Our Vanishing Wild Life Part 46

The other necessary measure is the pa.s.sage of a joint resolution of Congress _declaring every national forest and forest reserve also a game preserve and general sanctuary for wild life_, in which there shall be no hunting or killing of wild creatures of any kind save predatory animals.

The tendency of the times,--and the universal slaughter of wild life on this continent,--point straight as an arrow flies in that direction.

Soon or late, we have GOT to come to it! If Congress does not take the initiatory steps, _the People will_! Such a consummation is necessary; it is justified by common sense and the inexorable logic of the situation, and when done it will be right.

The time was when the friends of wild life did not dare speak of this subject in Washington save in whispers. That was in the days when the Appalachian Park bill could not be pa.s.sed, and when there were angry mutterings and even curses leveled against Gifford Pinchot and the Forestry Bureau because so many national forests were being set aside.

That was in the days when a few western sheep-men thought that they owned the whole Rocky Mountains without having bought them. To-day, the American people have grown accustomed to the idea of having the resources of the public domain saved and conserved for the benefit of the millions rather than lavished upon a favored few. To-day it is perfectly safe to talk about making every national forest a first cla.s.s wild-life sanctuary, and it is up to the People to request Congress to take that action, at once.

The Weeks bill, the Anthony bill, and the McLean bill now before Congress to provide federal protection for migratory birds are practically identical. All three are good bills; and it matters not which one finally becomes a law. Whichever is put forward finally for pa.s.sage should provide federal protection for _all_ migratory birds that ever enter the United States, Alaska, or Porto Rico. Why favor the duck and leave the robin to its fate, or vice versa? It will be just as easy to do this task by wholes as by halves. The time to hesitate, to feel timid, or to be afraid of the other fellow has gone by. To-day the millions of honest and serious-minded Americans are ready to back the most thorough and most drastic policy, because that has become the most necessary and the best policy. Furthermore, it is the only policy worthy of serious consideration.

Some of our states have done rather well in wild-life protection,--considering the absurdity of our national policy as a whole; others have done indifferently, and some have been and still are very remiss. Here is where we intend to hew to the line, and without fear or favor set forth the standing of each state according to its merits or its lack of merits. In a life-or-death matter such as now confronts us regarding the wild life of our country, it is time to speak plainly.

In the following call of the States, the glaring deficiencies in state game laws will be set forth in detail, in order that the sore spots may be exposed to the view of the doctors. Conditions will be represented _as they exist at the end of the summer of 1912_, and it is to be hoped that these faults soon may be corrected.

A ROLL-CALL OF THE STATES

ALABAMA:

It is a satisfaction to be able to open this list with the name of a state that is ent.i.tled to a medal of honor for game protection. In this particular field of progress and enlightenment, the state of Alabama is the pioneer state of the South. New York now occupies a similar position in the North; but New York is an older state, and stronger in her general love of nature. The attainment of advanced protection in any southern state is a very different matter from what it is in the North.

Five years ago Alabama set her house in order. The slaughter of song and insectivorous birds has been so far stopped as any Southern state can stop it unaided by the federal government, and those birds are recognized and treated as the farmers' best friends. The absurd system of attempted protection through county laws has been abandoned. The sale of game has been stopped, and since that stoppage, quail have increased.

The trapping and export of game have ceased, and wild turkeys and woodc.o.c.k are now increasing. It is unlawful to kill or capture non-game birds. Bag limits have been imposed, but _the bag limit laws are all too liberal, and should be reduced_. A hunter's license law is in force, and the department of game and fish is self-supporting. Night hunting is prohibited, and female deer may not be killed. A comprehensive warden system has been provided. As yet, however, Alabama

Permits the shooting of waterfowl to March 15, which is too late, by one and one-half months.

The use of automatic and pump guns in hunting should be suppressed.

There should be a limit of two deer per year, and killing should be restricted to deer with horns not less than three inches long.

The story of game protection in Alabama began in 1907. Prior to that time, the slaughter of wild life was very great. It is known that enormous numbers of quail were annually killed by negro farm hands, who hunted at least three days each week, regardless of work to be done. The slaughter of quail, wild ducks, woodc.o.c.k, doves, robins and snipe was described as "nauseating."

The change that has been wrought since 1907 is chiefly due to the efforts of one man. Alabama owes her standing to-day to the admirable qualities of John H. Wallace, Jr., her Game and Fish Commissioner, author of the State's policy in wild-life conservation. His broad-mindedness, his judgment and his success make him a living object lesson of the power of one determined man in the conservation of wild life.

