and ice and the long night, it lives in the few stunted willows and
the scanty reindeer-moss. It can only be fully understood where
the ungainly walrus, the mighty Polar bear, coloured like his own
snowfields, and the herds of fur-adorned musk oxen and reindeer give
life to the wilderness, and millions of sea-birds cover the cliffs, or
wheel shrieking through the air. To all these creatures the appearance
of man in these wide regions is so strange and unaccustomed that they
show no fear of him, and even come hurrying up from all sides to look
curiously at this strange new being.
In the high mountain regions of Central Asia, too, this spell survives,
associated with the flocks of those timid creatures the primitive
wild sheep, with the graceful wild goats, with the stately ibex,[24]
and with the life and movement of the countless huge bears of the
mountains, and with a strange flora that I myself have never looked
upon, but of whose existence I am as persuaded as of that of the spell
itself.
It is to be found in the jungles of India, whence the tolerant natives
have never driven it out. They have not expelled the animal world from
its paradise. There in the region of the lotus-flower the spell may
perhaps be recognised on still, moonlit nights.
It survives everywhere: in the Australian bush, in the New and the
Old World, on all islands, in all rivers and waters, in the life and
movement of the waves and depths of the ocean, so full of secrets
everywhere; in a word, where man has not yet driven it away.
Once it lived everywhere in Germany, and even to-day it is still to be
found in many places. It has its being where the mighty elk made its
home on moor and marsh-land, and our forefathers hunted the aurochs and
the bison in the primitive forest. To-day it is associated with the
edelweiss and the chamois in the Alps; it has its being in the oak and
beech woods, and where the green current of the Rhine flows down, or
where the stag sends afar his cry of challenge to his rival, and the
huntsman makes his way over the moor.
There one still experiences the spell of the Elelescho. But everywhere,
all over the world, everywhere in our Fatherland, it once lived and
held sway.
We may hope that the intimate and beautiful relations that the German
sportsman establishes between himself and nature in his Fatherland will
for a long, long time be handed down from generation to generation,
and thus result in the maintenance and preservation of the noble old
spell of the woodland and the wilderness. The ideal of _true German
sportsmanship_ has been developed in as high and full a sense as that
of _fair play in sport_ in England.
Both of these ideals will be judged in unfriendly fashion only by those
who regard them from a distorted point of view. The English ideal of
sport is winning the world to itself; the German ideal must do the same.
Coming from a good German school of sport, I consider myself fortunate
in having learned to know the wonderful animal world of Africa. There
is no doubt whatever that I must ascribe to the influence of this
school the fact that my accounts of what I had experienced and seen met
with such an appreciative reception both at home and abroad.
How wonderful is the chase in Germany! The primitive attraction for the
chase must be a part of every man. One need only once have seen the
excitement that seizes upon a gathering of thousands if on a sudden a
hare or some other wild creature comes into sight. At such a moment,
almost without exception, every one of them is on the move, without
the least reflection, and even notwithstanding the consciousness that
in no case can he himself secure the prize. It is the call of a strong
impulse deep rooted in men. But in our Fatherland how grandly and
nobly what we mean by “true sportsmanship” has developed out of this
primitive instinct!
A certain kind of organisation of the business of the chase must have
been in existence even in primeval times. Those who have made a study
of this department of the life of nomadic hunters in many lands tell
us that tribes and groups of families hunt only in well-defined areas,
and as they value their lives do not venture to pass these boundaries.
I have learned the same thing by my own personal experience of the
Wandorobo and other nomad huntsmen of the African plateau. It must
therefore have been the case everywhere, from the times when primitive
men, the cave-dwellers, began their struggle with the mighty beasts of
primeval days, down to our own times, when the chase is more and more
regulated till at last it becomes the exclusive property of the owner
of the land.
