The Preservation of Our Game and Fish

THE enormous area of territory available in the United States for the shelter and sustenance of game, and of inland waters suitable for the propagation and well-being of fish, will make it difficult to imagine that the extermination of the one or the other is within the limits of possibility. We are, however, confronted with this contingency, and unless prompt measures are taken to enforce more loyally the laws for the protection of fish and game, the end is not far distant. These laws, if properly enforced, would leave little to be desired. It is the machinery employed for their enforcement that renders them ineffective and almost inoperative. That in use is commonly in the form of game and fish wardens, appointed by the political party in power at the moment, or local game and fish constables, chosen by vote. Under this system, the wardens, it is needless to say, are in close affiliation with the party to which they owe their appointment; consequently, in view of the open hostility evinced to the game and fish laws by country folk, they are not supposed to exercise their authority with a severity that, in the face of a possibly close election, will jeopardize the rural vote. Moreover, most of these officials are engaged in some particular pursuit or occupation ; their duties as protectors of fish and game being merely incidental, and not paramount. Even if their time be exclusively given to the discharge of their duties, the extent of territory over which a single one holds jurisdiction is so large that it is physically impossible that he shall exercise a close supervision over more than a mere fraction of its area. It has happened that a warden was not only in open sympathy with those inimical to game protective measures, but a violator of the statutes that he was sworn to enforce. An Illinois warden appeared before a legislative committee as the champion of a law to permit the sale of game in Chicago throughout the entire year, provided it had not been killed within the limits of the State. Such a law, had it been enacted, would not only have encouraged the killing of game in Illinois during the close season, but would have had the same effect in every State from which Chicago obtains its supplies of game.¹

Another case, which occurred two or three years ago, was that of a game warden, also proprietor of a hunting and fishing camp. Two fellow-wardens who had occasion to visit his place were surprised to discover that it was his habit to feed transient boarders upon the fresh meat of deer killed during the close season. When the delinquent warden was confronted with the accusation, he was unable satisfactorily to disprove it.

This example of the turpitude of one game warden may he copiously multiplied. It must not be supposed, however, that none of these officials are earnest in the discharge of their duties. There are many such ; among them, Mr. Collins, of Connecticut, who by his energetic efforts has brought to justice some of the more notorious violators of the game and fish laws of that State. Mr. Kidd, of Newburgh, N. Y., after years of unfaltering perseverance and in the face of almost hopeless discouragements, was successful in a suit against Delmonico for the alleged serving of woodcock at his restaurant during the close season. Mr. Bortree, of Chicago, now out of office, in a city which previously had taken a mere humorous view of violations of the game and fish laws, caused much unhappiness among the dealers by his seizures of game illegally offered for sale. Mr. Andrews, late executive agent of the State Board of Game and Fish Commissioners of Minnesota, now removed from office for alleged political reasons, by his energy and administrative ability compelled a close observance of the game and fish laws of that State. The alleged political necessity for his removal was probably due to anxiety concerning the rural vote, which was antagonistic to a really serious protection of the wild life of the woods and streams of Minnesota.

If the game warden or protector be handicapped by party or political exigencies, the rural game constable, who is in many cases chosen by ballot, and who is merely a local official, is very much more so. Should he carry out the reason for his being, be would be called upon to enforce the game and fish laws against such neighbors and friends as might violate them. Should he exhibit any zeal in this direction, his term of office would be one of brief duration, even if he escaped personal humiliations of a depressing character. There is no more unpardonable offense, in localities where game and fish still exist, than for one man to inform against another for their illegal capture. While in such communities bitter animosities may be rife among neighbors, and the law may be promptly evoked to settle disputes of a trivial nature, the most determined foes will abstain from lodging complaint one against the other for an illegal traffic in fish or game. Under these conditions, it may be readily understood that a rural game constable, so far as practical effectiveness is concerned, is about as useful as an upright piano would be to an Esquimau.

