i< ^-NRLF '^- \iVi- .»■• ■ *• ■ •y.V:- ■ Cbmmission oi >nservation Ganad ^ Commission of Conservation Canada National Conference ON Conservation of Game, Fur-Bearing Animals AND OTHER WiLD LiFE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION IN CO-OPERATION WITH THE ADVISORY BOARD ON WILD LIFE PROTECTION FEBRUARY 18 and 19, 1919 OTTAWA J DE LABROQUERIE TACHfi PRUTTER TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 1919 63267— A i SK1-7( r^ ommission of Conservation Constituted under " The Conservation Act," 8-9 Edward VII, Chap. 27, 1909, and amending Acts 9-10 Edward VII, Chap. 42, 1910, and 3-4 George V, Chap. 12, 1913. Chairman: Sir Clifford Sifton, K.C.M.G. Members: Dr. Howard Murray, Dean, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. Dr. Cecil C. Jones, M.A., Ph.D., Chancellor, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B. Mr. William B. Snowball, Chatham, N.B. Hon. Henri S. Beland, M.D., M.P., St. Joseph-de-Beauce, Que. Dr. Frank D. Adams, Dean, Faculty of Applied Science, McGill University, Montreal, Que. Mgr. Charles P. Choquette, M.A., St. Hyacinthe, Que., Professor, Seminary of St. Hyacinthe, and Member of Faculty, Laval University. Mr. Edward Gohier, St. Laurent, Que. Mr. W. F. Tye, Past-president, Engineering Institute of Canada, Montreal, Que. Dr. James W. Robertson, C.M.G., Ottawa, Ont. Hon. Senator William Cameron Edwards, Ottawa, Ont. Mr. Charles A. McCool, Pembroke, Ont. Sir Edmund B. Osler, M.P., Governor, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. Mr. John F. MacKay, Toronto, Ont. Dr. B. E. Fernow, Dean, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. Dr. George Bryce, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. Dr. William J. Rutherford, B.S.A., Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask. Dr. Henry M. Tory, M.A., D.Sc, President, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Mr. John Pease Babcock, Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C. Members ex-ofificio: Hon. T. a. Crerar, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa. Hon. Arthur Meighen, Minister of the Interior, Ottawa. Hon. Martin Burrell, Secretary of State and Minister of Mines, Ottawa. Hon. Aubin E. Arsenault, Premier, Prince Edward Island. Hon. Orlando T. Daniels, Attorney-General, Nova Scotia. Hon. E. a. Smith, Minister of Lands and Mines, New Brunswick. Hon. Jules Allard, Minister of Lands and Forests, Quebec. Hon. G. H. Ferguson, Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines, Ontario. Hon. Thomas H. Johnson, Attorney-General, Manitoba. Hon. Charles Stewart, Premier, Minister of Railways and Telephones, Alberta. Hon. T. D. Pattullo, Minister of Lands, British Columbia. Assistant to Chairman, Deputy Head: Mr. James White. SXCHAN6£ 11 CONTENTS Page Opening Proceedings 1 Address of Welcome 3 By Hon. Arthur Meighen The Need of Nation-Wide Effort in Wild Life Conservation . . 8 By Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt Discussion 16 Relation of Indians to Wild Life Conservation 19 By Duncan Campbell Scott Discussion 21 Gun Licenses 39 Fish and Game Protective Associations 43 Wild Life Sanctuaries 46 By J. B. Harkin Discussion 50 Game Preserves in Eastern Provinces 57 The Rational Use of Game Animals 60 By Dr. W. T. Hornaday Sale of Game 69 Game in Cold Storage 72 The Migratory Bird Treaty 74 By E. W. Nelson Attracting Wild Fowl 82 By Jack Miner A Farm Sanctuary 92 By Edith L. Marsh iii 948477 Page The War and Game 95 By John B. Burnham Migratory Birds Convention 99 Co-operation in the Regulation of the Fur Trade 122 By J. A. Bellisle The Use of Pump and Automatic Shotguns 130 Fur Statistics 1 34 By R.H. Coats The Need and Value of Local Associations 141 By S. Harris Report of Committee on Indians 146 Recommendation of Grant to Mr. Miner 147 National Organization for the Conservation and Protection of Wild Life 150 Death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier 156 Appendices: I The Migratory Birds Convention Act 158 II The Northwest Game Act 165 Index 171 IV ILLUSTRATIONS Facing page Mountain Sheep, Vermilion Lake, near Banff, Alta 1 Rams on Sawback Range, near Banff, Alta 1 Head of Moose, taken in New Brunswick 16 Mule Deer, Rocky Mountains National Park, Banff, Alta 16 Young Antelope in Buffalo Park, Wainwright, Alta 32 Buffalo Bull, Rocky Mountains National Park, Banff, Alta 32 Young Live Beaver 48 Floods at Point Pelee, Ont., in the Spring of 1919 48 Herd of Elk in Buffalo Park, Wainwright, Alta 64 Elk in Buffalo Park, Wainwright, Alta 64 Antelope in Buffalo Park, Wainwright, Alta 72 Wild Geese on Premises of Mr. Jack Miner, Essex Co., Ont 80 Moss on which the Reindeer Live, Northern Saskatchewan 88 Peasemarsh Bird Sanctuary 88 Virginia Deer at Banff, Alta 104 Sheep on National Highway, near Banff, Alta 104 Grain-fed Three-year-old Buffalo, at Buffalo Park, Wainwright, Alta 128 Bull Moose, Buffalo Park, Wmnwright, Alta 128 Elk in Buffalo Park, Wainwright, Alta 144 Rocky Mountain Sheep 152 Sheep at the Side of the National Highway, near Banff, Alta.. . . 