She should accord a five-year close season to grouse, and all shore birds.

She should rule out the machine shot-guns which gentlemen can no longer use in hunting.

She should adopt at once a comprehensive code of game laws, and clean her house in one siege, instead of fiddling and fussing with all these matters one by one, through a series of ten long, weary years. The time for puttering with game protection has gone by. It is now time to make short cuts to comprehensive results, and save the game before it is too late.

WASHINGTON:

The state of Washington still flatters herself that she has all kinds of big game to kill,—moose, antelope, goat, sheep, caribou and deer. Evidently this is on the theory that so long as a species is not extinct, it is "legal" and right to pursue it with rifles during a specified "open season."

The people of Washington need to be told that conditions have greatly changed, and it is now high time to put on the brakes. It is time for them to realize that if they wait any longer for the sportsmen to take the initiative in securing the enactment of really adequate preservation laws, all their big game will be dead before those laws are born! Every man shrinks from cutting off his own pet privilege.

Some of the game laws of Washington are up to date; and her big-game laws look all right to the unaided eye, but are not. Her bird laws are a chaotic jumble of local exceptions and special privileges. As a net result of all her shortcomings, the remnant of a once fine fauna of big game and feathered game is surely being exterminated according to law. A few local exceptions will not disprove the general truthfulness of this assertion.

Ten years ago a few men in Seattle resented the idea of outside co-operation in the protection of Washington game. They said they were abundantly able to take care of it; but the march of events has proven that they overestimated their capacity. To-day the wild-life laws of that state are only half baked. Come what may to me, I shall set down without malice the things that the great and admirable State of Washington should do to set her house in order. It is not good for the resourceful and progressive men of the Great Northwest to be clear behind the times in these matters.

Stop local game legislation, and enact a code of laws covering the entire state, uniformly. County legislation is twenty years behind the times!

For ten (10) full years, stop the killing of elk, mountain sheep, mountain goat, caribou, moose, and antelope. Regarding deer, I am in doubt.

Prohibit the sale of all wild game, no matter where killed, by the enactment of a Bayne law, complete, which will also

Promote the breeding, killing and sale of domestic game for food purposes.

Make a careful investigation of the present status of your sage grouse, every other grouse, quail, and all species of shore birds, then give a five-year close season, all over the state, to every species that is "becoming scarce." This will embrace certainly one-half of the whole number, if not two-thirds.

Provide two bird refuges in the eastern portion of the state, where they are very greatly needed to supplement the good effects of the State Game Preserve established on Puget Sound in 1911.

Bar the use in hunting of the odious automatic and pump shotguns that are now so generally in use all over the United States to the great detriment of the game and the people.

WEST VIRGINIA:

Considering the fact that West Virginia contains no plague-spot city for the consumption of commercial wild game, that the sale of all game is prohibited at all times, and the game of the state may not be exported for sale elsewhere, the wild life of West Virginia is reasonably secure from the market gunner,—if an adequate salaried warden force is provided. Without such a force her game must continue to be destroyed in the future as in the past to supply the markets of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington. The deer law is excellent, and the non-game birds, and the dove and wood-duck are perpetually protected.

One fly in the ointment is—spring shooting; which for ducks, geese and brant continues from September 1 to April 20. Unfortunately the law enacted in 1875 against spring shooting has been repealed, and so has the resident hunting license law (1911).

In view of the impossibility of imagining a good reason for the repeal of a good law, we recommend:

That the law against spring shooting be re-enacted.

That the resident hunter's license law be re-enacted, and the proceeds specifically devoted to the preservation and increase of game.

That a force of regular salaried wardens be provided to enforce the laws.

That the bag limit on quail should be 10 per day or 40 per season, instead of 12 and 96; and on ruffed grouse it should be 3 per day (as in New York) or 12 per season. One wild turkey per day, or three per season is quite enough for one man. The visible supply will not justify the existing limit of two and six.

WISCONSIN:

In spite of the fierce fight made in 1910-11 by the saloon-element game-shooters of Milwaukee for the control of the wild-life situation, and the repeal of the best protective laws of the state, the Army of Defense once more defeated the Allied Destroyers, and drove them off the field. Once more it was proven that when The People are aroused, they are abundantly able to send the steam roller over the enemies of wild life.

Alphabetically, Wisconsin may come near the end of the roll-call; but by downright merit in protection, she comes mighty close to the head of the list of states. Her slate of "Work to be done" is particularly clean; and she has our most distinguished admiration. Her force of game wardens is not a political-machine force. It amounts to something. The men who get within it undergo successfully a civil service examination that certainly separates the sheep from the goats. For particulars address Dr. T.S. Palmer, Department of Agriculture, Washington.

According to the standards that have been dragging along previous to this moment, Wisconsin has a good series of game laws. But the hour for a Reformation of ideas and principles has struck. We heard it first in April, 1911. The wild life of America must not be exterminated according to law, contrary to law, or in the absence of law! Wisconsin must take a fresh grip on her game situation, or it will get away from her, after all.

Not another prairie chicken or woodcock should be killed in Wisconsin between 1912 and 1922. When any small bird becomes so scarce that the bag limit needs to be cut down to five, as it now is for the above in Wisconsin, it is time to stop for ten years, before it is too late.

Wisconsin should immediately busy herself about the creation of bird and game preserves.

For goodness sake, Wisconsin, stop killing squirrels as "game!" You ought to know better—and you do! Leave that form of barbarism for the Benighted States.

And pass a law shutting out the machine guns. They are a disgrace to our country, and a scourge to our game. Continually are they leading good men astray.

Extend the term of your State Warden to four years.

WYOMING:

The State of Wyoming once had a magnificent heritage of game. It embraced the Rocky Mountain species, and also those of the great plains. First and last, the state has worked hard to protect her wild life, and hold the killing of it down to a decent basis.

As far back as 1889, I met on the Shoshone River a very wide-awake warden, actually "on his job," who was maintained by a body of private citizens headed by Col. Pickett and known as the Northern Wyoming Game Protective Association. And even then we saw that the laws were too liberal for the game. In one man's cold-storage dug-out we saw enough sheep, deer and elk meat to subsist a company of hungry dragoons, all killed and possessed according to law.

In the protection of her mountain game, Wyoming has had a hard task. In the Yellowstone Park between 1889 and 1894, the poachers for the taxidermists of Livingston and elsewhere slaughtered 270 bison out of 300; and Howell was the only man caught. England can protect game in far-distant mountains and wildernesses; but America can not,—or at least we don't! With us, men living in remote places who find wild game about them say "To h—- with the law!" They kill on the sly, in season and out of season, females and males; and the average local jury simply will not convict the average settler who is accused of such a trifling indiscretion as killing game out of season when he "needs the meat."

And so, with laws in full force protecting females, the volume of big game steadily disappears, everywhere west of the Alleghanies where the law permits big-game hunting! An interesting chapter might be written on game exterminated according to law.

The deadly defects in the protection of western big game are:

Structural weakness in the enforcement of the laws;

Collusion between offenders for the suppression of evidence;

Perjury on the witness stand;

Dishonesty and disloyalty on the part of local jurors when friends, are on trial;

Sympathy of judges for "the poor man" who wants to eat the game to save his cattle and sheep.



Elsewhere there appears a statement regarding the elk of Jackson Hole, and the efforts made and being made to save them. At this point we are interested in the game of Wyoming as a whole.

First of all, the killing of mountain sheep should absolutely cease, for ten years.

A similar ten-year close season should be accorded moose and prong-horned antelope.

All grouse should now be classed with doves and swans (no open season), and kept there for ten years.

Spring shooting is wrong in principle and vicious in practice; and it should be stopped in Wyoming, as elsewhere.

The automatic and pump shotguns when used in hunting are a disgrace to Wyoming, as they are to other states, and should be suppressed; and the silencer for use in hunting is in the black list.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXII

NEED FOR A FEDERAL MIGRATORY BIRD LAW, NO-SALE-OF-GAME LAW, AND OTHERS

We are assuming that the American people sincerely desire the adequate protection and increase of bird life, for reasons that are both sentimental and commercial. Surely every good citizen dislikes to see millions of dollar's worth of national wealth foolishly wasted, and he dislikes to pay any unnecessary increased cost of living. There must be several millions of Americans who feel that way, and who are disposed to demand a complete revolution in bird protection.

There are four needs of wild bird life that are fundamental, and that can not be ignored, any more than a builder can ignore the four cornerstones of his building. Listed in the order of their importance, they are as follows:

1.—The federal protection of all migratory birds.

2.—The total suppression of the sale of native wild game.

3.—The total suppression of spring shooting and of shooting in the breeding season, and

4.—Long close seasons for all species that are about to be "shot out."