In thinly populated districts where game and fish abound, to take “ a mess ” of one or the other at any season is looked upon as an inalienable right. In them neither the State nor the individual is accorded a proprietary claim. After game and fish are killed or captured, to take them from the capturer is looked upon as theft pure and simple. An illustration of this theory of inalienable right is found in the case of a town man who purchased a large tract of land in one of these sparsely populated districts. On the property was a small pond suitable for the propagation of trout. This the town man had stocked, intending, when the fish had grown to a proper size, to angle for them in company with his friends. They were at all times carefully guarded by watchmen, but not so alertly but that, when the trout had reached a marketable size, the night before the end of the close season, the pond was netted, and almost all of the five thousand which it contained were taken. The trout were carried off in two doubleteam wagons to a railway station some sixteen miles distant, boxed, and sent to market. To the natives the culprits were known, though their movements were conducted under cover of night. They were seen to go to the pond with empty wagons, and return with them loaded; nor was much effort made to conceal the nature of the contents of the vehicles. Although the owner of the trout offered a reward — which would have been a moderate fortune for more than one of those cognizant of the identity of the thieves — for information which would lead to their detection, it was impossible for him to secure a particle of evidence. Had his hen-roost instead of his troutpond been robbed, the natives would have been instantly on the alert, and would gladly have furnished any clue in their possession which might lead to the capture of the marauders. This may appear to be a very nice distinction; none the less it reveals the attitude of large numbers of ruralists vis-à-vis the game and fish laws, and the difficulties which environ their enforcement. While these difficulties are not insurmountable, as has been proved by Mr. Andrews, of Minnesota, the very success which attended his efforts, and resulted in removal from office, demonstrated that, under existing political conditions, the serious enforcement of the laws for the protection of game and fish is considered by party managers neither wise nor prudent.

The space accorded in the statutebooks to laws for the protection of game and fish is out of all proportion to their effectiveness or necessity. If these laws were intended to be taken seriously, groups of States with the same climatic conditions could combine and enact a simple and uniform code, jointly applicable, particularly as relates to the open and close seasons. As it is now, each State frames its fish and game laws without regard one to the other. Not only this, but many counties of the same State are provided with special enactments, conflicting with the general game and fish laws, and in force only within their own boundaries. An illustration of this is found in the State of New York, where the close season on wild ducks and geese commences on March 1, except on Long Island, where it goes into effect on May 1. As Brooklyn is on Long Island, wild ducks and geese may be sold in its markets until the later date, whereas in the city of New York the same birds cannot be offered for sale after March 1.² This fine distinction is represented by the line of a narrow river. The game laws are loaded with just such petty and confusing discriminations, which, if enforced, would entail endless trouble and litigation. At a recent session of the legislature of Wisconsin, an attempt was made to put into effect the theory of a uniform game and fish law for contiguous States. A law was passed for the protection of certain species of game, which, however, was not to be valid until the governor of Wisconsin had issued a proclamation to the effect that the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois had passed a law in conformity with the provisions of that of Wisconsin. This attempt at concert of action was a complete failure.

To secure the protection of game, nothing is more imperatively needed than a uniform measure which will afford reasonable immunity to wild fowl that make their home in the United States during the autumn, winter, and spring. The assertion that any alarming decrease in the number of wild fowl that frequent our waters is in process of accomplishment has been often denied. This negation is based on the fact that localities where they were formerly abundant have, after years of apparent desertion, witnessed their return in large numbers. This is a false assumption, as wild fowl, other conditions being equal, always congregate where food is the more available. Their absence is due to the lack of it. If they return, it is at the expense of some other locality, where the aquatic plants and crustaceæ upon which they feed are, for the time being, scarce. An illustration of this is found on some of the bays of the south side of Long Island, where broad-bill ducks were more plentiful during the autumn of 1893 than had been known for thirty years previous. This was owing to such an ample supply of food that no amount of shooting could drive the ducks away. In the autumn of 1894 the same fowl were exceptionally absent from those waters. They came, but did not stay. The nutriment which was in great plenty during the previous autumn was no longer there to tempt them. Some years ago, when the wildcclery beds of the Susquehanna River were covered with sand, brought down by unusual freshets in that stream, canvas-back ducks almost totally deserted the locality. Those that formerly tarried there during the season resorted to other waters where they found suitable food, and where they had not been seen for many years previous. With the recuperation of the wild-celery beds in the Susquehanna the canvas-back ducks returned to the flats in the usual numbers. This shifting habit of wild fowl creates a false impression as to their numerical increase. That they are rapidly on the decrease is apparent to those who understand the dangers which environ them.