152 a: < < < m t < CO z o < q: National Conference ON jnservatlon of Game, Fur-Bearing Animals and other Wild Life Under the direction of the Commission of Conservation in Co-operation with the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection OTTAWA, FEBRUARY 18 and 19, 1919 T HE Conference was called to order by Hon. Senator Edwards, Acting Chairman of the Commission of Conservation. The following members of the Commission were present: Hon. A. E. Arsenault, Dr. George Bryce, Hon. Martin Burrell, Mgr. C. P. Choquette, Mr. J. F. MacKay, Mr. C. A. McCool, Hon. Arthur Meighen, Dr. Howard Murray, Hon. E. A. Smith, Mr. W. F. Tye, Hon. O. T. Daniels. • • • Also the following officials and representatives: Vova Scotia — Mr. A. Knight, Chief Game Commissioner, Halifax, N.S. ^ew Brunswick — Dr. G. H. Prince, Provincial Forester, Fredericton, Mr. L. A. Gagnon, Chief Game Warden, Fredericton. icbec — Mr. J. A. Bellisle, Inspector General of Fisheries and Game, Quebec; Mr. E. T. D. Chambers, Special Officer; Mr. W. C. J. Hall, Superintendent, Provincial Parks. Ivtario — Mr. George H. Rapsey, Superintendent of Game and Fish- eries, Toronto. 63267—1 2 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Manitoba — Mr. N. Criddle, Treesbank, Man. Saskatchewan — Mr. F. Bradshaw, Provincial Game Guardian, Regina, Sask. Alberta — Mr. Benjamin Lawton, Provincial Game Guardian, Edmon- ton, Alta. British Columbia — Dr. A. R. Baker, Chairman, Provincial Game Conservation Board, Vancouver, B.C.; Mr. R. E. Hose, Chief Clerk of Board. Yukon — Lieut. Col. A. Thompson, M.D., MP. Railways — Mr. A. O. Seymour, General Tourist Agent, Canadian Pacific Railway. Game Protective and other Associations — Vancouver Angling and Game Association and Vancouver Game Club, Dr. A. R. Baker; Essex County (Ontario) Wild Life Conservation Association, Mr. Samuel Harris; Sudbury District (Ontario) Game and Fish Protective Association, Rev. T. J. Crowley, Dr. E. A. Hill, and Mr. R. S. Mitchell; Petawawa Camp Fish and Game Club, Mr. E. E. Lemieux; Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds, Mrs. W. F. L. Dyer. Press — Mr. W. J. Taylor, publisher of Rod and Gun in Canada. Fur Companies — Mr. E. Mellon, Revillon Freres, Montreal. Dominion Government — Members of the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection: James White, Deputy Head and Assistant to Chair- man, Commission of Conservation, and the Chairman of the Board; C. Gordon Hewitt, Dominion Entomologist, Dept. of Agriculture and the Secretary to the Board; Duncan C. Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; R. M. Ander- son, Zoologist, Geological Survey; J. B. Harkin, Commissioner, Porninion Parks, Dept. of Interior. Unit'iict-'' States Delegates — Mr. E. W. Nelson, Chief, Biological Survey, .United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; Dr. 'W. T". Hornaday, Director, New York Zoological Park; Mr. J. B. Burnham, President, American Game Protective Associ- ation ; Mr. Charles Sheldon, Washington, D.C. Sir James Grant, Ottawa; Mr. F. H. Williamson, Dominion Parks Branch, Ottawa; J. M. Macoun, Biological Division, Geolo- gical Survey, Ottawa; Jack Miner, Kingsville, Ont; P. A. Taverner, Geological Survey, Ottawa; Dr. C. W. Wilson; Mr. Robson Black, Canadian Forestry Association, were also present. Hon. Senator Edwards: We have with us this morning Hon. Arthur Meighen, Minister of the Interior. As the administration of the Northwest Game Act and the enabling Act making effective the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty has been placed under the CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 3 Dominion Parks Branch, one of the many branches of Mr. Meighen's department, it is fitting that Mr. Meighen should be with us and say a few words of welcome to those present. Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior): It is a rather unpretentious and, for that very reason, appropriate, introduction that Senator Edwards has given me in asking me to address you. I really have nothing in the way of an address to give, other than to say a few words to welcome the delegates to this conference. We, in Canada, are now under the shadow of a very P^^^^.,^^. , X . great loss. A light has gone out from our midst, a Sir Wilfnd Laurier ^ , n • ,• i ^t i i r very pure and nammg light. 1 hroughout the tour corners of our Dominion we feel the sense of something gone. I was taught almost at my mother's knee to set my mind and my life, so far as its public activities were concerned, against what Sir Wilfrid Laurier represented in this Dominion. It was not until well on toward middle life that I came in contact with him personally, but I soon found, as many thousands have found, that the predilections of earlier years had no justification, so far as his personal character was concerned. All in the nature of personal animosity melted in his presence, and one could scarcely resist the aspiration to become his friend. In the history of our country there are recorded many bitter political animosities, and it is not the least pronounced tribute to the worth of a man that he survived fifty years of political conflict and goes to his grave with the love and affection of vast multitudes of our people, and with the personal regard of all. I notice that we are to be favoured here with ad- United States dresses on most appropriate subjects by distinguished men of the United States. It is worth noting in this connection that the great man who has just passed away in Canada was similar in one respect to the distinguished American, Theodore Roosevelt, who recently departed life over there. