prevent the killing of game within that National Reservation, and only
about ten years since Congress provided an effective method for
preventing such killing. He must be dull indeed who does not realize
what that game refuge has done for a great territory, and of how much
actual money value its protection has been to the adjoining States of
Montana and Idaho, and especially of Wyoming. The visit of President
Roosevelt to the National Park last spring made these conditions plain
to the whole nation. At that time every newspaper in the land gave long
accounts of what the President saw and did there, and told of the hordes
of game that he viewed and counted. He saw nothing that he had not
before known of, nothing that was not well known to all the members of
the Boone and Crockett Club; but it was largely through the President's
visit, and the accounts of what he saw in the Yellowstone Park, that the
public has come to know what rigid protection can do and has done for
our great game.
Since such a refuge can bring about such results, it is high time that
we had more of these refuges, in order that like results may follow in
different sections of the West, and for different species of wild game;
as well for the benefit of other localities and their residents, as for
that wider public which will hereafter visit them in ever increasing
numbers.
A bill introduced at the last session of Congress authorized the
President, when in his judgment it should seem desirable, to set aside
portions of forest reserves as game refuges, where no hunting should be
allowed. The bill passed the Senate, but failed in the House, largely
through lack of time, yet some opposition was manifested to it by
members of Congress from the States in which the forest reserves are
located, who seemed to feel that such a law would in some way abridge
the rights and privileges of their constituents. This is a narrow view,
and one not justified by the experience of persons dwelling in the
vicinity of the Yellowstone National Park.
If such members of Congress will consider, for example, the effect on
the State of Wyoming, of the protection of the Yellowstone Park, it
seems impossible to believe that they will oppose the measure. Each
non-resident sportsman going into Wyoming to hunt the game--much of
which spends the summer in the Yellowstone Park, and each autumn
overflows into the adjacent territory--pays to the State the sum of
forty dollars, and is obliged by law to hire a guide, for whose license
he must pay ten dollars additional; besides that, he hires guides,
saddle and pack animals, pays railroad and stage fare, and purchases
provisions to last him for his hunt. In other words, at a modest
calculation, each man who spends from two weeks to a month hunting in
Wyoming pays to the State and its citizens not less than one hundred and
fifty dollars. Statistics as to the number of hunters who visit Wyoming
are not accessible; but if we assume that they are only two hundred in
number, this means an actual contribution to the State of thirty
thousand dollars in cash. Besides this, the protection of the game in
such a refuge insures a never-failing supply of meat to the settlers
living in the adjacent country, and offers them work for themselves and
their horses at a time when, ranch work for the season being over, they
have no paying occupation.
[Illustration: A BIT OF SHEEP COUNTRY]
The value of a few skins taken by local hunters is very inconsiderable
when compared with such a substantial inflow of actual cash to the State
and the residents of the territory neighboring to such a
refuge. Moreover, it must be remembered that, failing to put in
operation some plan of this kind, which shall absolutely protect the
game and enable it to re-establish itself, the supply of meat and skins,
now naturally enough regarded as their own peculiar possession by the
settlers living where such a refuge might be established, will
inevitably grow less and less as time goes on; and, as it grows less,
the contributions to State and local resources from the non-resident tax
will also grow less. Thirty years ago the buffalo skinner declared that
the millions of buffalo could never be exterminated; yet the buffalo
disappeared, and after them one species of big game after another
vanished over much of the country. The future can be judged only by the
past. Thirty years ago there were elk all over the plains, from the
Missouri River westward to the Rocky Mountains; now there are no elk on
the plains, and, except in winter, when driven down from their summer
range by the snows, they are found only in the timbered mountains. What
has been so thoroughly accomplished will be sure to continue; and,
unless the suggested refuges shall be established, there will soon be no
game to protect--a real loss to the country.