If the gunners of America wish to have a gameless continent, all they need do to secure it is to oppose these principles, prevent their translation into law, and maintain the status quo. If they do this, then all our best birds are doomed to swift destruction. Let no man make a mistake on that point. The "open seasons" and "bag limits" of the United States to-day are just as deadly as the 5,000,000 sporting guns now in use, and the 700,000,000 annual cartridges. It is only the ignorant or the vicious who will seriously dispute this statement.

THE FEDERAL PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS.—The bill now before Congress for the protection of all migratory birds by the national government is the most important measure ever placed before that body in behalf of wild life. A stranger to this proposition will need to pause for thought in order to grasp its full meaning, and appreciate the magnitude of its influence.

The urgent necessity for a law of this nature is due to the utter inadequacy of the laws that prevail throughout some portions of the United States concerning the slaughter and preservation of birds. Any law that is not enforced is a poor law. There is not one state in the Union, nor a single province in Canada, in which the game birds, and other birds criminally shot as game, are not being killed far faster than they are breeding, and thereby being exterminated.

Several states are financially unable to employ a force of salaried game wardens; and wherever that is true, the door to universal slaughter is wide open. Let him who questions this take Virginia as a case in point. A loyal Virginian told me only this year that in his state the warden system is an ineffective farce, and the game is not protected, because the wardens can not afford to patrol the state for nothing.

This condition prevails in a number of states, north and south, especially south. It is my belief that throughout nine-tenths of the South, the negroes and poor whites are slaughtering birds exactly as they please. It is the permanent residents of the haunts of birds and game that are exterminating the wild life.

The value of the birds as destroyers of noxious insects, has been set forth in Chapter XXIII. Their total value is enormous—or it would be if the birds were alive and here in their normal numbers. To-day there are about one-tenth as many birds as were alive and working thirty years ago. During the past thirty years the destruction of our game birds has been enormous, and the insectivorous birds have greatly decreased.

The damages annually inflicted upon the farm, orchard and garden crops of this country are very great. When a city is destroyed by earthquake or fire, and $100,000,000 worth of property is swept away, we are racked with horror and pity; and the cities of America pour out money like water to relieve the resultant distress. We are shocked because we can see the flames, the smoke and the ruins.

And yet, we annually endure with perfect equanimity (because we can not see it?) a loss of nearly $400,000,000 worth of value that is destroyed by insects. The damage is inflicted silently, insidiously, without any scare heads or wooden type in the newspapers, and so we pay the price without protest. We know—when we stop to think of it—that not all this loss falls upon the producer. We know that every consumer of bread, cereals, vegetables and fruit pays his share of this loss! To-day, millions of people are groaning under the "increased cost of living." The bill for the federal protection of all migratory birds is directly intended to decrease the cost of living, by preventing outrageous waste; but of all the persons to whom the needs of that bill are presented, how many will take the time to promote its quick passage by direct appeals to their members of Congress? We shall see.

The good that would be accomplished, annually, by the enactment of a law for the federal protection of all migratory birds is beyond computation; but it is my belief that within a very few years the increase in bird life would prevent what is now an annual loss of $250,000,000. It is beyond the power of man to protect his crops and fruit and trees as the bird millions would protect them—if they were here as they were in 1870. The migratory bird bill is of vast importance because it would throw the strong arm of federal protection around 610 species of birds. The power of Uncle Sam is respected and feared in many places where the power of the state is ignored.

The list of migratory birds includes most of the perching birds; all the shore birds (great destroyers of bad insects); all the swifts and swallows; the goat-suckers (whippoorwill and nighthawk); some of the woodpeckers; most of the rails; pigeons and doves; many of the hawks; some of the cranes and herons and all the geese, ducks and swans.

A movement for the federal protection of migratory game birds was proposed to Congress by George Shiras, 3rd, who as a member of the House in the 58th Congress introduced a bill to secure that end. An excellent brief on that subject by Mr. Shiras appeared in the printed hearing on the McLean bill, held on March 6, 1912, page 18. Omitting the bills introduced in the 59th, 60th and 61st sessions, mention need be made only of the measures under consideration in the present Congress. One of these is a bill introduced by Representative J.W. Weeks, of Massachusetts, and another is the bill of Representative D.R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, of the same purport.

Finally, on April 24, 1912, an adequate and entirely reasonable bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator George P. McLean, of Connecticut, as No. 6497 (Calendar No. 606). This bill provides federal protection for all migratory birds, and embraces all save a very few of the species that are specially destructive to noxious insects. The bill provides national protection to the farmer's and fruit-grower's best friends. It is entitled to the enthusiastic support of 90,000,000 of people, native and alien. Every producer of farm products and every consumer of them owes it to himself to write at once to his member of Congress and ask him (1) to urge the speedy consideration of the bill for the federal protection of all migratory birds, (2) to vote for it, and (3) to work for it until it is passed. It matters not which one of the three bills described finally becomes a law. Will the American people act rationally about this matter, and protect their own interests?

SUPPRESS THE SALE OF ALL NATIVE WILD GAME.—The deadly effect of the commercial slaughter of game and its sale for food is now becoming well understood by the American people. One by one the various state legislatures have been putting up the bars against the exportation or sale of any "game protected by the state." The U.S. Department of Agriculture says, through Henry Oldys, that "free marketing of wild game leads swiftly to extermination;" and it is literally true.

Up to March, 1911, it appears that several states prohibited the sale of game, sixteen states permitted the sale of all unprotected game, and in eight more there was partial prohibition. Unfortunately, however, many of these states permitted the sale of imported game. Now, since it happened to be a fact that the vast majority of the states prohibit the export of their game, as well as the sale of it, a very large quantity of such game as quail, ruffed grouse, snipe, woodcock and shore birds was illegally shot for the market, exported in defiance both of state laws and the federal Lacey Act, and sold to the detriment of the states that produced it. In other words, in the laws of each state that merely sought to protect their own game, regardless of the game of neighboring states, there was not merely a loop-hole, but there was a gap wide enough to drive through with a coach and four. The ruffed grouse of Massachusetts and Connecticut often were butchered to make Gotham holidays in joyous contempt of the laws at both ends of the line. As a natural result the game of the Atlantic coast was disappearing at a frightful rate.



In 1911, the no-sale-of-game law of New York was born out of sheer desperation. The Army of Destruction went up to Albany well-organized, well provided with money and attorneys, with three senators in the Senate and two assemblymen in the lower house, to wage merciless warfare on the whole wild-life cause. The market gunners and game dealers not only proposed to repeal the law against spring shooting but also to defeat all legislation that might be attempted to restrict the sale of game, or impose bag limits on wild fowl. The Milliners' Association proposed to wipe off the books the Dutcher law against the use of the plumage of wild birds in millinery, and an assemblyman was committed to that cause as its special champion.

Then it was that all the friends of wild life in the Empire State resolved upon a death grapple with the Destroyers, and a fight to an absolute finish. The Bayne bill, entirely prohibiting the sale of all native wild game throughout the state of New York, was drafted and thrown into the ring, and the struggle began. At first the no-sale-of-game bill looked like sheer madness, but no sooner was it fairly launched than supporters came flocking in from every side. All the organizations of sportsmen and friends of wild life combined in one mighty army, the strength of which was irresistible. The real sportsmen of the state quickly realized that the no-sale bill was directly in the interest of legitimate sport. The great mass of people who love wild life, and never kill, were quick to comprehend the far-reaching importance of the measure, and they supported it, with money and enthusiasm.

The members of the legislature received thousands of letters from their constituents, asking them to support the Bayne-Blauvelt bill. They did so. On its passage through the two houses, only one vote was recorded against it! Incidentally, every move attempted by the Army of Destruction was defeated and in the final summing up the defeat amounted to an utter rout.

In 1912, after a tremendous struggle, the legislature of Massachusetts passed a counterpart of the Bayne law, and took her place in the front rank of states. That was a great fight. The market-gunners of Cape Cod, the game dealers and other interests entered the struggle with men in the lower house of the legislature specially elected to look after their interests. Just as in New York in 1911, they proposed to repeal the existing laws against spring shooting and throw the markets wide open to the sale of game. From first to last, through three long and stormy months, the Destroyers fought with a degree of determination and persistence worthy of a better cause. They contested with the Defenders every inch of ground. In New York, the Destroyers were overwhelmed by the tidal wave of Defenders, but in Massachusetts it was a prolonged hand-to-hand fight on the ramparts. Five times was a bill to repeal the spring-shooting law introduced and defeated!

Even after the bill had passed both houses by good majorities, the Governor declared that he could not sign it. And then there poured into the Executive offices such a flood of callers, letters, telegrams and telephone calls that he became convinced that the People desired the law; so he signed the bill in deference to the wishes of the majority.

The principle that the sale of game is wrong, and fatal to the existence of a supply of game, is as fixed and unassailable as the Rocky Mountains. Its universal acceptance is only a question of intelligence and common honesty. The open states owe it to themselves and each other to enact both the spirit and the letter of the Bayne law, and do it quickly, before it is too late to profit by it! Let them remember the heath hen,—amply protected when entirely too late to save it from extinction!

