Destruction of Game and Game Birds.
Of late (1908) there has been much writing and law making in an
attempt to preserve the game of this commonwealth, and it reminds one
of the old adage of "Locking the Barn Door, after the Horse was
Stolen." At the last Assembly of the Pennsylvania Legislature, there
was a Bounty Law passed with an appropriation of $50,000 to pay the
bounty on the different animals. The appropriation was exhausted
almost before the trapping season had begun, or at least should have
begun, so far as the trapper's interest was concerned. Now, I wish to
speak of the bounty as to fox and mink, and I wish to speak of an
incident that came under my observation.
A neighbor of mine makes a business of trapping each fall; there were
three in the family, who trapped last fall. They caught 11 fox, 4
mink, 8 coon, 2 weasel and 1 wildcat. This catch was all made before
the 20th of October and sold for $34.45, or including bounty, $66.45.
Now, had this same fur been caught in November or December, the fur
alone would have brought at least $68.00, and the taxpayers would
have been $32.00 ahead.
I also know of another party who dug out two nests of young mink and
got nine young ones. The old mink escaped. I asked this man why he
did not let them go until fall or winter, as these dens were near his
mill? He informed me that he never fooled away any time trapping and
had he left them go until fall the mink would have been gone and now
he was $6.50 ahead. Now, this man had actually destroyed at least $30
worth of furs to get $6.50 in bounty.
While I think that the bounty on wildcats and weasel is all right, I
do not think a bounty on fox and mink at all necessary. The high
price their fur brings will induce the trapper to take all that the
bounty would induce him to do, and at a time when the fur will bring
more than a great deal of early caught furs would bring, including
the bounty.
It is quite doubtful as to mink being very destructive to birds or
their nests, and as to the destruction of poultry, it is a very easy
and inexpensive matter for any poultry raiser to arrange his poultry
house so as to take any prowling mink that should come about his
premises.
Now, I would suggest to the bird hunter, or as he prefers to be
called, "sportsman," that if he will leave his automatic gun and his
bird dog at home, and merely take a good double-barrel breechloader
and go into the bush, and "walk up" his birds, instead of having a
dog to show the bird to him, he will do far more to protect the game
bird than any bounty law will do! This the sportsman must do, or the
game birds of this state will soon be a thing of the past.
About 1870, there was a move begun to check the slaughter of the deer
in this state, but it was only in a half-hearted way. The writer
circulated the first petition to get the law enacted prohibiting the
hounding of deer. After some years the law prohibited the chasing of
deer with dogs, but the law could not be enforced for the very reason
that these same sportsmen wished to hound deer. He would go on to the
streams where there were but few inhabitants, and hire all of the
people living in the neighborhood to take their dogs to the hills and
start them on the trail of deer. The "sportsman" would lay in ambush
and shoot the deer when they came to water, providing they were able
to see the sights on their guns sufficiently clear to get a bead on
the deer.
These "sportsmen" would pay the natives a good sum for their services
and would often buy hounds at high prices and bring them to the
locality where they intended to hound deer and pay some one living in
the neighborhood a good price to keep their dogs from one season to
another. These "sportsmen" were sure to make the constable, whose
duty it was to report this violation of the deer law, a present of a
fine fishing rod or some other article which might be a ten or twenty
dollar bill.
Now, under these conditions it was next to impossible to get any one
who knew anything about the transaction to make a complaint, or even
be a witness against those transgressors of the deer or hounding law.
But in time the law was made sufficiently stringent as to virtually
put a stop to this most cruel practice of deer hunting.
But now another bad thing came into vogue. Non-residents were allowed
to go into the woods where they would camp from the first day of the
open season for deer until the close and often some days after. Now,
"the horse has been stolen." The deer in this state are virtually
gone. "The door has been strongly locked, but it is now too late."
This game rule applies to the game fish of the state and unless there
are laws enacted which will apply more closely to the preservation of
the game birds, than a closed season and a bounty or scalp law, the
game birds will soon go the way of the deer and the game fish too.