It has long been customary for Western men of a certain type to say that
Eastern sportsmen are trying to protect the game in order that they
themselves may kill it, the implication being that they wish to take it
away from those living near it, and who presumably have the greatest
right to it. Talk of this kind has no foundation in fact, as is shown by
the laws passed by the Western States, which often demand heavy license
fees from non-residents, and hedge about their hunting with other
restrictions. Many Eastern sportsmen desire to preserve the game, not
especially that they themselves may kill it, but that it shall be
preserved; if they desire to kill this game they must and do comply with
the laws established by the different States, and pay the license fees.
A fundamental reason for the protection of game, and so for the
establishment of such game refuges, was given by President Roosevelt in
a speech made to the Club in the winter of 1903, when he expressed the
opinion that it was the duty of the Government to establish these
refuges and preserves for the benefit of the poor man, the man in
moderate circumstances. The very rich, who are able to buy land, may
establish and care for preserves of their own, but this is beyond the
means of the man of moderate means; and, unless the State and Federal
Governments establish such reservations, a time is at hand when the poor
man will have no place to go where he can find game to hunt. The
establishment of such refuges is for the benefit of the whole
public--not for any class--and is therefore a thoroughly democratic
proposition.
There is no question as to the right of Congress to enact laws governing
the killing of game on the public domain, or within a forest reserve
where this domain lies within the boundaries of a Territory. Moreover,
it has been determined by the courts and otherwise that within a State
the Federal Government has, on a forest reserve, all the rights of an
individual proprietor, "supplemented with the power to make and enforce
its own laws for the assertion of those rights, and for the disposal and
full and complete management, control and protection of its lands."
In January, 1902, the Hon. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, a member of this
Club, whose efforts in behalf of game protection are generally
recognized, and whose name is attached to the well-known Lacey Law,
received from Attorney-General Knox an opinion indicating that there is
reasonable ground for the view that the Government may legislate for the
protection of game on the forest reserves, whether these forest reserves
lie within the Territories or within the States. From this opinion the
following paragraphs are taken:
"While Congress certainly may by law prohibit and punish the entry upon
or use of any part of those forest reserves for the purpose of the
killing, capture or pursuit of game, this would not be sufficient. There
are many persons now on those reserves by authority of law, and people
are expressly authorized to go there, and it would be necessary to go
further and to prohibit the killing, capture or pursuit of game, even
though the entry upon the reserve is not for that purpose. But, the
right to forbid intrusion for the purpose of killing, _per se_, and
without reference to any trespass on the property, is another. The first
may be forbidden as a trespass and for the protection of the property;
but when a person is lawfully there and not a trespasser or intruder,
the question is different.
"But I am decidedly of opinion that Congress may forbid and punish the
killing of game on these reserves, no matter that the slayer is lawfully
there and is not a trespasser. If Congress may prohibit the use of these
reserves for any purpose, it may for another; and while Congress permits
persons to be there upon and use them for various purposes, it may fix
limits to such use and occupation, and prescribe the purpose and objects
for which they shall not be used, as for the killing, capture or pursuit
of specified kinds of game. Generally, any private owner may forbid,
upon his own land, any act that he chooses, although the act may be
lawful in itself; and certainly Congress, invested also with legislative
power, may do the same thing, just as it may prohibit the sale of
intoxicating liquors, though such sale is otherwise lawful.
"After considerable attention to the whole subject, I have no hesitation
in expressing my opinion that Congress has ample power to forbid and
punish any and all kinds of trespass, upon or injury to, the forest
reserves, including the trespass of entering upon or using them for the
killing, capture or pursuit of game.
"The exercise of these powers would not conflict with any State
authority. Most of the States have laws forbidding the killing, capture
or pursuit of different kinds of game during specified portions of the
year. This makes such killing, etc., lawful at other times, but only
lawful because not made unlawful. And it is lawful only when the State
has power to make it lawful, by either implication or direct enactment.