It is fairly beyond question that the killing of wild game for the market, and its sale in the "open season" and out of it, is responsible for the disappearance of at least fifty per cent of our stock of American feathered game. It is the market-gunner, the game-hog who shoots "for sport" and sells his game, and the game dealer, who have swept away the wild ducks, the ruffed grouse, the quail and the prairie chickens that thirty years ago were abundant on their natural ranges. The foolish farmers of the middle West permitted the market-hunters of Chicago and the East to slaughter their own legitimate game by the barrel and the car-load, and ship it "East," to market. To-day the waters of Currituck Sound are a wholesale slaughter-place for migratory wild fowl with which to supply the markets of Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia. Furthermore, the market gunners of Currituck are robbing the people of 16 states of tens of thousands of wild-fowl that legitimately belong to them, during the annual autumn flight. The accompanying map shows how it is done.



To-day, the cash rewards of the market-hunter who can reach a large city with his product are dangerously great. Observe the following wholesale prices that prevailed in New York city in 1910, just prior to the passage of the Bayne law. They were compiled and published by Henry Oldys, of the Biological Survey.

Grouse, domestic per pair $3.00 Grouse, foreign " " $1.25 to 1.75 Partridge, domestic " " 3.50 " 4.00 Woodcock, domestic " " 1.50 " 2.00 Golden plover per dozen 2.50 " 3.50 English snipe " " 2.00 " 3.00 Canvasback duck per pair 2.25 " 3.00 Redhead duck " " 1.50 " 2.50 Mallard duck " " " 1.25 Bluewing teal " " .75 " 1.00 Greenwing teal " " .75 " .90 Broadbill duck " " .50 " .75 Rail, No. 1 per dozen " 1.00 Rail, No. 2 " " " .60 Venison, whole deer per pound .22 " .25 Venison, saddle " " .30 " .35

All our feathered game is rapidly slipping away from us. Are we going to save anything from the wreck? Will we so weakly manage the game situation that later on there will be no legitimate bird-shooting for our younger sons, and our grandsons?

All laws that permit the killing of game for the market, and the sale of it afterward, are class legislation of the worst sort. They permit a hundred men selfishly to slaughter for their own pockets the game that rightfully belongs to a hundred thousand men and boys who shoot for the legitimate recreation that such field sports afford. Will any of the sportsmen of America "stand for" this until the game is all gone?

The people who pay big prices for game in the hotels and restaurants of our big cities are not men who need that game as food. Far from it. They can obtain scores of fine meat dishes without destroying the wild flocks. In civilized countries wild game is no longer necessary as "food," to satisfy hunger, and ward off starvation. In the United States the day of the hungry Indian-fighting pioneer has gone by and there is an abundance of food everywhere.

The time to temporize and feel timid over the game situation has gone by. The situation is desperate; and nothing but strong and vigorous measures will avail anything worth while. The sale of all wild game should be stopped, everywhere and at all seasons, throughout all North America, and throughout the world. To-day this particular curse is being felt even in India.

It is the duty of every true sportsman, every farmer who owns a gun, and every lover of wild life, to enter into the campaign for the passage of bills absolutely prohibiting all traffic in wild game no matter what its origin. Of course the market hunters, the game-hogs and the game dealers will bitterly oppose them, and hire a lobby to attempt to defeat them. But the fight for no-sale-of-game is now on, and it must not stop short of complete victory.

* * * * *

REASONS WHY THE SALE OF WILD GAME SHOULD CEASE EVERYWHERE

1.—Because fully 95 per cent of our legitimate stock of feathered game has already been destroyed.

2.—Because if market-gunning and the sale of game continue ten years longer, all our feathered game will be swept away.

3.—Because when the sale of game was permitted one dealer was able to sell 1,000,000 game birds per year in New York City, so he himself said.

4.—Because it is a fixed fact that every wild species of mammal, bird or reptile that is pursued for money-making purposes eventually is wiped out of existence. Even the whales of the sea are no exception.

5.—Because at least 50 per cent of the decrease in our feathered game is due to market-gunning, and the sale of game. Look at the prairie chicken of the Mississippi Valley, and the ruffed grouse of New England.

6.—Because the laws that permit the commercial slaughter of wild birds for the benefit of less than five per cent of the inhabitants of any state are directly against the interest of the 95 per cent of other people, to whom that game partly belongs.

7.—Because game killed "for sale" is not intended to satisfy "hunger." The people who eat game in large cities do not know what hunger is, save by hearsay. Purchased game is used chiefly in over-feeding; and as a rule it does far more harm than good.

8.—Because the greatest value to be derived from any game bird is in seeing it, and photographing it, and enjoying its living company in its native haunts. Who will love the forests when they become destitute of wild life, and desolate?

9.—Because stopping the sale of game will help bring back the game birds to us, in a few years.

10.—Because the pace that New York and Massachusetts have set in this matter will render it easier to procure the passage of Bayne laws in other states.

11.—Because those who legitimately desire game for their tables can be supplied from the game farms and preserves that now are coming into existence.

When New York's far-reaching Bayne bill became a law, the following dead birds lay in cold storage in New York City:

Wild duck 98,156 Plover 48,780 Quail 14,227 Grouse 21,202 Snipe 7,825 Woodcock 767 Rail 419 ———- 191,376

They represented the last slaughterings of American game for New York. To-day the remaining plague-spots are Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, Washington and New Orleans; but in New Orleans the brakes have at last (1912) been applied, and the market slaughter that formerly prevailed in that state has at least been checked.

As an instance of persistent market shooting on the greatest ducking waters of the eastern United States, I offer this report from a trustworthy agent sent to Currituck Sound, North Carolina, in March, 1911.

I beg to submit the following information relative to the number of wild ducks and geese shipped from this market and killed in the waters of Back Bay and the upper or north end of Currituck Sound, from October 20th to March 1st, inclusive.

Approximately there were killed and shipped in the territory above named, 130,000 to 135,000 wild ducks and between 1400 and 1500 wild geese. From Currituck Sound and its tributaries there were shipped approximately 200,000 wild ducks.

You will see from the above figures that each year the market shooter exacts a tremendous toll from the wild water fowl in these waters, and it is only a question of a short time when the wild duck will be exterminated, unless we can stop the ruthless slaughter. The last few years I have noted a great decrease in the number of wild ducks; some of the species are practically extinct. I have secured the above information from a most reliable source, and the figures given approximately cannot be questioned.

The effect of the passage of the Bayne law, closing the greatest American market against the sale of game was an immediate decrease of fully fifty per cent in the number of ducks and geese slaughtered on Currituck Sound. The dealers refused to buy the birds, and one-half the killers were compelled to hang up their guns and go to work. The duck-slaughterers felt very much enraged by the passage of the law, and at first were inclined to blame the northern members of Currituck ducking clubs for the passage of the measure; but as a matter of fact, not one of the persons blamed took any part whatever in the campaign for the new law.

THE UNFAIRNESS OF SPRING SHOOTING.—The shooting of game birds in late winter and spring is to be mentioned only to be condemned. It is grossly unfair to the birds, outrageous in principle, and most unsportsmanlike, no matter whether the law permits it or not. Why it is that any state like Iowa, for example, can go on killing game in spring is more than I can understand. I have endeavored to find a reason for it, in Iowa, but the only real reason is:—"The boys want the birds!"

I think we have at last reached the point where it may truthfully be said that now no gentleman shoots birds in spring. If the plea is made that "if we don't shoot ducks in the spring we can't shoot them at all!" then the answer is—if you can't shoot game like high-minded, red-blooded sportsman, don't shoot it at all! A gentleman can not afford to barter his standing and his own self-respect for a few ducks shot in the spring when the birds are going north to lay their eggs. And the man who insists on shooting in spring may just as well go right on and do various other things that are beyond the pale, such as shoot quail on the ground, shoot does and fawns, and fish for trout with gang hooks.

There are no longer two sides to what once was the spring shooting question. Even among savages, the breeding period of the wild creatures is under taboo. Then if ever may the beasts and birds cry "King's excuse!" It has been positively stated in print that high-class fox hounds have been known to refuse to chase a pregnant fox, even when in full view.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXIII

BRINGING BACK THE VANISHED BIRDS AND GAME

The most charming trait of wild-life character is the alacrity and confidence with which wild birds and mammals respond to the friendly advances of human friends. Those who are not very familiar with the mental traits of our wild neighbors may at first find it difficult to comprehend the marvelous celerity with which both birds and mammals recognize friendly overtures from man, and respond to them.

At the present juncture, this state of the wild-animal mind becomes a factor of great importance in determining what we can do to prevent the extermination of species, and to promote the increase and return of wild life.

