CONSERVATION

All the sound reasons ever given for conserving other natural

resources apply to the conservation of wild life--and with three-fold

power. When a spend-thrift squanders his capital it is lost to him and

his heirs; yet it goes somewhere else. When a nation allows any one

kind of natural resource to be squandered it must suffer a real,

positive loss; yet substitutes of another kind can generally be found.

But when wild life is squandered it does not go elsewhere, like

squandered money; it cannot possibly be replaced by any substitute, as

some inorganic resources are: it is simply an absolute, dead loss,

gone beyond even the hope of recall.

Now, we have seen verifiable facts enough to prove that Labrador, out

of its total area of eleven Englands, is not likely to be

advantageously exploitable over much more than the area of one England

for other purposes than the growth and harvesting of wild life by land

and water. How are these ten Englands to be brought under

conservation, before it is too late, in the best interests of the five

chief classes of people who are concerned already or will be soon? Of

course, the same individual may belong to more than one class. I

merely use these divisions to make sure of considering all sides of

the question. The five great interests are those of--1. Food. 2.

Business. 3. The Indians and Eskimos. 4. Sport, and 5. The

Zoophilists, by which I mean all people interested in wild-animal

life, from zoologists to tourists.

1. FOOD.--The resident population is so sparse that there is not one

person for every 20,000 acres; and most of these people live on the

coast. Consequently, the vast interior could not be used for food

supplies in any case. Besides, ever since the white man occupied the

coast, the immediate hinterland, which used to be full of life, has

become more and more barren. Fish is plentiful enough. A few small

crops of common vegetables could be grown in many places, and outside

supplies are becoming more available. So the toll of birds and mammals

taken by the present genuine residents for necessary food is not a

menace, if taken in reason. In isolated places in the Gulf, like

Harrington, the Provincial law might safely be relaxed, so as to allow

the eggs of ducks and gulls to be taken up to the 5th of June and

those of murres, auks and puffins up to the 15th. Flight birds might

also be shot at any time on the outside capes and islands. There is a

local unwritten law down there--"No guns inside, after the 1st of

June"--and it has been kept for twenty years. Similar relaxations

might be allowed in other places, in genuine cases of necessity. But

the egging and out-of-season slaughter done by people, resident or

not, who are in touch with the outside world, should be stopped

absolutely. And the few walrus now required as food by the few

out-living Eskimos should be strictly protected. Of course, killing

for food under real stress of need at any time or place goes without

saying. The real and spurious cases will soon be discriminated by any

proper system.

2. BUSINESS.--Business is done in fish, whales, seals, fur, game,

plumage and eggs. The fish are a problem apart. But it is worth noting

that uncontrolled exploitation is beginning to affect even their

countless numbers in certain places. Whales have always been exploited

indiscriminately, and their wide range outside of territorial waters

adds to the difficulties of any regulation. But some seasonal and

sanctuary protection is necessary to prevent their becoming extinct.

The "white porpoise" could have its young protected; and whaling

stations afford means of inspection and consequent control. The only

chance at present is that when whales become too scarce to pay they

are let alone, and may revive a little. The seals can be protected

locally and ought to be. The preponderance of females and young killed

in the whelping season is a drain impossible for them to withstand

under modern conditions of slaughter. The difficulty of policing large

areas simultaneously might be compensated for by special sanctuaries.

The Americans are protecting their seals by restrictions on the

numbers, ages and sex of those killed; and doing so successfully. The

fur trade is open to the same sort of wise restriction, when

necessary, to the protection of wild fur by the breeding of tame, as

in the fox farms, and to the benefits of sanctuaries. Marketable game,

plumage and eggs can be regulated at out ports and markets. And the

extension of suitable laws to non-game animals, coupled with the

establishment of sanctuaries, would soon improve conditions all round,

especially in the interest of business itself. No one wants his

business to be destroyed. But if Labrador is left without control

indefinitely every business dealing with the products of wild life

will be obliged to play the suicidal game of competitive grab till the

last source of supply is exhausted, and capital, income and employment

all go together.

3. INDIANS AND ESKIMOS.--The Eskimos are few and mostly localized. The

Indians stand to gain by anything that will keep the fur trade in full

vigour, as they are mostly hunters and trappers. Restriction on the

number of skins, if that should prove necessary, and certainly on the

sale of all poisons, could be made operative. Strychnine is said to

kill animals eating the carcases even so far as to the seventh remove.

Close seasons and sanctuaries are difficult to enforce with all

Indians. But the registration of trappers, the enforcement of laws,

the employment of Indians as guides for sportsmen, and other means,

would have a salutary effect. The full-bloods, unfortunately, do not

take kindly to guiding. Indians wishing to change their way of life or

proving persistent lawbreakers might be hived in reserves with their

wives and families. The reserves themselves would cost nothing, the

Indians could find employment as other Indians have, and the expense

of establishing would be a bagatelle. As a matter of fact, in spite of

all the bad bargains having always been on the Indian side when sales

and treaties were made with the whites, there is enough money to the

credit of the Indians in the hands of the Government to establish a

dozen hives and keep the people in them as idle as drones on the mere

interest of it. But good hunting grounds are better than good hives.