But, except in those cases already referred to, such as eminent domain,
service of process, etc., no State has power to authorize or make lawful
a trespass upon private property. So that, though Congress should
prohibit such killing, etc., upon its own lands, at all seasons of the
year, this would not conflict with any State authority or control. That
the preservation of game is part of the public policy of those States,
and for the benefit of their own people, is shown by their own
legislation, and they cannot complain if Congress upon its own lands
goes even further in that direction than the State, so long as the open
season of the State law is not interfered with in any place where such
law is paramount.
[Illustration: MOUNTAIN SHEEP AT REST]
"It has always been the policy of the Government to invite and induce
the purchase and settlement of its public lands; and as the existence of
game thereon and in their localities adds to the desirability of the
lands, and is a well-known inducement to their purchase, it may well be
considered whether, for this purpose alone, and without reference to the
protection of the lands from trespass, Congress may not, on its own
lands, prohibit the killing of such game."
In this opinion the Attorney-General further calls attention to the
difficulties of enforcing the State law, and suggests that it might be
well to give marshals and their deputies, and the superintendents,
supervisors, rangers, and other persons charged with the protection of
these forest reserves, power on the public lands, in certain cases
approaching "hot pursuit," to arrest without warrant. All who are
familiar with the conditions in the more sparsely settled States will
recognize the importance of some such provision. A matter of equal
importance, though as yet not generally recognized, is that of providing
funds for the expenses of forest officers making arrests. It is often
the fact that no justice of the peace resides within fifty or a hundred
miles of the place where the violation of the law occurs. The ranger
making the arrest is obliged to transport his prisoner for this
distance, and to provide him with transportation, food and lodging
during the journey and during the time that he may be obliged to wait
before bringing the prisoner arrested before a proper court. This may
often amount to more than the penalty, even if the officer making the
arrest secures a conviction; but, on the other hand, the individual
arrested may not be able to pay his fine, and may have to go to jail. In
this case the officer making the arrest is out of pocket just so much.
Under such circumstances, it is evident that few officers can afford to
take the risk of losing this time and money.
In most States of the Union there exist considerable tracts of land,
mountainous, or at least barren and unfit for cultivation. Legislation
should be had in each State establishing public parks which might well
enough be stocked with game, which should there be absolutely
protected. Some efforts in this direction have been made, notably
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. In many of the New
England States there are tracts absolutely barren, unoccupied and often
bordered by abandoned farms, which could be purchased by the State for a
very modest compensation; and it is well worth the while of the Boone
and Crockett Club to endeavor by all means in its power to secure the
establishment in the various States of parks which might be breeding
centers for game, great and small, on the same plan as the proposed
refuges hoped for within the forest reservations. Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and practically all the States to the west of these, possess
such areas of unoccupied land, which might wisely be acquired by the
State and devoted to such excellent purposes. In Montana there is a long
stretch of the Missouri River, with a narrow, shifting bottom, bordered
on either side by miles of bad-lands, which would serve as such a State
park. Settlers on this stretch of river are few in number, for the
bottoms are not wide enough to harbor many homes, and, being constantly
cut out by the changes of the river's course, are so unstable as to be
of little value as farming lands. On the other hand, the new bottoms
constantly formed are soon thickly covered by willow brush, while the
extensive bad-lands on either side the stream furnish an admirable
refuge for deer, antelope, mountain sheep and bear, with which the
country is already stocked, and were in old times a great haunt for elk,
which might easily be reintroduced there.
There is a tendency in this country to avoid trouble, and to do those
things which can be done most easily. From this it results that efforts
are constantly being made to introduce into regions from which game has
been exterminated various species of foreign game, which can be had,
more or less domesticated, from the preserves of Europe. Thus red deer
have been introduced in the Adirondack region, and it has been suggested
that chamois might be brought from Europe and turned loose in certain
localities in the United States, and there increase and furnish
shooting. To many men it seems less trouble to contribute money for such
a purpose as this than to buckle down and manufacture public sentiment
in behalf of the protection of native game. This is a great
mistake. From observations made in certain familiar localities, we know
definitely that, provided there is a breeding stock, our native game,
with absolute protection, will re-establish itself in an astonishingly
short period of time. It would be far better for us to concentrate our
efforts to renew the supply of our native game rather than to collect
subscriptions to bring to America foreign game, which may or may not do
well here, and may or may not furnish sport if it shall do well.