I think that there is not a single wild mammal or bird species now living that can not, or does not, quickly recognize protection, and take advantage of it. The most conspicuous of all familiar examples are the wild animals of the Yellowstone Park. They embrace the elk, mountain sheep, antelope, mule deer, the black bear and even the grizzly. No one can say precisely how long those several species were in ascertaining that it was safe to trust themselves within easy rifle-shot of man; but I think it was about five years. Birds recognize protection far more quickly than mammals. In a comparatively short time the naturally wild and wary big game of the Yellowstone Park became about as tame as range cattle. It was at least fifteen years ago that the mule deer began to frequent the parade ground at the Mammoth Hot Springs military post, and receive there their rations of hay.

Whenever you see a beautiful photograph of a large band of big-horn sheep or mule deer taken at short range amid Rocky Mountain scenery, you are safe in labeling it as having come from the Yellowstone Park. The prong-horned antelope herd is so tame that it is difficult to keep it out of the streets of Gardiner, on the Montana side of the line.

But the bears! Who has not heard the story of the bears of the Yellowstone Park,—how black bears and grizzlies stalk out of the woods, every day, to the garbage dumping-ground; how black bears actually have come into the hotels for food, without breaking the truce, and how the grizzlies boldly raid the grub-wagons and cook-tents of campers, taking just what they please, because they know that no man dares to shoot them! Indeed, those raiding bears long ago became a public nuisance, and many of them have been caught in steel box-traps and shipped to zoological gardens, in order to get them out of the way. And yet, outside the Park boundaries, everywhere, the bears are as wary and wild as the wildest.

The arrogance of the bears that couldn't be shot once led to a droll and also exciting episode.

During the period when Mr. C.J. Jones ("Buffalo" Jones) was superintendent of the wild animals of the Park, the indignities inflicted upon tourist campers by certain grizzly bears quite abraded his nerves. He obtained from Major Pitcher authority to punish and reform a certain grizzly, and went about the matter in a thoroughly Buffalo-Jonesian manner. He procured a strong lariat and a bean-pole seven feet long and repaired to the camp that was troubled by too much grizzly.

The particular offender was a full-grown male grizzly who had become a notorious raider. At the psychological moment Jones lassoed him in short order, getting a firm hold on the bear's left hind leg. Quickly the end of the rope was thrown over a limb of the nearest tree, and in a trice Ephraim found himself swinging head downward between the heavens and the earth. And then his punishment began.

Buffalo Jones thrashed him soundly with the bean-pole! The outraged bear swung to and fro, whirled round and round, clawing and snapping at the empty air, roaring and bawling with rage, scourged in flesh and insulted in spirit. As he swung, the bean-pole searched out the different parts of his anatomy with a wonderful degree of neatness and precision. Between rage and indignation the grizzly nearly exploded. A moving-picture camera was there, and since that day that truly moving scene has amazed and thrilled countless thousands of people.

When it was over, Mr. Jones boldly turned the bear loose! Although its rage was as boundless as the glories of the Yellowstone Park, it paused not to rend any of those present, but headed for the tall timber, and with many an indignant "Woof! Woof!" it plunged in and disappeared. It was two or three years before that locality was again troubled by impudent grizzly bears.

And what is the mental attitude of every Rocky Mountain black or grizzly bear outside of the Yellowstone Park? It is colossal suspicion of man, perpetual fear, and a clean pair of heels the moment man-scent or man-sight proclaims the proximity of the Arch Enemy of Wild Creatures. And yet there are one or two men who tell the American public that wild animals do not think, that they do not reason, and are governed only by "instinct"!

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!"

TAMING WILD BIRDS.—As incontestable proof of the receptive faculties of birds, I will cite the taming of wild birds in the open, by friendly advances. There are hundreds, aye, thousands, of men, women, boys and girls who could give interesting and valuable personal testimony on this point.

My friend J. Alden Loring (one of the naturalists of the Roosevelt African Expedition), is an ardent lover of wild birds and mammals. The taming of wild creatures in the open is one of his pastimes, and his results serve well to illustrate the marvelous readiness of our wild neighbors to become close friends with man when protected. I will quote from one of Mr. Loring's letters on this subject:

"Taming wild birds is a new field in nature study, and one never can tell what success he will have until he has experimented with different species. Some birds tame much more easily than others. On three or four occasions I have enticed a chickadee to my hand at the first attempt, while in other cases it has taken from fifteen minutes to a whole day.

"Chipping sparrows that frequent my doorway I have tamed in two days. A nuthatch required three hours before it would fly to my hand, although it took food from my stick the first time it was offered. When you find a bird on her nest, it is of course much easier to tame that individual than if you had to follow it about in the open, and wait for it to come within reach of a stick. By exercising extreme caution, and approaching inch by inch, I have climbed a tree to the nest of a yellow-throated vireo, and at the first attempt handed the bird a meal-worm with my fingers. At one time I had two house wrens, a yellow-throated vireo, a chipping sparrow and a flock of chickadees that would come to my hand."



It would be possible—and also delightful—to fill a volume with citations of evidence to illustrate the quick acceptance of man's protection by wild birds and mammals. Let me draw a few illustrations from my own wild neighbors.

On Lake Agassiz, in the N.Y. Zoological Park, within 500 feet of my office in the Administration Building, a pair of wild wood-ducks made their nest last spring, and have just finished rearing nine fine, healthy young birds. Whenever you see a wood-duck rise and fly in our Park, you may know that it is a wild bird. During the summer of 1912 a small flock of wild wood-ducks came every night to our Wild-Fowl Pond, and spent the night there.

A year ago, a covey of eleven quail appeared in the Park, and have persistently remained ever since. Last fall and winter they came at least twenty times to a spot within forty feet of the rear window of my office, in order to feed upon the wheat screenings that we placed there for them.

When we first occupied the Zoological Park grounds, in 1899, there was not one wild rabbit in the whole 264 acres. Presently the species appeared, and rabbits began to hop about confidently, all over the place. In 1906, we estimated that there were about eighty individuals. Then the marauding cats began to come in, and they killed off the rabbits until not one was to be seen. Thereupon, we addressed ourselves to those cats, in more serious earnest than ever before. Now the cats have disappeared; and one day last spring, as I left my office at six o'clock, everyone else having previously gone, I almost stepped upon two half-grown bunnies that had been visiting on the front door-mat.

When we were macadamizing the yards around the Elephant House, with a throng of workmen all about every day, a robin made its nest on the heavy channel-iron frame of one of the large elephant gates that swung to and fro nearly every day.

In 1900 we planted a young pine tree in front of our temporary office building, within six feet of a main walk; and at once a pair of robins nested in it and reared young there.



Up in Putnam County, where for five years deer have been protected, the exhibitions that are given each year of the supreme confidence of protected deer literally astonish the natives. They are almost unafraid of man and his vehicles, his cattle and his horses, but of course they are unwilling to be handled. Strangers are astonished; but people who know something about the mental attitude of wild animals under protection know that it is the natural and inevitable result of real protection.

At Mr. Frank Seaman's summer home in the Catskills, the phoebe birds nest on the beams under the roof of the porch. At my summer home in the Berkshires, no sooner was our garage completed than a phoebe built her nest on the edge of the lintel over the side door; and another built on a drain-pipe over the kitchen door.

Near Port Jervis, last year a wild ruffed grouse nested and reared a large brood in the garden of Mr. W.I. Mitchell, within two feet of the foundation of the house.

On the Bull River in the wilds of British Columbia two trappers of my acquaintance, Mack Norboe and Charlie Smith, once formed a friendship with a wild weasel. In a very few visits, the weasel found that it was among friends, and the trappers' log cabin became its home. I have a photograph of it, taken while it posed on the door-sill. The trappers said that often when returning at nightfall from their trap-lines, the weasel would meet them a hundred yards away on the trail, and follow them back to the cabin.

"Old Ben," the big sea-lion who often landed on the wharf at Avalon, Santa Catalina, to be fed on fish, was personally known to thousands of people.

AN OBJECT LESSON IN PROTECTION.—A remarkable object lesson in the recognition of protection by wild ducks came under my notice in the pages of "Recreation Magazine" in June, 1903, when that publication was edited by G.O. Shields. The article was entitled,—" A Haven of Refuge," and the place described well deserved the name. It is impossible for me to impress upon the readers of this volume with sufficient force and clearness the splendid success that is easily attainable in encouraging the return of the birds. The story of the Mosca "Haven of Refuge" was so well told by Mr. Charles C. Townsend in the publication referred to above, that I take pleasure in reproducing it entire.

One mile north of the little village of Mosca, Colorado, in San Luis valley, lives the family of J.C. Gray. On the Gray ranch there is an artesian well which empties into a small pond about 100 feet square. This pond is never entirely frozen over and the water emptying therein is warm even during the coldest winter.

