in-chief the next party of hunters which go from Dallas to the Indian Territory in search of large game.—F.L. CROW, Dallas, Texas, former Atlantan.