As a consequence of this right came measures for game preservation both
against the interference of the stranger sportsman, and as regards the
wild creatures themselves. Increasing knowledge taught the hunter that
he could not kill more than a certain number of wild animals without
extirpating them entirely in his district.[25] Hence grew up our
complex game-laws of to-day, and the general feeling that our hunting
grounds should be used in as intelligent a way as possible. In Germany
this problem has been solved to a remarkable extent. German sport has
an important influence on the welfare of the people. Great numbers of
our people are strengthened in body and mind by the chase, and, thanks
to it, considerable sums of money are added to the resources of the
country folk.
According to a moderate estimate there are now in Germany upwards of
half a million sportsmen. Each year they kill about 40,000 head of red
and fallow deer, about 200,000 roebuck, 4,000,000 hares, 4,000,000
partridges, and 400,000 wild ducks, in all some 25,000,000 kilograms
(over 50,000,000 lb.) of wild game, of a value of 25,000,000 marks
(£1,250,000), and forming nearly one per cent. of the total meat supply
of Germany. The game leases bring in about 40,000,000 marks annually
(£2,000,000).[26] But these very sportsmen, who every year kill such
a large quantity of wild animals, must at the same time be protectors
and guardians of this same animal life! Strange as it may seem, many
species of wild animals would have been long ago extinct if there were
no sportsmen. For imperative reasons, the hunter must at the same time
undertake the part of protector.
_But this idea ought to be to include a great deal more than is now the
case._ As I have already said, no nation has known so well how to form
a beautiful and poetical ideal of the chase and the spirit of sport as
the Germans have done. But it is not to be denied that this perfect
development, even in its very completeness, has in a certain sense
become one-sided, in so far as sportsmen restrict their protection and
guardianship to certain species of animals; one-sided, too, inasmuch as
to a certain extent they regard their mission from the point of view
of a close corporation. In this there is a certain advantage, but also
a certain amount of danger now that, as a result of the rapid progress
of civilisation, changes are introduced in every department of life so
much more quickly than in earlier times.
Huntsmen and fishermen desire the complete extermination of all kinds
of animals that they consider to be a cause of injury to their sport.
The result is the destruction of many kinds of animals that are
beautiful in form and constitute an ornament of the landscape. By the
same kind of reasoning sportsmen, in their capacity of landlords and
forest owners, ought to demand the extermination of the wild animals
that obtain their food from field and forest. Naturally sportsmen do
not want this, but they should, as far as may be, let themselves be
guided by higher points of view. This is the case already in many
instances. For example, as an instance of zealous game supervision
inspired by scientific principles, we have lately had to welcome a
valuable idea of Forest Commissioner Count Bernstorff. According to
his plan, small labels that will not annoy the animals (the so-called
“Game marks”) are attached near the ears of young roebucks and red
deer. Thus their resting-places, their movements, their growth, can be
carefully observed.... We are, therefore, actually living in a time
when to a certain extent each individual head of game is numbered!
Interesting and valuable as such measures may be, should we not
extend our loving care also to the animals that, though they are not
reckoned as game, yet adorn and give animation to the land we live
in? Some great landlords have given a bright example of progress in
this direction. Thus in Hungary there are sporting estates on which
wolf and bear are not completely exterminated, and in Germany estates
on which the fox is spared to a certain extent. The result has been
to the advantage of stags’ antlers and bucks’ horns on the estates in
question. English landlords allow a free home to a pair of peregrine
falcons or eagles, so as not to allow these beautiful birds to be
completely extirpated.
From these examples it is clear that there can be various opinions as
to the view generally taken with regard to “predatory animals.” If
there is not merely a selfish protection for game animals, but also
protection for the other mammals and birds, we shall thus preserve
from extinction some of the glorious forms of the realm of nature,
and prevent their being sacrificed to narrow interests. There is food
for thought in the fact that (as I have often had occasion to observe
in Africa) in primitive countries there is to be found an astounding
abundance of animal life. _Since prehistoric times man has been
engaged in hunting with his simple weapons without, on the whole,
very much diminishing the number of animals._ A striking proof that
the destruction of wild life is the work of the Europeans themselves,
and of the native hunters carrying firearms under their authority,
is afforded by the fate of the North American buffalo, the whales,
walruses, and seals of the frozen seas, and finally by that of the
elephant in certain districts and of the South African fauna taken as
a whole.