Some five years ago, Mr. Gray secured a few wild-duck eggs, and hatched them under a hen. The little ducks were reared and fed on the little pond. The following spring they left the place, to return in the fall, bringing with them broods of young; also bringing other ducks to the home where protection was afforded them, and plenty of good feed was provided. Each year since, the ducks have scattered in the spring to mate and rear their families, returning again with greatly increased numbers in the fall, and again bringing strangers to the haven of refuge.

I drove out to the ranch November 24, 1902, and found the little pond almost black with the birds, and was fortunate enough to secure a picture of a part of the pond while the ducks were thickly gathered thereon. Ice had formed around the edges, and this ice was covered with ducks. The water was also alive with others, which paid not the least attention to the party of strangers on the shore.

From Mr. Gray I learned that there were some 600 ducks of various kinds on the pond at that time, though it was then early for them to seek winter quarters. Later in the year, he assured me, there would be between 2,000 and 3,000 teal, mallards, canvas-backs, redheads and other varieties, all perfectly at home and fearless of danger. The family have habitually approached the pond from the house, which stands on the south side, and should any person appear on the north side of the pond the ducks immediately take fright and flight. Wheat was strewn on the ground and in the water, and the ducks waddled around us within a few inches of our feet to feed, paying not the least attention to us, or to the old house-dog which walked near.

Six miles east of the ranch is San Luis lake, to which these ducks travel almost daily while the lake is open. When they are at the lake it is impossible to approach within gunshot of the then timid birds. Some unsympathetic boys and men have learned the habit of the birds, and place themselves in hiding along the course of flight to and from the lake. Many ducks are shot in this way, but woe to the person caught firing a gun on or near the home-pond. When away from home, the birds are as other wild-ducks and fail to recognize any members of the Gray family. While at home they follow the boys around the barn-yard, squawking for feed like so many tame ducks.

This is the greatest sight I have ever witnessed, and one that I could not believe existed until I had seen it. Certainly it is worth travelling many miles to see, and no one, after seeing it, would care to shoot birds that, when kindly treated, make such charming pets.

Since the above was published, the protected flocks of tame wild ducks have become one of the most interesting sights of Florida. At Palm Beach the tameness of the wild ducks when within their protected area, and their wildness outside of it, has been witnessed by thousands of visitors.

THE SAVING OF THE SNOWY EGRET IN THE UNITED STATES.—The time was when very many persons believed that the devastations of the plume-hunters of Florida and the Gulf Coast would be so long continued and so persistently followed up to the logical conclusion that both species of plume-furnishing egrets would disappear from the avifauna of the United States. This expectation gave rise to feelings of resentment, indignation and despair.

It happened, however, that almost at the last moment a solitary individual set on foot an enterprise calculated to preserve the snowy egret (which is the smaller of the two species involved), from final extermination. The splendid success that has attended the efforts of Mr. Edward A. McIlhenny, of Avery Island, Louisiana, is entitled not only to admiration and praise, but also to the higher tribute of practical imitation. Mr. McIlhenny is, first of all, a lover of birds, and a humanitarian. He has traveled widely throughout the continent of North America and elsewhere, and has seen much of wild life and man's influence upon it. To-day his highest ambition is to create for the benefit of the Present, and as a heritage to Posterity, a mid-continental chain of great bird refuges, in which migrating wild fowl and birds of all other species may find resting-places and refuges during their migrations, and protected feeding-grounds in winter. In this grand enterprise, the consummation of which is now in progress, Mr. McIlhenny is associated with Mr. Charles Willis Ward, joint donor of the splendid Ward-McIlhenny Bird Preserve of 13,000 acres, which recently was presented to the State of Louisiana by its former owners.

The egret and heron preserve, however, is Mr. McIlhenny's individual enterprise, and really furnished the motif of the larger movement. Of its inception and development, he has kindly furnished me the following account, accompanied by many beautiful photographs of egrets breeding in sanctuary, one of which appears on page 27.

In some recent publications I have seen statements to the effect that you believed the egrets were nearing extinction, owing to the persecution of plume hunters, so I know that you will be interested in the enclosed photographs, which were taken in my heron rookery, situated within 100 yards of my factory, where I am now sitting dictating this letter.

This rookery was started by me in 1896, because I saw at that time that the herons of Louisiana were being rapidly exterminated by plume hunters. My thought was that the way to preserve them would be to start an artificial rookery of them where they could be thoroughly protected. With this end in view I built a small pond, taking in a wet space that contained a few willows and other shrubs which grow in wet places.

In a large cage in this pond, I raised some snowy herons. After keeping the birds in confinement for something over six months I turned them loose, hoping that they would come back the next season, as they were perfectly tame and were used to seeing people. I was rewarded the next season by four of the birds returning, and nesting in the willows in the pond. This was the start of a rookery that now covers 35 acres, and contains more than twenty thousand pairs of nesting birds, embracing not only the egrets but all the species of herons found in Louisiana, besides many other water birds.

With a view to carrying on the preservation of our birds on a larger scale, Mr. Chas. W. Ward and I have recently donated to the State of Louisiana 13,000 acres of what I consider to be the finest wild fowl feeding ground on the Louisiana coast, as it contains the only gravel beach for 50 miles, and all of the geese within that space come daily to this beach for gravel. This territory also produces a great amount of natural food for geese and ducks.

SAVING THE GULLS AND TERNS.—But for the vigorous and long-continued efforts of the Audubon Societies, I think our coasts would by this time have been swept clean of the gulls and terns that now adorn it. Twenty years ago the milliners were determined to have them all. The fight for them was long, and hotly contested, but the Audubon Societies won. It was a great victory, and has yielded results of great value to the country at large. And yet, it was only a small number of persons who furnished the money and made the fight which inured to the benefit of the millions of American people. Hereafter, whenever you see an American gull or tern, remind yourself that it was saved to the nation by "the Audubon people."

In times of grave emergency, such as fire, war and scarcity of food, the wild creatures forget their fear of man, and many times actually surrender themselves to his mercy and protection. At such times, hard is the heart and low is the code of manly honor that does not respond in a manner becoming a superior species.

The most pathetic wild-animal situation ever seen in the United States on a large scale is that which for six winters in succession forced several thousand starving elk into the settlement of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in quest of food at the hands of their natural enemies. The elk lost all fear, partly because they were not attacked, and they surrounded the log-enclosed haystacks, barns and houses, mutely begging for food. Previous to the winter of 1911, thousands of weak calves and cows perished around the haystacks. Mr. S.N. Leek's wonderful pictures tell a thrilling but very sad story.

To the everlasting honor of the people of Jackson Hole, be it recorded that they rose like Men to the occasion that confronted them. In 1909 they gave to the elk herds all the hay that their domestic stock could spare, not pausing to ascertain whether they ever would be reimbursed for it. They just handed it out! The famishing animals literally mobbed the hay-wagons. To-day the national government has the situation in hand.

In times of peace and plenty, the people of Jackson Hole take their toll of the elk herds, but their example during starvation periods is to be commended to all men.

A SLAUGHTER OF RESTORED GAME.—The case of the chamois in Switzerland teaches the world a valuable lesson in how not to slaughter game that has come back to its haunts through protected breeding.

A few years ago, one of the provinces of Switzerland took note of the fact that its once-abundant stock of chamois was almost extinct, and enacted a law by which the remnant was absolutely protected for a long period. During those years of protection, the animals bred and multiplied, until finally the original number was almost restored.

Then,—as always in such cases,—there arose a strong demand for an open season; and eventually the government yielded to the pressure of the hunters, and fixed a date whereon an open season should begin.



During the period preceding that fatal date, the living chamois, grown half tame by years of immunity from the guns, were all carefully located and marked down by those who intended to hunt them. At daybreak on the fatal day, the onset began. Guns and hunters were everywhere, and the mountains resounded with the fusillade. Hundreds of chamois were slain, by hundreds of hunters; and by the close of that fatal "open season" the species was more nearly exterminated throughout that region than ever before. Once more those mountains were nice and barren of game.

Let that bloody and disgraceful episode serve as a warning to Americans who are tempted to demand an open season on game that has bred back from the verge of extinction. Particularly do we commend it to the notice of the people of Colorado who even now are demanding an open season on the preserved mountain sheep of that state. The granting of such an open season would be a brutal outrage. Those sheep are now so tame and unsuspicious that the killing of them would be cold-blooded murder!

THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION.—Within reasonable limits, any partly-destroyed wild species can be increased and brought back by giving absolute protection from harassment and slaughter. When a species is struggling to recuperate, it deserves to be left entirely unmolested until it is once more on safe ground.

Every breeding wild animal craves seclusion and entire immunity from excitement and all forms of molestation. Nature simply demands this as her unassailable right. It is my firm belief that any wild species will breed in captivity whenever its members are given a degree of seclusion that they deem satisfactory.

