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.
[Illustration: EIGHTEEN STATES ENTIRELY PROHIBIT THE SALE OF GAME WHY DO THE OTHERS LAG BEHIND?]
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.
[Illustration: MAP USED IN THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE BAYNE LAW This map shows how the sale of ducks killed on the Carrituck Sound robs the people of 16 states, for the benefit of a few. STOP THE SALE OF GAME! (Signed W.T. Hornaday, March 6, 1911.)]
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.
* * * * *
##