The perfection to which breech-loading and magazine shot-guns have attained has been a most important factor in contributing to this result. In the case of snipe, for example, whose migratory habits are the same as those of wild ducks and geese, and which are shot over decoys, certain species have met with entire extermination, while others are fast on the way to the same end. This has come about through the rapidity of fire of modern weapons, and the facility with which a flock of certain varieties of snipe may be recalled again and again to the lures by the gunner skillful in the imitation of their note, until not a single one survives. This is notably the case with dowitchers, willet, large and small yellow-legs, and other sorts. Thirty years ago, when muzzle-loading shot-guns were used almost exclusively, when a flight of dowitchers was in progress along the coast, flock followed flock so uninterruptedly that half a dozen professional gunners in company could not load and shoot with sufficient rapidity to assail more than one flock in three. Within a brief period after the introduction of breechloaders the large flights of these birds had totally ceased, so that to-day only occasional dowitchers are seen. What is true of them is proportionately so of other varieties of snipe. Breech-loading and magazine shot-guns are equally deadly when employed against wild ducks and geese. The possession of a higher order of intelligence and greater caution and timidity have so far preserved them from total extermination, though some of the species no longer exist; but the end of all is not far off, unless prompt measures be taken to stay the conscienceless slaughter of which they are the victims. While the muzzle-loading shot-gun was in use, as in the case of snipe, when ducks were flying freely, many flocks passing over decoys escaped unharmed. With the more modern weapon, susceptible as it is of delivering a fire whose rapidity is in proportion to the supply of cartridges, a flock rarely fails to suffer loss. The use of the “ choke ” in the shot-gun of to-day has much increased its effective range. This encourages gunners to shoot into flocks of passing wild fowl at unreasonable distances, where, while one of its number may be killed, a half-dozen, more or less, will be so seriously wounded that, while able to escape for the time being, they ultimately succumb to their injuries. This inflicts a loss from which no one reaps any advantage. What is true of breech-loading or magazine shotguns applies equally to magazine rifles, used in the pursuit of four-footed game. With these weapons, the gunner, failing with the first shot, is enabled to “ pump lead ” into his quarry until the supply of ammunition is exhausted. It must be a very poor marksman indeed who, thus equipped, fails either to kill or to wound.

To understand more fully the perils with which wild ducks and geese are environed, it is necessary to consider the conditions which affect their perpetuation. When our Northwestern States were but sparsely populated, many of the wild-duck species nested and reared their young within their limits. With the advent of population they shifted their breeding-grounds to the northern portions of Canada, from which they were driven in turn, until now all of them, with the exception of certain surface - feeding varieties, such as black ducks, mallards, teal, wood-ducks, and others, have sought refuge in British America for the unmolested propagation of their kind. In search of safety for this purpose, the fowl have been driven so far north that frequently their young are overtaken by intense cold before being sufficiently fledged to undertake a southward flight. Almost every season great numbers perish from this cause. This loss due to climatic accident is another serious factor contributing to the decrease of the species. When the old birds and their young enter more thickly populated territory en route southward, they are exposed to the pursuit of Canadian gunners and sportsmen. The reception they meet with in Canada is geniality itself compared to that which awaits them on the American side of the line, from Maine to Oregon, throughout the interior, and along the line of coast from Maine to Mexico. Once within our borders, the unfortunate fowl discover that every feeding-ground at which they may be tempted to alight is garrisoned by human foes, equipped with every deadly device to lure and destroy. Nor is there any rest for them, day or night.