I wish to say a word to our friends on the Pacific Coast as to the
slaughter of game and especially that of deer. I saw a slaughter of
deer in nearly all of the states west of the Rocky Mountains that was
cruel. In California, in 1904, I saw men kill deer seemingly for no
other purpose than the desire to kill, or as I put it, the desire to
murder. I saw deer killed when the slayer positively knew that there
could not be any use made of the carcass. I saw deer killed when only
a fry would be taken from the ham, the remainder of the carcass left
to lay without even the pretense of dressing. It was a common
occurrence to kill deer for no other purpose than to feed dogs.
One day I was standing by a man on a sand bar on the bank of a river
when we noticed a doe a few rods away looking at us. The man drew his
gun to his shoulder in the act of shooting and I exclaimed, "My God,
man, you are not going to shoot that deer, are you?" My words were
not out of my mouth when the gun cracked. The deer was mortally
wounded and ran directly towards us, making desperate efforts to keep
its feet. It fell dead within ten feet of where we were standing. I
walked away. The slayer of the innocent creature stood and gazed at
it a moment and then with his foot he pushed it off the bar into the
river. I hope I may never see another such sight. It was June and the
doe was heavy with fawn and this man knew that he could make no use
of this deer whatever.
I saw much wasteful slaughter of deer but none quite so inhuman as
the one mentioned. The game laws of the Pacific Coast were not
enforced. When well back in the mountains it was a rare thing to hear
the game laws spoken of, not even by the game wardens. Now I think
that all who are lovers of the woods and fields should join in a
general move to protect this wasteful slaughter of all game and game
birds, no matter whether we are the so-called "pot hunter" or the
"gentleman sportsman," but none will regret this unreasonable waste
of game more than those who are living back in the mountains, where
game is most plentiful, when it is gone. Nor none will get more
benefit and pleasure from the very fact that they are living in a
game section, yet these are the ones who do not seem to care how
great the slaughter, apparently never taking it into consideration
that the present rate of slaughter will soon leave their game laden
section as bare of game as that of the older settled countries.
Comrades, let us all join in the preservation of what game and fish
there is left, whether we may be called pot hunters or gentlemen
sportsmen. I would be the last one to wish to deprive any trapper or
camper from making good use of game at any time when in camp, but let
us be careful about the waste of it.
* * *
Comrades of the trap line, you of course are aware that a trapper is
considered of small account by those who make or cause to be made,
the game laws of this state (Pennsylvania), and brother trapper, are
we not as much to blame as the ones who concoct the game laws to
their own liking? The accompanying picture will show a part of the
confiscation from the writer by the game laws of Pennsylvania and
this same confiscation applies to every trapper in the state to a
more or less extent. Had we presented our side of this question to
our respective representatives in a clear and reasonable light would
we not get a square deal? If not, then why not? We are aware that the
man with the dollar has a great influence in comparison with the poor
trapper, but are there not ten of the poor trappers to one of the
dollar men and have we not the just and reasonable side of the
question? Do not our representatives know that the raw fur industry
of the state is of greater importance, financially, than the wheat
crop of the state, for which the legislature does all it can in the
way of appropriations to help the farmer to increase the yield of
wheat? Had this been shown to the assembly, would it not have passed
laws to protect the fur-bearers of the state, instead of bounty laws
to exterminate the fur-bearer, and this act at the expense of the
public?
Every dollar that is appropriated by the House of Representatives in
the way of bounty on so-called noxious animals, must come from the
pockets of the taxpayers, and is not a dollar saved in the way of
protecting the fur-bearers of the state equivalent to a dollar
produced from a bushel of wheat? Now, the dollar man will tell us
that the fox and mink are very destructive to game and game birds.