[Illustration: MULE DEER AT FORT YELLOWSTONE]
Forest Reserves of North America
In the United States something over 100,000 square miles of the public
domain has been set aside and reserved from settlement for economic
purposes. This vast area includes reservations of four different kinds:
First, National Forest Reserves, aggregating some 63,000,000 acres, for
the conservation of the water supply of the arid and semi-arid West;
second, National Parks, of which there are seventeen, for the purpose of
preserving untouched places of natural grandeur and interest; third,
State Parks, for places of recreation and for conserving the water
supply; and fourth, military wood and timber reservations, to provide
Government fuel or other timber. Most military wood reserves were
originally established in connection with old forts.
The forest reservations, as they are by far the largest, are also much
the most important of these reserved areas.
Perhaps three-quarters of the population of the United States do not
know that over nearly one-half of the national territory within the
United States the rainfall is so slight or so unevenly distributed that
agriculture cannot be carried on except by means of irrigation. This
irrigation consists of taking water out of the streams and conducting it
by means of ditches which have a very gentle slope over the land which
it is proposed to irrigate. From the original ditch, smaller ditches are
taken out, running nearly parallel with each other, and from these
laterals other ditches, still smaller, and the seepage from all these
moistens a considerable area on which crops may be grown. This, very
roughly, is irrigation, a subject of incalculable interest to the
dwellers in the dry West.
It is obvious that irrigation cannot be practiced without water, and
that every ditch which takes water from a stream lessens the volume of
that stream below where the ditch is taken out. It is conceivable that
so many ditches might be taken out of the stream, and so much of the
water lost by evaporation and seepage into the soil irrigated, that a
stream which, uninterfered with, was bank full and even flowing
throughout the summer, might, under such changed condition, become
absolutely dry on the lower reaches of its course. And this, in fact, is
what has happened with some streams in the West. Where this is the case,
the farmers who live on the lower stretches of the stream, being without
water to put on their land, can raise no crops. Nothing, therefore, is
more important to the agriculturists of the West than to preserve full
and as nearly equal as possible at all seasons the water supply in their
streams.
This water is supplied by the annual rain or snow fall; but in the West
chiefly by snow. It falls deep on the high mountains, and, protected
there by the pine forests, accumulates all through the winter, and in
spring slowly melts. The deep layer of half-rotted pine needles,
branches, decayed wood and other vegetable matter which forms the forest
floor, receives this melting snow and holds much of it for a time, while
the surplus runs off over the surface of the ground, and by a thousand
tiny rivulets at last reaches some main stream which carries it toward
the sea. In the deep forest, however, the melting of this snow is very
gradual, and the water is given forth slowly and gradually to the
stream, and does not cause great floods. Moreover, the large portion of
it which is held by the humus, or forest floor, drains off still more
gradually and keeps the springs and sources of the brook full all
through the summer.
Without protection from the warm spring sun, the snows of the winter
might melt in a week and cause tremendous torrents, the whole of the
melted snowfall rushing down the stream in a very short time. Without
the humus, or forest floor, to act as a soaked sponge which gradually
drains itself, the springs and sources of the brooks would go dry in
early summer, and the streams further down toward the cultivated plains
would be low and without sufficient water to irrigate all the farms
along its course.
It was for the purpose of protecting the farmers of the West by insuring
the careful protection of the water supply of all streams that Congress
wisely passed the law providing for the establishing of the forest
reserves. It is for the benefit of these farmers and of those others who
shall establish themselves along these streams that the Presidents of
the United States for the last twelve or fourteen years have been
establishing forest reserves and have had expert foresters studying
different sections of the western country to learn where the water was
most needed and where it could best be had.