We should not therefore act so rigorously in the proscription of our
so-called “predatory” animals. Yet, for instance, my near neighbour,
Freiherr H. Geyer von Schweppenberg, has lately shown that our pretty
water-hen (_Gallinula chloropus_, L.) can do a great deal of damage to
grass and corn.
In South Africa what are called “poisoning clubs” have been organised,
which aim at the extermination of “noxious animals” by poison. The
use of poison ought to be entirely forbidden by legal enactments,
with the exception, perhaps, of its administration for scientific
purposes. The strychnine canister--the use of which ought only to
be allowed, and that in exceptional cases, to those who are making
scientific collections--is now making its appearance everywhere all
over the world. I have had news from the most distant countries of its
employment, unhappily with far too great success.[27] It is already
some time since the last _Lammergeier_ of the German hill districts
fell a victim to it. It is thinning to frightful extent the numbers of
the bears in Eastern Asia and other countries, though these are quite
harmless to man. But in our Fatherland a completely organised “poison
business” has grown up, which is a very serious matter.
I should like also to advocate strongly the legal prohibition of the
use of pole-traps, to which all our owls and birds of prey fall victims.
If we go on as we are going, the time cannot be far distant when we
shall have to strike out of the list of the living several interesting
members of our native fauna. In North America, in recent times,
the following species, amongst others, have some of them become
extinct, others extremely scarce: the Californian grizzly bear
(_Ursus horribilis californicus_), the San Joaquin Valley elk, or
wapiti (_Cervus nannodes_), Stone’s reindeer (_Rangifer stonei_), the
prongbuck or pronghorn (_Antilocapra americana_), the Pallas cormorant
(_Phalacrocorax perspillicatus_), the Labrador duck (_Camptolaimus
labradorius_), the ivory woodpecker (_Campephilus principalis_), the
scotar (_Aix sponsa_), several other species of birds, and finally the
American woodcock. This last falls a victim chiefly to professional
hunters, who are accustomed to kill it by hundreds in its winter
quarters.
“This list could perhaps be extended,” Mr. R. Rathbun, the Secretary
of the Smithsonian Institute (whose kindness I have to thank for this
information), adds at the end of his letter.
His communications have also been of special interest to me because
they awoke in me old recollections. In the ‘forties of the past
century my father received a letter from North America in which he
was informed that on ground over which the New York of to-day extends,
one could shoot in a single day hundreds of woodcock. I myself, in
my young days, used to take care of a beautifully coloured parrot,
of a kind that since then has been almost extirpated, and is hardly
to be obtained any longer. _Connurus carolinensis_ is the name of
this beautiful species of parrot, which also appears on the list of
extinct animals of North America. There, too, men have begun to give
strong practical expression to the movement for animal protection. In
sanctuaries like Yellowstone Park there is complete protection for
all animal life, including beasts of prey, and the bears have become
so tame that they allow visitors to come within a few paces of them.
Count E. Bernstorff, who received permission to shoot one of the few
bisons still preserved in the State of Wyoming, says “One might take
the way in which the animal life of America is protected as an example
in securing still better preservation for the survivors of the primeval
wild life of Africa. One must acknowledge that the Americans and their
noble President, a brave sportsman, are now doing all that is possible
in this matter.”
President Roosevelt, in fact, has come forward manfully in the lists
as a champion of widely extended protection for all the beauties of
nature, and especially of the animal world. He endeavours by his words
and writings to work effectually for these great and noble ideas, which
bring to all men delight, profit, and contentment.[28]
Brought up in the school of German sportsmanship, I had later on to
change completely my view as to our distinction between “noxious
animals” and “beasts of prey.” The African wilderness swarms with
_beasts of prey_, and yet also swarms with _useful wild animals_.