With species that have not been shot down to a point entirely too low, adequate protection generously long in duration will bring back their numbers. If the people of the United States so willed it, we could have wild white-tailed deer in every state and in every county (save city counties) between the Atlantic and the Rocky Mountains. We could easily have one thousand bob white quail for every one now living. We could have squirrels in every grove, and songbirds by the million,—merely by protecting them from slaughter and molestation. From Ohio to the great plains, the pinnated grouse could be made far more common than crows and blackbirds.

Inasmuch as all this is true,—and no one with information will dispute it for a moment,—is it not folly to seek to supplant our own splendid native species of game birds (that we never yet have decently protected!) with foreign species? Let the American people answer this question with "Yes" or "No."

The methods by which our non-game birds can be encouraged and brought back are very simple: Protect them, put up shelters for them, give them nest-boxes in abundance, protect them from cats, dogs, and all other forms of destruction, and feed those that need to be fed. I should think that every boy living in the country would find keen pleasure in making and erecting nest-boxes for martins, wrens, and squirrels; in putting up straw teepees in winter for the quail, in feeding the quail, and in nailing to the trees chunks of suet and fat pork every winter for the woodpeckers, nuthatches, and other winter residents.

Will any person now on this earth live long enough to see the present all-pervading and devilish spirit of slaughter so replaced by the love of wild creatures and the true spirit of conservation that it will be as rare as it now is common?

But let no one think for a moment that any vanishing species can at any time be brought back; for that would be a grave error. The point is always reached, by every such species, that the survivors are too few to cope with circumstances, and recovery is impossible. The heath hen could not be brought back, neither could the passenger pigeon. The whooping crane, the sage grouse, the trumpeter swan, the wild turkey, and the upland plover never will come back to us, and nothing that we can do ever will bring them back. Circumstances are against those species,—and I fear against many others also. Thanks to the fact that the American bison breeds well in captivity, we have saved that species from complete extinction, but our antelope seems to be doomed.

It is because of the alarming condition of our best wild life that quick action and strong action is vitally necessary. We are sleeping on our possibilities.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXIV

INTRODUCED SPECIES THAT HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL

Man has made numerous experiments in the transplantation of wild species of mammals and birds from one country, or continent, to another. About one-half these efforts have been beneficial, and the other half have resulted disastrously.

The transplantation of any wild-animal species is a leap in the dark. On general principles it is dangerous to meddle with the laws of Nature, and attempt to improve upon the code of the wilderness. Our best wisdom in such matters may easily prove to be short-sighted folly. The trouble lies in the fact that concerning transplantation it is impossible for us to know beforehand all the conditions that will affect it, or that it will effect, and how it will work out. In its own home a species may seem not only harmless, but actually beneficial to man. We do not know, and we can not know, all the influences that keep it in check, and that mould its character. We do not know, and we can not know without a trial, how new environment will affect it, and what new traits of character it will develop under radically different conditions. The gentle dove of Europe may become the tyrant dove of Cathay. The Repressed Rabbit of the Old World becomes in Australia the Uncontrollable Rabbit, a devastator and a pest of pests.

No wild species should be transplanted and set free in a wild state to stock new regions without consulting men of wisdom, and following their advice. It is now against the laws of the United States to introduce and acclimatize in a wild state, anywhere in the United States, any wild-bird species without the approval of the Department of Agriculture. The law is a wise one. Furthermore, the same principle should apply to birds that it is proposed to transplant from one portion of the United States into another, especially when the two are widely separated.

On this point, I once learned a valuable lesson, which may well point my present moral. Incidentally, also, it was a narrow escape for me!

A gentlemen of my acquaintance, who admires the European magpie, and is well aware of its acceptable residence in various countries in Europe, once requested my cooperation in securing and acclimatizing at his country estate a number of birds of that species. As in duty bound, I laid the matter before our Department of Agriculture, and asked for an opinion. The Department replied, in effect, "Why import a foreign magpie when we have in the West a species of our own quite as handsome, and which could more easily be transplanted?"

The point seemed well taken. Now, I had seen much of the American magpie in its wild home,—the Rocky Mountains, and the western border of the Great Plains,—and I thought I was acquainted with it. I knew that a few complaints against it had been made, but they had seemed to me very trivial. To me our magpie seemed to have a generally unobjectionable record.

Fortunately for me, I wrote to Mr. Hershey, Assistant Curator of Ornithology in the Colorado State Museum, for assistance in procuring fifty birds, for transplantation to the State of New York. Mr. Hershey replied that if I really wished the birds for acclimatization, he would gladly procure them for me; but he said that in the thickly-settled farming communities of Colorado, the magpie is now regarded as a pest. It devours the eggs and nestlings of other wild birds, and not only that, it destroys so many eggs of domestic poultry that many farmers are compelled to keep their egg-laying hens shut up in wire enclosures!

Now, this condition happened to be entirely unknown to me, because I never had seen the American magpie in action in a farming community! Of course the proposed experiment was promptly abandoned, but it is embarrassing to think how near I came to making a mistake. Even if the magpies had been transplanted and had become a nuisance in this state, they could easily have been exterminated by shooting; but the memory of the error would have been humiliating to the party of the first part.

THE OLD WORLD PHEASANTS IN AMERICA.—In 1881 the first Chinese ring-necked pheasants were introduced into the United States, twelve miles below Portland, Oregon; twelve males and three females. The next year, Oregon gave pheasants a five-year close season. A little later, the golden and silver pheasants of China were introduced, and all three species throve mightily, on the Pacific Coast, in Oregon, Washington and western British Columbia. In 1900, the sportsmen of Portland and Vancouver were shooting cock golden pheasants according to law.

The success of Chinese and Japanese pheasants on the Pacific Coast soon led to experiments in the more progressive states, at state expense. State pheasant hatcheries have been established in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa and California.

In many localities, the old-world pheasants have come to stay. The rise and progress of the ring-neck in western New York has already been noted. It came about merely through protection. That protection was protection in fact, not the false "protection" that shoots on the sly. It is the irony of fate that full protection should be accorded a foreign bird, in order that it may multiply and possess the land, while the same kind of protection is refused the native bob white, and it is now almost a dead species, so far as this state is concerned.

In looking about for grievances against the ring-necked and English pheasant, some persons have claimed that in winter these birds are "budders," which means that they harmfully strip trees and bushes of the buds that those bushes will surely need in their spring opening. On that point Dr. Joseph Kalbfus, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, sent out a circular letter of inquiry, in response to which he received many statements. With but one exception, all the testimony received was to the effect that pheasants are not bud-eaters, and that generally the charge is unfounded.

The introduction of old-world pheasants, and the attempted introduction of the Hungarian partridge, are efforts designed first of all to furnish sportsmen something to shoot, and incidentally to provide a new food supply for the table. The people of this country are not starving, nor are they even very hungry for the meat of strange birds; but as a food-producer, the pheasant is all right.

It disgusts me to the core, however, to see states that wantonly and wickedly, through sheer apathy and lack of business enterprise, have allowed the quail, the heath hen, the pinnated grouse and the ruffed grouse to become almost exterminated by extravagant and foolish shooters, now putting forth wonderfully diligent efforts and spending money without end, in introducing foreign species! Many men actually take the ground that our game "can't live" in its own country any longer; but only the ignorant and the unthinking will say so! Give our game birds decent, sensible, actual protection, stop their being slaughtered far faster than they breed, and they will live anywhere in their own native haunts! But where is there one species of upland game bird in America that has been sensibly and adequately protected? From Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon there is not one,—not a single locality in which protection from shooting has been sensible, or just, or adequate.

We have universally given our American upland game birds an unfair deal, and now we are adding insult to slaughter by bringing in foreign game birds to replace them—because our birds "can't live" before five million shot-guns!

Our American game birds CAN live, anywhere in the haunts where nature placed them that are not to-day actually occupied by cities and towns! Give me the making of the laws, and I will make the prairie chicken and quail as numerous throughout the northern states east of the Great Plains as domestic chickens are outside the regular poultry farms. There is only one reason why there are not ten million quail in the state of New York to-day,—one for each human inhabitant,—and that reason is the infernal greed and selfishness of the men who have almost exterminated our quail by over-shooting. Don't talk to me about the "hard winters" killing off our quail! It is the hard cheek of the men who shoot them when they ought to let them alone.

The State of Iowa could support 500,000 prairie chickens and never miss the waste grain that they would glean in the fields; but now the prairie chicken is practically extinct in Iowa, only a few scattered specimens remaining as "last survivors" in some of the northern counties. The migration of those birds that unexpectedly came down from the north last winter was like the fall of a meteor,—only the birds promptly faded away again. Why should New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts exterminate the heath hen and coddle the ring-necked pheasant and the Hungarian partridge?

The introduction of the old-world pheasants interests me very little. Every one that I see is a painful reminder of our slaughtered quail and grouse,—the birds that never have had a square deal from the American people! Thus far the introduction of the Hungarian partridge has not been successful, anywhere. Connecticut, Missouri, New Jersey and I think other states have tried this, and failed. The failure of that species brings no sorrow to me. I prefer our own game birds; and if the American people will not conserve those properly and decently they deserve to have no game birds.