With the advent of modern weapons has come the cold-storage system, by which all flesh may be preserved for an indefinite period in a frozen condition. Previously, wild fowl were measurably free from molestation in the extreme Southern States during the winter months. The refrigerating process has changed all that. With the introduction of this device, the former respite which was granted them has ceased, and their killing goes on as mercilessly at the South during the winter as in the Northern States at other seasons of the year. Nor is this all. When the fowl start on their northward flight in the spring, they are harassed with the same persistency as during their progress to the South in the autumn, until they again approach the borders of their breeding-grounds in British America. It will appeal to the dullest understanding that to kill these birds in the spring, when they are mating and preparing to propagate, involves a reckless and unpardonable waste. By a kind provision of nature, however, the average of females to males, among migratory wild fowl, is as one to three or four. All the more is the loss of one of the former during the mating season a thing to be deplored. Fortunately, she is at that time endowed with an instinct, or rather knowledge, which renders her exceedingly wary and suspicious of the lures of gunners. There is but one way to preserve our wild ducks and geese from extermination, at least for a long time to come, and that is a uniform law to prohibit the killing of these birds from the 1st of February to the 1st of September, and between sunset and sunrise. Given a law of this character, rigidly enforced, and wild fowl may be safely left to care for themselves. For one State to enact such a law, and the one adjoining to ignore it, is worse than useless. It offers the opportunity for a concentration of gunners where they may pursue the fowl with impunity in the spring, with a corresponding augmentation of slaughter. The conditions which environ wild fowl apply, with certain modifications, to all the feathered and fourfooted game of the country.

The case of fish which annually migrate from Florida to Maine, along the Atlantic coast, is not dissimilar to that of migratory wild fowl. They likewise go where food is available. The menhaden, which provides sustenance to some of our finest varieties, such as striped bass, bluefish, Spanish mackerel, and others, formerly passed along our coast in countless numbers, followed by the latter in proportionate numbers. Every estuary and bay, at a certain season, was literally filled with menhaden, besides the vast numbers which followed outside the lines of beach. The fish which fed upon them were proportionately numerous. The best varieties were cheap, and attainable to almost all. What is the situation to-day ? At first the menhaden were taken and put in a crude state upon the land as a fertilizer. Then factories were established for rendering their flesh into a more concentrated fertilizing product. The demand which in consequence sprang up for these fish promptly absorbed all that resorted to the estuaries and bays. They were then caught in seines cast from the beaches. When this source of supply was exhausted, steamers were employed, which, equipped with vast nets, took the menhaden so soon as they appeared off Hatteras until they reached the coast of Maine. Under this dispensation, menhaden, while decreasing rapidly in numbers, were driven farther and farther from the shores, until now the cost of their capture is so large that the manufacture of fish guano has measurably decreased. What has been the result on the middle Atlantic and New England coasts of this reckless destruction of bait ? Many fish which were formerly taken in the bays and estuaries frequented by menhaden, and upon which they fed, are now rarely captured there. The seines in which they were caught from the beaches can no longer be worked with profit. The only traps now used for this purpose are small set nets planted at a distance from land, tended with great risk, and productive of but trifling results compared to the former catches of the beach seines. The outcome of this reckless destruction of menhaden has been to throw thousands of men out of employment, and to enhance the price of striped bass, bluefish, and other edible fish for many people to the prohibitory point, with the prospect of a continued decrease in the supply. If menhaden ever return in their former numbers, the plant is all in readiness to gather them in promptly; but no effort will be made to control an abuse of the harvest, which will necessarily be a brief one. The conditions that environ our pelagic fish are different from those which affect fresh-water species. The successful artificial propagation of the latter and of the anadromous sorts is an assured fact. It is entirely possible to restock our lakes and streams, provided a sufficient output of fry is assured. The difficulty which confronts us is that, from motives of economy, the present liberation of fry is ridiculously inadequate, and barely covers the natural losses incidental to all young fish life. It will only be necessary, in order to increase the supply of fish in our inland waters, to provide an enlarged plant and accord a more liberal expenditure of money.