4. SPORT.--Sport should have a great future in Labrador. Inland game

birds, except ptarmigan, are the only kind of which there is never

likely to be a great abundance, owing to the natural scarcity of their

food. But, besides the big game on land and game birds on the coast,

there are some unusual forms of sport appealing to adventurous

natures. Harpooning the little white whale by hand in a North Shore

canoe, or shooting the largest and gamest of all the seals--the great

"hood"--also out of a canoe, requires enough skill and courage to make

success its own reward. The extension and enforcement of proper game

laws would benefit sport directly, while indirectly benefitting all

the other interests.

5. ZOOPHILISTS.--The zoophilist class seems only in place as an

afterthought. But I am convinced that it will soon become of at least

equal importance with any other. All the people, from zoologists to

tourists, who are drawn to such places by the attraction of seeing

animal life in its own surroundings, already form an immense class in

every community. And it is a rapidly increasing class. Could we do

posterity any greater injury than by destroying the ten Englands of

glorious wild life in Labrador, just at the very time when our own and

other publics are beginning to appreciate the value of the appeal

which such haunts of Nature make to all the highest faculties of

civilized man?

The way can be made clear by scientific study. The laws can be drawn

up by any intelligent legislators, and enforced quite as efficiently

as other laws have been by the Mounted Police in the North West. The

expense will be small, the benefits great and widely felt. The only

real hitch is the uninformed and therefore apathetic state of public

opinion. If people only knew that Labrador contained a hundred

Saguenays, wild zoos, Thousand Islands, fiords, palisades, sea

mountains, cañons, great lakes and waterfalls, if they only knew that

they could get the enjoyment of it for a song, and make it an heirloom

for no more trouble than letting it live, they might do all that is

needed to-morrow. But they don't know. And the three Governments

cannot do much without the support of public opinion. At present they

do practically nothing. The Ungavan Labrador has neither organization

nor laws. The Newfoundland Labrador has organization but no laws. And

the Quebec Labrador has laws but no observance of them.

However, Quebec has laws, which are something, legislators who have

made the laws, and leaders who have introduced them. The trouble is

that the public generally has no sense of responsibility in the matter

of enforcement. It still has a hazy idea that Nature has an

overflowing sanctuary of her own, somewhere or other, which will fill

up the gaps automatically. The result is that poaching is commonly

regarded as a venial offence, poachers taken red-handed are rarely

punished, and willing ears are always lent to the cry that rich

sportsmen are trying to take the bread out of the poor settler's

mouth. The poor settler does not reflect that he himself, and all

other classes alike, really have a common interest in the conservation

of any wild life that does not conflict with legitimate human

development. There is some just cause of complaint that the big-game

reserves are hampering the peasants in parts of India and the settlers

and natives in parts of Uganda. But no such complaint can be raised

against the Laurentide National Park, so wisely established by the

Quebec Government. The worst of it is that many of the richer people

set the example in law-breaking. The numbers of big game allowed are

exceeded, out-of-season shooting goes on, and both out-of-season and

forbidden game is sold in the markets and served at the dinner tables

of the very class who should be first in protecting it.

Partly because Quebec has taken the lead in legislation, and partly

because an ideal site is ready to hand under its jurisdiction, I would

venture to suggest the immediate establishment of an absolute

sanctuary for all wild birds and mammals along as much of the coast as

possible on either side of cape Whittle. The best place of all to keep

is from cape Whittle eastward to cape Mekattina, 64 miles in a

straight line by sea. The 45 miles from cape Mekattina eastward to

Shekatika bay are probably the next best; and, next, the 35 from cape

Whittle westward to Cloudberry point. As there are 800 miles between

Quebec and the Strait, I am only proposing to make from one-tenth to

one-fifth of them into a sanctuary. And this part is the least fitted

for other purposes, except sea-fishing, which would not be restricted

at all, the least inhabited, and the most likely to succeed as a

sanctuary, especially for birds.

Cape Whittle is 550 miles below Quebec, 70 below Natashkwan, which is

the last port of call for the mail boats, and 50 below Kegashka, the

last green spot along the shore. It faces cape Gregory, near the bay

of Islands in Newfoundland, 130 miles across; and is almost as far

from the north-east point of Anticosti. It is a great landmark for

coasting vessels, and for the seal herds as well. A refuge for seals

is absolutely necessary to preserve their numbers and the business

connected with them. Of course, I know there is a feeling that, if

they are going to disappear, the best thing to do is to exploit them

to the utmost in the meanwhile, so as to snatch every present

advantage, regardless of consequences. But is this business, sense, or

conservation? Even if any restriction in the way of numbers, sex, age

or season should be imposed on seal hunting, a small sanctuary cannot

but be beneficial. While, if there is no other protection, a sanctuary

is a _sine qua non_. It is possible that some protection might also be

afforded to the whales that hug the shore.