THE EUROPEAN RED DEER IN NEW ZEALAND.—Occasionally a gameless land makes a ten-strike by introducing a foreign game animal that does no harm, and becomes of great value. The greatest success ever made in the transplantation of game animals has been in New Zealand.

Originally, New Zealand possessed no large animals, and no "big-game." When Nature passed around the deer, antelopes, sheep, goats, wild cattle and bears, New Zealand failed to receive her share. For centuries her splendid forests, her grand mountains and picturesque valleys remained untenanted by big game.

In 1864, the Prince Consort of England caused seven head of European red deer to be taken from the royal park at Windsor, and sent to Christchurch, New Zealand. Only three of the animals survived the long voyage; a buck and two does. For several weeks the two were kept in a barn in Christchurch, where they served no good purpose, and were not likely to live long or be happy. Finally some one said, "Let's set them free in the mountains!"

The idea was adopted. The three animals were hauled an uncertain number of miles into the interior mountains and set free.

They promptly settled down in their new home. They began to breed, and now on the North Island there are probably five thousand European red deer, every one of which has descended directly from the famous three! And here is the strangest part of the story:

The red deer of the North Island represent the greatest case of in-and-in breeding of wild animals on record. According to the experience of the world in the breeding of domestic cattle (not horses), we should expect physical deterioration, the development of diseases, and disaster. On the contrary, the usual evil results of in-breeding in domestic cattle have been totally absent. The red deer of New Zealand are to-day physically larger and more robust animals, with longer and heavier antlers, and longer hair, than any of the red deer of Europe west of Germany!

Red deer have been introduced practically all over New Zealand, and the total number now in the Islands must be somewhere near forty thousand. The sportsmen of that country have grand sport, and take many splendid trophies. That transplantation has been a very great success. Incidentally, the case of the in-bred deer of the North Island, taken along with other cases of which we know, establishes a new and important principle in evolution. It is this:

When healthy wild animals are established in a state of nature, either absolutely free, or confined in preserves so large that they roam at will, seek the food of nature and take care of themselves, in-and-in breeding produces no ill effects, and ceases to be a factor. The animals develop in physical perfection according to the climate and their food supply; and the introduction of new blood is not necessary.

THE FALLOW DEER ON THE ISLAND OF LAMBAY.—In the Irish Sea, a few miles from the southeast coast of Ireland, is the Island of Lambay, owned by Cecil Baring, Esq. The island is precisely one square mile in area, and some of its sea frontage terminates in perpendicular cliffs. In many ways the island is of unusual interest to zoologists, and its fauna has been well set forth by Mr. Baring.

In the year 1892 three fallow deer (Dama vulgaris) a buck and two does, were transplanted from a park on the Irish mainland to Lambay, and there set free. From that slender stock has sprung a large herd, which, but for the many deer that have been purposely shot, and the really considerable number that have been killed by going over the cliffs in stormy weather, the progeny of the original three would to-day number several hundred head. No new blood has been introduced, and no deer have died of disease. Even counting out the losses by the rifle and by accidental death, the herd to-day numbers more than one hundred head.

Mr. Baring declares that neither he nor his gamekeeper have ever been able to discover any deterioration in the deer of Lambay, either in size, weight, size of antlers, fertility or general physical stamina. The deterioration through disease, especially tuberculosis, that always is dreaded and often observed in closely in-bred domestic cattle, has been totally absent.

In looking about for wild species that have been transplanted, and that have thriven and become beneficial to man, there seems to be mighty little game in sight! The vast majority belong in the next chapter. We will venture to mention the bob white quail that were introduced into Utah in 1871, into Idaho in 1875, and the California valley quail in Washington in 1857. Wherever these efforts have succeeded, the results have been beneficial to man.

In 1879 a well-organized effort was made to introduce European quail into several of the New England and Middle States,—to take the place of the bob white, we may suppose,—the bird that "can't stand the winters!" About three thousand birds were distributed and set free,—and went down and out, just as might have been expected. During the past twenty years it is safe to say that not less than $500,000 have been expended in the northern states, and particularly in the northeastern states, in importing live quail from Kansas, the Indian Territory, Oklahoma, Texas, the Carolinas and other southern states, for restocking areas from which the northern bob white had been exterminated by foolish over-shooting! I think that fully nine-tenths of these efforts have ended in total failure. The quail could not survive in their strange environment. I cannot recall a single instance in which restocking northern covers with southern quail has been a success.

There is no royal road to the restoration of an exterminated bird species. Where the native seed still exists, by long labor and travail, thorough protection and a mighty long close season, it can be encouraged to breed back and return; but it is an evolution that can not be hurried in the least. Protect Nature, and leave the rest to her.

With mammals, the case is different. It is possible to restock depleted areas, provided Time is recognized as a dominant factor. I can cite two interesting cases by way of illustration, but this subject will form another chapter.

In the transplantation of fishes, conditions are widely different, and many notable successes have been achieved.

One of the greatest hits ever made by the United States Bureau of Fisheries in the planting of fish in new localities was the introduction of the striped bass or rock-fish (Roccus lineatus) of our Atlantic coast, into the coast waters of California. In 1879, 135 live fish were deposited in Karquines Strait, at Martinez, and in 1882, 300 more were planted in Suisun Bay, near the first locality chosen.

Twelve years after the first planting in San Francisco Bay, the markets of San Francisco handled 149,997 pounds of striped bass. At that time the average weight for a whole year was eleven pounds, and the average price was ten cents per pound. Fish weighing as high as forty-nine pounds have been taken, and there are reasons for the belief that eventually the fish of California will attain as great weight as those of the Atlantic and the Gulf.

The San Francisco markets now sell, annually, about one and one half million pounds of striped bass. This fish has taken its place among anglers as one of the game fishes of the California coast, and affords fine sport. Strange to say, however, it has not yet spread beyond the shores of California.

Regarding this species, the records of the United States Bureau of Fisheries are of interest. In 1897, the California markets handled 2,949,642 pounds, worth $225,527.—(American Natural History.)

Nowhere else in the world, we venture to say, were such extensive, costly and persistent efforts put forth in the transplantation of any wild foreign species as the old U.S. Fish Commission, under Prof. Spencer F. Baird, put forth in the introduction of the German carp into the fresh water ponds, lakes and rivers of the United States. It was held that because the carp could live and thrive in waters bottomed with mud, that species would be a boon to all inland regions where bodies of water, or streams, were scarce and dear. Although the carp is not the best fish in the world for the table, it seemed that the dwellers in the prairie and great plains regions would find it far better than bullheads, or no fish at all,—which are about the same thing.

By means of special fish cars, sent literally all over the United States, at a great total expense, live carp, hatched in the ponds near the Washington Monument were distributed to all applicants. The German carp spread far and wide; but to-day I think the fish has about as many enemies as friends. In some places, strong objections have been filed to the manner in which carp stir up the mud at the bottom of ponds and small lakes, greatly to the detriment of all the native fishes found therein.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXV

INTRODUCED SPECIES THAT HAVE BECOME PESTS

The man who successfully transplants or "introduces" into a new habitat any persistent species of living thing, assumes a very grave responsibility. Every introduced species is doubtful gravel until panned out. The enormous losses that have been inflicted upon the world through the perpetuation of follies with wild vertebrates and insects would, if added together, be enough to purchase a principality. The most aggravating feature of these follies in transplantation is that never yet have they been made severely punishable. We are just as careless and easy-going on this point as we were about the government of the Yellowstone Park in the days when Howell and other poachers destroyed our first national bison herd, and when caught red-handed—as Howell was, skinning seven Park bison cows,—could not be punished for it, because there was no penalty prescribed by any law.

To-day, there is a way in which any revengeful person could inflict enormous damage on the entire South, at no cost to himself, involve those states in enormous losses and the expenditure of vast sums of money, yet go absolutely unpunished!

THE GYPSY MOTH is a case in point. This winged calamity was imported at Maiden, Massachusetts, near Boston, by a French entomologist, Mr. Leopold Trouvelot, in 1868 or '69. History records the fact that the man of science did not purposely set free the pest. He was endeavoring with live specimens to find a moth that would produce a cocoon of commercial value to America; and a sudden gust of wind blew out of his study, through an open window, his living and breeding specimens of the gypsy moth. The moth itself is not bad to look at, but its larvae is a great, overgrown brute, with an appetite like a hog. Immediately Mr. Trouvelot sought to recover his specimens, and when he failed to find them all. like a man of real honor, he notified the State authorities of the accident. Every effort was made to recover all the specimens, but enough escaped to produce progeny that soon became a scourge to the trees of Massachusetts. The method of the big, nasty-looking mottled-brown caterpillar was very simple. It devoured the entire foliage of every tree that grew in its sphere of influence.