Commissioner Wallace is an ardent supporter of the Weeks and Anthony bills for federal protection, and as a lawyer of the South, he believes there is "no const.i.tutional inhibition against federal legislation for the protection of birds of pa.s.sage."

ALASKA:

The sale of game must be absolutely prohibited, forever.

The slaughter of big game by Indians, miners and prospectors should now be limited, and strictly regulated by law, on rational lines.

The slaughter of walrus for ivory and hides, both in the Alaskan and Russian waters of Bering Sea, should be totally prohibited for ten years.

The game-warden service should be quadrupled in number of wardens, and in general effectiveness.

The game-warden service should be supplied with two sea-going vessels, independent for patrol work.

The bag limit on hoofed game is 50 per cent too large.

To accomplish these ends, Congress should annually appropriate $50,000 for the protection of wild life in Alaska. The present amount, $15,000, is very inadequate, and the great wild-life interests at stake amply justify the larger amount.

It is now time for Alaska to make substantial advances in the protection of her wild life. It is no longer right nor just for Indians, miners and prospectors to be permitted by law to kill all the big game they please, whenever they please. The indolent and often extortionate Indians of Alaska,--who now demand "big money" for every service they perform,--are not so valuable as citizens that they should be permitted to feed riotously upon _moose, and cow moose at that_, until that species is exterminated. Miners and prospectors are valuable citizens, but that is no reason why they should forever be allowed to live upon wild game, any more than that hungry prospectors in our Rocky Mountains should be allowed to kill cattle.

Alaska and its resources do not belong to the very few people from "the States" who have gone there to make their fortunes and get out again as quickly as possible. The quicker the public mind north of Wrangel is disabused of that idea, the better. Its game belongs to the people of this nation of ninety-odd millions, and it is a safe prediction that the ninety millions will not continue to be willing that the miners, prospectors and Indians shall continue to live on moose meat and caribou tongues in order to save bacon and beef.

Mr. Frank E. Kleinschmidt said to me that at Sand Point, Alaska, he saw eighty-two caribou tongues brought in by an Indian, and sold at fifty cents each, while (according to all accounts) most of the bodies of the slaughtered animals became a loss.

Governor Clark has recommended in his annual report for 1911 that the protection now enjoyed by the giant brown bear _(Ursus middendorffi_) on Kadiak Island be removed, for the benefit of settlers _and their stock_!

It goes without saying that no one proposes that predatory wild animals shall be permitted to r.e.t.a.r.d the development of any wild country that is required by civilized man. All we ask in this matter is that, as in the case of the once-proposed slaughter of sea-lions on the Pacific Coast, _the necessity of the proposed slaughter shall be fully and adequately proven before the killing begins_! It is fair to insist that the sea-lion episode shall not be repeated on Kadiak Island.

The big game of Alaska can not long endure against a "limit" of two moose, three mountain sheep, three caribou and six deer per year, per man. At that rate the moose and sheep soon will disappear. The limit should be one moose, two sheep, two caribou and four deer,--unless we are willing to dedicate the Alaskan big game to Commercialism. No sportsman needs a larger bag than the revised schedule; and commercialists should not be allowed to kill big game anywhere, at any time.

Let us bear in mind the fact that Alaska is being throughly "opened up"

to the Man with a Gun. Here is the latest evidence, from the new circular of an outfitter:

"I will have plenty of good horses, and good, competent and courteous guides; also other camp attendants if desired. My intention is to establish permanently at that point, as I believe it is the gateway to the finest _and about the last_ of the great game countries of North America."

The road is open; the pack-train is ready; the guides are waiting. Go on and slay the Remnant!

ARIZONA:

The band-tailed pigeons and all non-game birds should immediately be given protection; and a salaried warden system should be established under a Commissioner whose term is not less than four years.

The use of automatic and pump guns, in hunting, should be prohibited.

Spring shooting should be prohibited.

Arizona has good reason to be proud of her up-to-date position in the ranks of the best game-protecting states. No other state or territory of her age ever has made so good a showing of protective laws. The enactment of laws to cover the points mentioned above would leave little to be desired in Arizona. That state has a bird fauna well worth protecting, and game wardens are extremely necessary.

ARKANSAS:

The enforcement of game laws should be placed in charge of a salaried commissioner.

Spring shooting of wildfowl should be stopped at once.

A reasonable close season should be provided for water fowl, and swans should be protected throughout the year.

A bag-limit law should be enacted.

A force of game wardens, salaried and unsalaried, should at once be created.

The killing of female deer and the hounding of deer, should be stopped.

No buck deer should be shot, unless horns three inches long are seen before firing.

A hunter's license law is necessary; and the fees should go to the support of the game protection department.