This, to a great extent, is a mere bugaboo, or an excuse to knock out
the trapper. There is little doubt but that a fox occasionally kills
a grouse or partridge or a rabbit. Admitting this to be the case, is
not a good fox or mink skin worth ten times as much to the trapper as
a partridge or rabbit is to the dollar man?
But that is not all, if it is the pleasure of an individual to amuse
himself with the traps, why should he be deprived of that pleasure?
It is certain that the trap will not cause any more harm in the way
of damage or in a cruel manner, than a dog will. While the dollar man
makes a plea in defense of game, it is generally known that his plea
is in reality in defense of his manner of sporting, regardless of any
desires that the poor trapper may have and there are certainly but
few trappers but wish to see the game and game birds preserved as
well as the dollar man does.
I doubt if there is a man in the State of Pennsylvania who has worked
longer, or done more according to his ability, to protect and
preserve game than the writer has, and as to the dog, he has no
greater friend than the writer. As to the preservation of game and
game birds, I believe in preserving it in a substantial way and not
in a mythical manner, under the pretext of a bounty on noxious
animals and then pass laws that do away with the trap, the most
effective implement there is in taking that noxious animal. As the
game and bounty laws of Pennsylvania stand today, it reminds one of
the old lady who told the boy that he could go in swimming, but he
must not go near the water.
Now, I believe in a bounty on wildcats, hawks and weasel, sufficient
to induce the poor man to spend the time necessary to exterminate
these animals when an opportunity comes to him, for the dollar man
will not take the trouble to do so. But the only effective bounty law
must be placed on the game man, in the way of cutting his bag limit
of birds for a single day and the season in two, and placing a closed
season of five years on deer. There is much said as to the rapid
decrease of game. Now, so far as this applies to deer, and my
observation extends over four counties of the state, at the present
decrease (1913) of the deer, there will not be a deer left in these
four counties at the end of five years and the deer law is being
continually violated. In order to enforce the game laws of the state,
the laws should be as near equal as possible, in giving each man his
way of enjoying his manner of out-door sport, either in fishing,
hunting or trapping. We are aware that there must be a limit to man's
idea of sport. There are plenty of men, for instance, who enjoy the
use of dynamite in fishing, in killing all the fish in the stream,
small fish along with the large ones, also all kinds of fish that
happen to be in the pool where the dynamite is used. It may be the
pleasure of other sportsmen to kill birds of all kinds and also deer
at any and all times of the year. This kind of work can not be
allowed. In order to enforce the game laws, the laws must be in
harmony with the greatest number of people possible, and not enact
game laws that deprives a goodly portion of the people (I refer to
the trapper) of their pleasure simply to gratify a certain class of
sportsmen.
The game wardens will then find it hard enough to enforce the law.
Say, comrades, I wish to call your attention to an article in the
December number of H-T-T, 1912, by Mr. J. R. Bachelder. Mr. Bachelder
is an old and respected man and one of the rural mail carriers of
Cameron County. Mr. Bachelder describes how the trap law of
Pennsylvania has deprived him of the only pleasure that he was able
to enjoy in the open, that of tending a few traps.
And comrades, we of the trap line and trail, who are not blessed with
the dollar and the automobile, will soon find that our pleasures in
the open, like Mr. Bachelder's, are laid by for all time. If the club
man, through his leasing policies and the trespass law that he has
before the House of Representatives, becomes a law, we can go away
back and sit down.
But, comrades, I consider that we are to blame to a large extent for
these "one man" game laws. Had we come out at the right time and
fought for our rights in the open instead of slinking back in the
dark, whining, I believe that the law, as applied to the trap, would
be different and I should not violate the game laws after passed, no
matter if they are not wholly to my liking.
The professional sportsman makes a great talk about the amount of
birds that the fox destroys. Now, the facts are, one weasel or snake
will destroy more rabbits or birds and birds' eggs than a dozen
foxes. The fox gets the greater part of his food from the field
mouse. This fact any close observer knows.