The waters of Africa teem with the _fish destroyers_, and also teem
with _fish_. We should not therefore act so short-sightedly and
pedantically. We should not be so eager to hunt down the last fox,
the last pine-marten. The nesting-places of herons and cormorants are
becoming ever fewer; the places where the handsome black tree storks
build in our German Fatherland can almost be counted on the fingers
of one hand; and the same is nearly true of the nesting-places of our
rarer birds of prey.
The killing of a wild cat has already become an event; it is the same
with the eagle-owl.
Out of the mass of literature of recent date bearing on the subject, I
take a single book. In a very readable essay, _Der Uhu in Böhmen_, Kurt
Loos shows that only a few years ago this interesting and beautiful
large owl (_Bubo maximus_) was to be found making its home to the
extent of some fifty pairs in thirty-five districts of Bohemia; now
only eighteen pairs are living there, in ten districts. The author
demands protection for the surviving pairs of owls, as natural objects
that should be preserved, and he makes out a strong case for his
proposal. Röntgen-ray photographs are among the illustrations of this
interesting work, and they suggest that in times when one can do one’s
work with such excellent appliances, there is all the more reason for
avoiding the thoughtless neglect of legacies left to us by Nature from
the days of its primeval beauty.
Numerous other examples of the rapid disappearance of certain species
in our Fatherland might be quoted here. Unfortunately we have, on the
whole, very little right to reproach the people of Southern Europe
on the subject of their custom of carrying on a systematic massacre
of birds; for we ourselves are always trapping thrushes and larks,
and there is the shooting of the woodcock in spring. There can be no
doubt that, if we would give up this spring shooting of the woodcock,
this bird, which has so won the heart of the German sportsman, would
breed abundantly in our forests. On sporting estates in the wooded
hills in Baden I have had occasion to observe this bird nesting; and
it is to be regretted that German sportsmen, who in other matters
obey the customs of the chase with such scrupulous conscientiousness,
do not spare this bird in the spring-time, although they are thus
extirpating from their hunting grounds a bird that breeds in the
woodlands of our country. The North American woodcock is in process
of extinction, for it also is not spared by sportsmen in its breeding
grounds, and it is just as little in safety from them in its winter
quarters. It is thus one of the disappearing birds of North America,
whilst our European woodcock is not so much exposed to harm from
systematic pursuit either in its partly inaccessible northern breeding
grounds or in its winter abode. But it is indeed difficult to abolish
old, deep-rooted practices that are no longer abreast of the times.
“Che vuole, signore?--il piacere della caccia!” was the reply of
an Italian to a tourist who remonstrated with him on the subject of
the extraordinarily widespread destruction of doves by means of nets
in Northern Italy. The same answer would probably be given by the
monks[29] of certain islands of the Mediterranean, who, keeping up an
old custom, kill countless multitudes of turtle-doves during their
migration. These are their favourite dainties, and they also export
them largely in a preserved state. So, too, it will be a difficult
matter to obtain from German sportsmen the complete abandonment of
their pleasant spring campaign against the woodcock. Through the very
interesting experiments of the Duke of Northumberland, who had marks
put upon numbers of young woodcock, it has been ascertained that large
numbers of them undoubtedly spend the whole winter in England. Now, if
Professor Boettger and Wilhelm Schuster are right in their conclusions,
drawn from similar observations, as to the return of the conditions of
the Tertiary period, and if the species of birds they observed used at
an earlier date not infrequently to winter with us, a more extended
protection for the woodcock ought, at any rate, to be introduced.