The supporters and champions of the laws for the protection of our game and fish are anglers and other sportsmen. Opposed to them are several elements, which, however, are not entirely harmonious. Among these are farmers, market gunners, foreign dealers in birdskins and plumage, many dealers in game and fish, many proprietors of hotels, restaurants, and cold-storage warehouses, and “ statesmen.” Anglers and other sportsmen, generally, are honorable men and loyal to their convictions. Unfortunately, their efforts in the interest of the protection of game and fish are weakened by radical differences as to the measures to accomplish it. This lack of harmony is the opportunity of our statesmen — who are not unmindful of the votes at the command of the opposition — to thwart and embarrass them. Moreover, as another element of weakness, there exists among our sportsmen a class noisy and vociferous in exacting the most rigid enforcement of the game and fish laws, who, in the presence of quantities of game and fish, exhibit insatiable greed in killing and capturing. This class had its foreign prototype, mainly English, who, when large game was plentiful in this country, came to us for sport, and whose progress across the hunting-grounds of the West was marked by a wanton and ruthless slaughter that would have disgraced a band of savages. It is this element that does incalculable harm to the efforts of conservative sportsmen in the effort to procure an effective enforcement of the laws for the protection of game and fish. Of the opponents of these laws, farmers are the more mild and self-restrained. They argue that game and fish that live and propagate within the limits of their property are theirs by right, and not in the ownership of the State, as the courts have decided. The fact that anglers and other sportsmen proceed upon the latter presumption is what causes friction between them and the agriculturists. The point of view of the farmer is fully explained in the following extract from the Milford, Pa., Dispatch, which credits it to the Orange County Farmer : “ Why has not a sportsman just as much right to shoot and carry off a farmer’s poultry, pigs, and sheep, as his fish, game, birds, rabbits, etc. ? The farmer really raises and feeds them all, — the one just as much as the other. Then why are not all his? And what right have legislatures to make laws, at the demand of ‘alleged sportsmen,’ to license the latter to run over a farmer’s lands, and tear down his walls, trample on his grain, and shoot and maim and kill and carry away the birds and beasts found thereon ? And then, moreover, to cap the climax, making it an offense to capture any of this so - called game, except at the periods designated by these same sportsmen ? What an outrage on the farmer, the whole game-law tyranny ! ”

Gunners for market hold views similar to those of the farmers. They contend that game shall be killed at any time when it is marketable, and under conditions which will assure the largest results, and that they shall not be restrained in the killing by an arbitrary date fixed by those who pursue only pleasure or recreation.

Dealers in birdskins and plumage regard themselves as merely purveyors to a fashion which prescribes the use of feathers for the decoration of women’s hats and clothing. Of the pernicious and irreparable loss to bird life which this vogue inflicts we have evidence in every direction. Its more fatal quality is found in the fact that the active killing season is in the spring, when the plumage of birds takes on its most brilliant hues. Not long ago an English firm placed an order in this country for the skins of 500,000 ox-eye snipe, the smallest of the species. The same proportionate slaughter is in progress among all of the feathered race. Many kinds have well-nigh suffered extermination. It is not surprising, therefore, that the songs of birds are no longer heard except immediately about country residences or in our larger city parks. As an auxiliary to the rapid extinguishment of bird life, that of collecting their eggs is not ineffective. One dealer gave 20,000 as the number he had sold to amateurs during the season of 1894.

As regards some dealers in game and fish, some proprietors of hotels, restaurants, and cold-storage warehouses, they claim that it is their business to respond to a demand for these aliments. If there be an earnest popular desire to observe the laws respecting the sale of game and fish during the close season, — of which they see little or no evidence, — all that is necessary is for people to cease to purchase during that time. As long as the demand continues, business requires that they shall respond to the wishes of patrons. In respect to our statesmen, they are out gunning for votes, and not for game. As there is no close season on the one. they do not see why there should be on the other.

It is a maxim of swordsmen that “to every thrust there is a parry.” Conservative anglers and other sportsmen are acting upon this principle in the establishment of preserves, where fish and game may be propagated and protected. The growth of game and fish preserves in this country has been rapid during the past few years. Some are of very large dimensions. Yellowstone Park, which, however, is a government preserve, has an area of 3575 square miles. Some inclosures belonging to private organizations contain 100,000 acres and more. Whether large or small, their success has been remarkable. Not only do they fulfill all that was expected of them, but experience has shown that they act as nurseries, from which the overflow of fish and game restocks in a measure exhausted contiguous lands and waters. The establishment of these preserves is the one practical means now offered to anglers and other sportsmen for the unmolested enjoyment of their favorite outdoor pursuits. These preserves may not be tolerated for any length of time. Legislative effort to suppress them has already been made in California. They may serve the purposes of the present generation, or possibly the next. “ Après nous le déluge.”

Gaston Fay.