* * *
Brother trappers, you are aware that the nations--the United States,
Great Britain, Japan and Russia, have taken the fur seal under their
protection, and will protect the seal and sell their skins. I wish to
ask you, brother trapper, if your wife, daughter or sweetheart wears
furs made of the seal skin. No? Well, your wife, daughter or
sweetheart does wear furs made from the fur bearer that runs on the
hillside back of your house. Then, why do you stand for a bounty on
these animals from which the furs are made for your wife, daughter or
sweetheart to wear, to hasten the extinction of these fur-bearers,
while the millionaire gives the word to the government, and the
fur-bearer of the millionaire is protected at the expense of the people?
Say, you wives, daughters or sweethearts of the trapper, do you stand
for this kind of a deal?
A few words in regard to the protection of the game and game birds: I
think that every lover of outdoor life should be willing to have a
reasonable number to the bag limit of either game birds or game
animals, and lend a hand in protecting the game to the amount of the
bag limit.
Oh, you find fault with the game laws--you say that the laws are not
just to all alike. Well, in one sense of the word this is true. The
state law confiscated your traps, then placed a bounty on noxious
animals, and then fines you heavily if you set a trap in a way so as
to be able to catch one of these noxious animals (queer laws); but,
nevertheless, we should try to protect our game if we are to have any
left. At the rate the game is being slaughtered at the present time,
there will not be a deer left in the State of Pennsylvania, and but
very little game of any kind.
You say that it is a hard matter to protect the game--that is true;
for it is hard to get local game wardens that are of much account. A
man of much principle and business qualifications will not accept the
position, as he does not like to arrest a neighbor for fear of
hurting his regular line of business. The State Game Wardens are not
acquainted with the different game localities, and with the people
who have but little or no regard for the game laws of the state.
I will give an instance which came under my observation the past
season: The game laws of Pennsylvania prohibit the use of buckshot in
deer hunting, and the law also prohibits the killing of does. Now, a
man who was hunting deer with a shotgun loaded with buckshot, was
looking at another hunter's gun, which was a .32 Special Winchester;
the shotgun man noticed the small caliber of the Winchester, asked
the party who had the rifle (knowing nothing of the shooting power of
the Winchester), if he expected to kill anything with that little
thing, and at the same time stating that good buckshot gun was the
thing to hunt deer with. When asked if he did not know that the law
forbade the use of buckshot in deer hunting, he replied, "Oh to
---- with the law!" They knocked me out of my bear traps, and the next
thing they will do is to pass a law to prohibit hunting with a gun
that costs less than $500.00.
At the same time, and in this same place, a party killed a large doe
that had its tail entirely shot away and several buckshot were found
in its body.
I will tell a little joke that was got off on one of the State Game
Wardens as told by himself in the hotel at this place, which is a
fact, and took place in these same woods: The Warden was telling a
crowd at the hotel how his attention had been called to a doe that
some one had killed and hung up in a certain place in the woods. The
Warden said he went and found the deer and watched for ten days, but
no one came for the deer. A party standing by said to the Warden,
"Oh, that is a way we have of fixing you fellows--we kill a doe, hang
it up on the outskirts of the deer hunting grounds, then give you
notice of it, and while you are watching the dead deer, we are
killing the live ones." The Warden, after listening to the man's
story, remarked, "Well by Jonathan! that is one on me--come on."
The above joke was actually got off here at the hotel in this town.
The number of bears killed in this part, fall of 1911,
notwithstanding that the use of steel traps is prohibited, was larger
than has been in years. A party of thirteen from this place went into
the woods on the Trout River, and during the ten or twelve days they
were there, they killed seven bears--five in one day. And there were
several deer killed.
Now comrades, while we can't all agree on the justification of the
game laws, we should all join hands and try to protect what little
game we have left by getting the bag limit materially cut down, and
give fifteen days more time to the hunter. Then stand by the law,
or soon the game will all be gone with the exception of a few
cotton-tails and what game is on private reserves, and posted lands.