It is gratifying to think that, while at first the establishment of
these forest reserves was very unpopular in certain sections of the
West, where their object was not in the least understood, they have--now
that the people have come to see what they mean--received universal
approval. It sometimes takes the public a long time to understand a
matter, but their common sense is sure at last to bring them to the
right side of any question.
The list of reservations here given is brought down to December, 1903,
and is furnished by the U.S. Forester--a member of the Club.
_Government Forest Reserves in the United States and Alaska_
ALASKA. Area in Acres
Afognak Forest and Fish Culture Reserve 403,640
The Alexander Archipelago Forest Reserve 4,506,240
Total 4,909,880
ARIZONA.
The Black Mesa Forest Reserve 1,658,880
The Prescott Forest Reserve 423,680
Grand Canyon Forest Reserve 1,851,520
The San Francisco Mountains Forest Reserve 1,975,310
The Santa Rita Forest Reserve 387,300
The Santa Catalina Forest Reserve 155,520
The Mount Graham Forest Reserve 118,600
The Chiricahua Forest Reserve 169,600
Total 6,740,410
CALIFORNIA. Acres.
The Lake Tahoe Forest Reserve 136,335
The Stanislaus Forest Reserve 691,200
Sierra Forest Reserve 4,096,000
The Santa Barbara Forest Reserve 1,838,323
San Bernardino Forest Reserve 737,280
Timber Land Reserve San Gabriel 555,520
The San Jacinto Forest Reserve 668,160
Trabuco Canyon Forest Reserve 109,920
---------
Total 8,832,738
COLORADO.
Battle Mesa Forest Reserve 853,000
Timber Land Reserve, Pike's Peak 184,320
Timber Land Reserve, Plum Creek 179,200
The South Platte Forest Reserve 683,520
The White River Forest Reserve 1,129,920
The San Isabel Forest Reserve 77,980
---------
Total 3,107,940
IDAHO.
The Bitter Root Forest Reserve (see note) 3,456,000
The Priest River Forest Reserve (see note) 541,160
The Pocatello Forest Reserve 49,920
---------
Total 4,047,080
MONTANA.
The Yellowstone Forest Reserve (see note) 1,311,600
The Bitter Root Forest Reserve (see note) 691,200
The Gallatin Forest Reserve 40,320
The Lewis and Clark Forest Reserve 4,670,720
The Madison Forest Reserve 736,000
The Little Belt Mountains Forest Reserve 501,000
The Highwood Mountains Reserve 45,080
---------
Total 7,995,920
NEBRASKA. Acres.
The Niobrara Forest Reserve 123,779
The Dismal River Forest Reserve 85,123
---------
Total 208,902
NEW MEXICO.
The Gila River Forest Reserve 2,327,040
The Pecos River Forest Reserve 430,880
The Lincoln Forest Reserve 500,000
---------
Total 3,257,920
OKLAHOMA TERRITORY.
Wichita Forest Reserve 57,120
OREGON.
Timber Land Reserve, Bull Run 142,080
Cascade Range Forest Reserve 4,424,440
Ashland Forest Reserve 18,560
---------
Total 4,585,080
SOUTH DAKOTA.
The Black Hills Forest Reserve (see note) 1,165,240
UTAH.
The Fish Lake Forest Reserve 67,840
The Uintah Forest Reserve 875,520
The Payson Forest Reserve 111,600
The Logan Forest Reserve 182,080
The Manti Forest Reserve 584,640
The Aquarius Forest Reserve 639,000
---------
Total 2,460,680
WASHINGTON.
The Priest River Forest Reserve (see note) 103,960
The Mount Rainier Forest Reserve 2,027,520
The Olympic Forest Reserve 1,466,880
The Washington Forest Reserve 3,426,400
---------
Total 7,024,760
WYOMING. Acres.
The Yellowstone Forest Reserve (see note) 7,017,600
The Black Hills Forest Reserve (see note) 46,440
The Big Horn Forest Reserve 1,216,960
The Medicine Bow Forest Reserve 420,584
----------
Total 8,701,584
----------
Grand Total 63,095,254
NOTE.