The gypsy moth spread with alarming rapidity and persistence. In course of time the state authorities of Massachuestts were forced to begin a relentless war upon it, by poisonous sprays and by fire. It was awful! Up to this date (1912) the New England states and the United States Government service have expended in fighting this pest about $7,680,000!

The spread of this pest has been retarded, but the gypsy moth never will be wholly stamped out. To-day it exists in Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire, and it is due to reach New York at an early date. It is steadily spreading in three directions from Boston, its original point of departure, and when it strikes the State of New York, we, too, will begin to pay dearly for the Trouvclot experiment. It is said that General S.C. Lawrence, of Medford, Massachusetts, has spent $75,000 in trying to protect his trees from the ravages of this scourge.

THE RABBIT PLAGUE IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.—The rabbit curse upon Australia and New Zealand is so well known as to require little comment. In this case the introduction was deliberate. In the days when the sheep industry was most prosperous, a patriotic gentleman conceived the idea that the introduction of the rabbit, and its establishment as a wild animal, would be a good thing. He reasoned that it would furnish a good food supply, that it would furnish sport, and being unable to harm any other creature of flesh and blood it was therefore harmless. Accordingly, three pairs of rabbits were imported and set free.

In a short time, the immense number of rabbits that began to overrun the country furnished food for reflection, as well as for the table. A very simple calculation brought out the startling information that, under perfectly favorable conditions, a single pair of rabbits could in three years' time produce progeny amounting to 13,718,000 individuals. Ever since that time, in discussing the rabbits of Australia it has been necessary to speak in millions.

"The inhabitants of the colony," says Dr. Richard Lydekker, "soon found that the rabbits were a plague, for they devoured the grass, which was needed for the sheep, the bark of trees, and every kind of fruit and vegetable, until the prospects of the colony became a very serious matter, and ruin seemed inevitable. In New South Wales upwards of 15,000,000 rabbits skins have been exported in a single year; while in thirteen years ending with 1889 no less than 39,000,000 were accounted for in Victoria alone.

"To prevent the increase of these rodents, the introduction of weasels, stoats, mongooses, etc., has been tried; but it has been found that those carnivores neglected the rabbits and took to feeding on poultry, and thus became as great a nuisance as the animals they were intended to destroy. The attempt to kill them off by the introduction of an epidemic disease has also failed. In order to protect such portions of the country as are still free from rabbits, fences of wire netting have been erected; one of these fences erected by the Government of Victoria extending for a distance of upwards of one hundred and fifty geographical miles. In New Zealand, where the rabbit has been introduced little more than twenty years, its increase has been so enormous, and the destruction it inflicts so great, that in some districts it has actually been a question whether the colonists should not vacate the country rather than attempt to fight against the plague. The average number of rabbit skins exported from New Zealand is now twelve millions."—(Royal Natural History.)

THE FOX PEST IN AUSTRALIA.—And now unfortunate Australia has a new pest, also acquired by importation of an alien species. It is the European fox (Vulpes vulpes). The only redeeming feature about this fresh calamity is found in the fact that the species was not deliberately introduced into Australia for the benefit of the local fauna. Mr. O.W. Rosenhain, of Melbourne, informs me (1912) that about thirty years ago the Hunt Club brought to Australia about twenty foxes, for the promotion of the noble sport of fox hunting. In some untoward manner, the most of those animals escaped. They survived, multiplied, and have provided New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia with a fox pest of the first rank.

The destruction of wild bird life and poultry has become so serious that Australia now is making vigorous efforts to exterminate the pest. The government pays ten shillings bounty on fox scalps, besides which each prime fox skin is worth from four to five dollars. It is hoped that these combined values will eliminate the fox pest.

Regarding foxes in Australia, Mr. W.H.D. Le Souef has this to say in his extremely interesting and valuable book, "Wild Life in Australia," page 146:

"We found that foxes were unfortunately plentiful in this district, and in a hollow log that served to shelter some cubs were noticed the remains of ducks, fowls, rabbits, lambs, bandicoots and snakes; so they evidently vary their fare, snakes even not coming amiss. They also sneak on wild ducks that are nesting by the edge of the water among the rushes and tussocky grass, and catch quail also, especially sitting birds. These animals are, and always will be, a great source of trouble in the thickly timbered country and stony ranges, and will gradually, like the rabbit, extend all over Australia. They are evidently not contented with ground game only, as Mr. A.F. Kelly, of Barwonleigh, in Victoria, states: "When riding past a bull-oak tree about twenty-five feet high, with either a magpie's or crow's nest on top. I noticed the nest looked very bulky, and had something red in it. On going nearer I saw a large fox coiled up in it!"

THE MONGOOSE.—Circumstances alter cases, and a change of environment sometimes works marvelous changes in the character of an animal species. Now, why should not the gray Indian mongoose (formerly called the ichneumon, (Herpestes griscus)) destroy poultry in India, as it does elsewhere? There is poultry in plenty to be destroyed, but "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi" elects to specialize on the killing of rats, and cobras, and other snakes.

In his own sphere of influence,—India and the orient,—the mongoose is a fairly decent citizen, and he fits into the time-worn economy of that region. As a destroyer of the thrice-anathema domestic rat, he has no equal in the domain of flesh and blood. His temper is so fierce that one "pet" mongoose has been known to kill a full grown male giant bustard, and put a greyhound to flight.

In an evil moment (1872) Mr. W.B. Espeut conceived the idea that it would be a good thing to introduce mongooses to the rats of Barbadoes and Jamaica that were pestering the cane-fields to an annoying extent. It was done. The mongooses attacked the rats, cleaned them out, multiplied, and then looked about for more worlds to conquer. Snakes and lizards were few; but they cheerfully killed and devoured all there were. Then, being continuously hungry, they attacked the wild birds and poultry, indiscriminately, and with their usual vigor. I have been told that in Barbadoes "they cleaned out every living thing that they could catch and kill, and then they attacked the sugar-cane." The last count in the indictment may seem hard to believe; but it is a fact that the Indian mongoose often resorts to fruit and vegetable food.

In Jamaica, at the end of the rat-killing period, the planters joyfully estimated that the labors of Herpestes had saved between 500,000 pounds and 750,000 pounds to the industries of that island. That was before the slaughter of wild birds and poultry began. I am told that up to date the damage done by the mongoose far exceeds the value of the benefit it once conferred, but the total has not been computed.

Up to this date, the mongoose has invaded and become a destructive pest in Barbadoes, Jamaica, Cuba, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Nevis, Fiji and all the larger islands of the Hawaiian group. It would require many pages to contain a full account of each introduction, awakening, reckoning of damages and payment of bounties for destruction that the fiendish mongoose has wrought out wherever it has been introduced. The progress of the pest is everywhere the same,—sweeping destruction of rats, snakes, wild birds, small mammals, and finally poultry and vegetables.

Every country that now is without the mongoose will do well to shut and guard diligently all the doors by which it might be introduced.

Throughout its range in the western hemisphere, the mongoose is a pest; and the Biological Survey of the Department of Agriculture has done well in securing the enactment of a law peremptorily prohibiting the importation of any animals of that species into the United States or any of its colonies. The fierce temper, indomitable courage and vaulting appetite of the mongoose would make its actual introduction in any of the warm portions of the United States a horrible calamity. In the southern states, and all along the Pacific slope clear up to Seattle, it could live, thrive and multiply; and the slaughter that it could and would inflict upon our wild birds generally, especially all those that nest and live on the ground, saying nothing of the slaughter of poultry, would drive the American people crazy.

Fancy an animal with the murderous ferocity of a mink, the agility of a squirrel, the penetration of a ferret and the cunning of a rat, infesting the thickets and barnyards of this country. The mongoose can live wherever a rat can live, provided it can get a fair amount of animal food. Not for $1,000,000 could any one of the southern or Pacific states afford to have a pair of these little gray fiends imported and set free. If such a calamity ever occurs, all wheels should stop, and every habitant should turn out and hunt for the animals until they are found and pulverized. No matter if it should require a thousand men and $100,000, find them! If not found, the cost to the state will soon be a million a year, with no ending.

In spite of the vigilance of our custom house officers, every now and then a Hindoo from some foreign vessel sneaks into the country with a pet mongoose (and they do make great pets!) inside his shirt, or in the bottom of a bag of clothing. Of course, whenever the Department of Agriculture discovers any of these surreptitious animals, they are at once confiscated, and either killed or sent to a public zoological park for safe-keeping. In New York, the director of the Zoological Park is so genuinely concerned about the possibility of the escape of a female mongoose that he has issued two standing orders: All live mongooses offered to us shall at once be purchased, and every female animal shall immediately be chloroformed.

If Herpestes griseus ever breaks loose in the United States, the crime shall not justly be chargeable to us.