The continual levying of contributions on our colonies of sea-gulls,
to the injury of a great number of the other species of birds that
inhabit our sea-coasts, should also be greatly restricted. If this
is not done we shall witness, within a period already in sight, a
lamentable extermination of our shore- and sea-birds. And how grateful
for protection many species show themselves! Wherever it is extended to
them they enliven the landscape in the most pleasing way. So, too, it
has been found that certain species of gulls have adapted themselves to
a kind of nocturnal life in the neighbourhood of our great commercial
ports.
I may here mention as standing in special need of protection, and as
wonderful adornments of our German landscape, whose preservation should
find an advocate in every thoughtful man--the buzzard, the kestrel, the
hobby-hawk, both our varieties of kite, the crane, the heron, the white
and the black stork, the crested grebe, the water-hen, and the coot.
All these enliven and embellish the landscape to a conspicuous extent,
and should not be sacrificed to selfish interests.
I knew an old gamekeeper, a native of the March of Brandenburg, who
throughout the course of a long life had been taking care of a shooting
estate, which had grown up with him, so to speak. He protected _his_
wild creatures, and was delighted at having a colony of storks’ nests
and a group of badger burrows in _his_ woods. For long years he was
able to preserve a primeval oak, the largest in the whole district,
which in the year 1870 he named the “King’s Oak.”
To-day no birds of prey breed any longer on this estate; the primeval
village of badgers is in ruins, and irreverent hands have cut down
the “King’s Oak.” But the old man, now that his time of service has
expired, never sets foot on the estate, though he is passing the
evening of his life in the neighbourhood.
That was a man who had innate in him a just and reverent feeling for
the preservation of the beauties and glories handed down to us from the
far past, and who loved, and, so far as it was possible, guarded these
wonders of nature.
Let us once for all throw overboard the sharp distinction between
“noxious” and “useful” animals, and within certain limits let us
protect the whole world of animal and plant life. This would be the
noblest form of game preservation, in the widest sense of the word.
I venture to dwell upon these ideas here, knowing that they are shared
by a large number of men and women. Amongst our German game-preserving
associations we have societies that have rendered great services to the
protection of our native wild animals. An extension of these useful
efforts to the protection of all our native fauna and flora in general
is most certainly called for by the greatly altered conditions of our
time. We are gradually coming to a period when every individual wild
animal will be registered by specialists and indicated in a list! And
we are also gradually approaching in our sporting estates the ideal of
extensive, well-kept gardens, in which no touch of wild nature will any
longer be left.
I appeal once more to the authority of President Roosevelt. He
expresses the opinion that it is now not so much the question of
preserving great supplies of any one species as of maintaining the
primitive beauty of the forest in its wild life.
I think with pleasure of my youth, when, at a time when my father,
in union with other game-preservers, founded the _Jagdschutzverein_
(“Association for the Protection of Game”) of the Rhine Province, I
had the opportunity of making myself acquainted with the old state
of things in this department. My native district, the Eifel, still
sheltered boars, eagle-owls, wild cats, and many other rare animals
living in wild freedom. The ear of the boy learned to know and to love
every cry of our native fauna. Roosevelt rightly remarks that many
of the cries of American animals, such as the hoot of the owl, are
_falsely_ described as unpleasant. He who knows them well comes to
love them, and would not like to miss them from the general concert
of animal sounds. Here in Germany, too, we have evidence of this to a
gradually increasing extent.
The German sportsman ought to give a shining example to those of other
lands in this matter of the protection of _all_ the dwellers in his
hunting grounds. To his care is entrusted _the whole German fauna_ in
its widest extent. To secure the preservation of this splendid work of
nature here in Germany is an enterprise that will earn the gratitude
of every lover of nature, the thanks of millions of men. The German
sportsman, as the chosen guardian and keeper of the wild life of his
native land, must also become the protecting lord of all its animal
and plant life; he should maintain his own estate in its primitive
condition to the fullest possible extent. But to his estate, in a wider
sense, also belongs the velt of German Africa, still so rich in wild
life. Here, too, the German sportsman should take up the position of
guardian and protector.