The case of the birds is quite as strong, and the chance of protection

by this sanctuary much greater. With the exception of the limited

egging and shooting for the necessary food of the few residents--the

whole district of Mekattina contained only 213 people at the last

census--not an egg nor a bird should be touched at all. The birds soon

find out where they are well off, and their increase will recruit the

whole river and gulf. A few outlying bird sanctuaries should be

established in connection with this one, which might be called the

Harrington Sanctuary, as Harrington is a well-known telegraph station,

a central point between cape Whittle and Mekattina, and it enjoys a

name that can be easily pronounced. In the Gulf the Bird rocks and

Bonaventure island to the south; one of the Mingan islands, the

Perroquets and Egg island to the north; with the Pilgrims, up the

River, above the Saguenay and off the South Shore, are the best. The

Pilgrims, 700 miles from the Atlantic, are probably the furthest

inland point in the world where the eider breeds. They would make an

ideal seabird sanctuary. On the Atlantic Labrador there are plenty of

suitable islands from which to choose two or three sanctuaries,

between Hamilton inlet and Ramah. The east coast of Hudson bay is full

of islands from which two corresponding sanctuaries might be selected,

one in the neighbourhood of the Portland promontory and the other in

the southeast corner of James bay.

There is the further question--affecting all migratory animals, but

especially birds--of making international agreements for their

protection. There are precedents for this, both in the Old World and

in the New. And, so far as the United States are concerned, there

should be no great difficulty. True, they have set us some lamentable

examples of wanton destruction. But they have also set us some noble

examples of conservation. And we have good friends at court, in the

members of the New York Zoological, the Audubon and other societies,

in Mr. Roosevelt, himself an ardent conserver of wild life, and in Mr.

Bryce, who is an ex-president of the Alpine Club and a devoted lover

of nature. Immediate steps should be taken to link our own bird

sanctuaries with the splendid American chain of them which runs round

the Gulf of Mexico and up the Atlantic coast to within easy reach of

the boundary line. Corresponding international chains up the

Mississippi and along the Pacific would be of immense benefit to all

species, and more particularly to those unfortunate ones which are

forced to migrate down along the shore and back by the middle of the

continent, thus running the deadly gauntlet both by land and sea.

Inland sanctuaries are more difficult to choose and manage. A deer

sanctuary might answer near James bay. Fur sanctuaries must also be in

some fairly accessible places, on the seaward sides of the various

heights-of-land, and not too far in. The evergreen stretches of the

Eastmain river have several favourable spots. What is needed most is

an immediate examination by a trained zoologist. The existing

information should be brought together and carefully digested for him

in advance. There are the Dominion, Provincial and Newfoundland

official reports; the Hudson Bay Company, the Moravian missionaries;

Dr. Robert Bell, Mr. A.P. Low, Mr. D.I.V. Eaton, Dr. Grenfell, Dr.

Hare, Mr. Napoléon Comeau, not to mention previous writers, like

Packard, McLean and Cartwright--a whole host of original authorities.

But their work has never been thoroughly co-ordinated from a

zoological point of view. A form of sanctuary suggested for the

fur-bearing Yukon is well worth considering. It consists in opening

and closing the country by alternate sections, like crops and fallow

land in farming. The Indians have followed this method for

generations, dividing the family hunting grounds into three parts,

hunting each in rotation, and always leaving enough to breed back the

numbers. But the pressure of the grab-all policy from outside may

become irresistible.

The one great point to remember is that there is no time to lose in

beginning conservation by protecting every species in at least two

separate localities.

A word as to the management and wardens. Two zoologists and twenty men

afloat, and the same number ashore, could probably do the whole work,

in connection with local wardens. This may seem utterly ridiculous as

a police force to patrol ten Englands and three thousand miles of sea.

But look at what the Royal North West Mounted Police have done over

vast areas with a handful of men, and what has been effected in Maine,

New Brunswick and Ontario. Once the public understands the question,

and the governments mean business, the way of the transgressor will be

so hard--between the wardens, zoologists and all the preventive

machinery of modern administration--that it will no longer pay him to

walk in it. Special precautions must be taken against that vilest of

all inventions of diabolical ingenuity--the Maxim "silencer." No

argument is needed to prove that silent firearms could not suit crime

better if they were made expressly for it. The mere possession of any

kind of "silencer" should constitute a most serious criminal offence.

The right kind of warden will be forthcoming when he is really wanted

and is properly backed up. I need not describe the wrong kind. We all

know him, only too well.