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, like Theodore Roosevelt, struggled in earlier years against a most unfortunate and menacing handicap. He travelled during ten years of his life on a very narrow isthmus between life and death, and only by the supreme power of will and work did he, like his great fellow-American, overcome that obstacle and make his life a great and immortal success. This conference is called by the Commission of Conservation and the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection. The Department of the Interior is especially interested in the conference, and, as the head of that department, it is indeed a privilege to me to welcome 63267—11 4 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION you and to express the wish that some real and lasting fruits will result from your gathering together. Indeed, the very nature of the conference is such that good results should follow. We have come to realize in the Dominion — late, it is Wild Life a true, because, as a nation, like all other nations, we Great Resource have only realized very late the importance of great truths — that the conservation of our game is as vital a subject for consideration and attention as is the conservation of any other of our resources. The Dominion of Canada is so situated that wild game is a larger factor in the estimate of our national resources than it is, perhaps, in many great countries. A large section of this Dominion is valuable for its game and its fur-bearing resources more than for anything else — indeed, to the utter exclusion of anything else. That great stretch between the eastern coast of the Hudson bay and the Atlantic, on the one hand, and the Mackenzie basin, on the other, is valuable for its fur-bearing; in fact, as yet, it is valuable for little else. Canada is known as the great breeding place of the wild fowl on this continent. The Interior Department administers, as you know, the Northwest Game Act, which has been on our statute book for many years, and also the recent statute ratifying the con- vention with regard to migratory birds entered into between the British Empire and the United States. A glimpse of the value of your work can be had by considering the loss that we annually sustain as an agricultural community through the depletion of our insectivorous birds. In Western Canada, as in Ontario and, no doubt, in Eastern Canada, the loss in this respect is very great indeed. The figures are so great that I hesitate to quote them ; and a great service, from a purely commercial standpoint, can be rendered by a study of the best means of preserving our wild birds. Our fur-bearing resources are also very extensive in Fur-bearers of what are known as the ' barren lands ' of northern Canada — but which are not in any real sense barren lands. I do not know whether Senator Edwards will agree with me in this, because he and I are at opposite poles on this question of Canadian resources. But they are not barren lands, because no barren land can sustain the animal and plant life that these lands sustain. In that district, therefore, there are tremendous possibilities of greater fur-bearing and, indeed, meat-bearing develop- ment. I think it was Seton Thompson who fixed the number of caribou of that country at very many millions, and that it was Mr. J. B. Tyrrell who referred to them as being like the sands of the sea, not capable of being numbered, but only to be estimated numerically CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 5 on a squarc-mile basis. It is impossible to conceive that we are not going to do something to extend the geography of Canada, so far as civilization and utilization are concerned, nearer to the Arctic, and make use of these vast domains which, while not comparable with the rest of the Dominion, will, if properly administered, become an exceedingly valuable asset among the natural resources of Canada. I am glad indeed to find that such a distinguished gentleman as Dr. Hornaday, the Director of the New York Zoological Park, is to be among the contributors to the value of this conference, and also the gentleman who, on behalf of the United States, is responsible for the administration of the Migratory Bird Convention to which I have referred, Mr. Nelson. I earnestly hope that I shall be able to be present to hear what they have to say. There is another reason why I am interested in this Wild Life and conference. Not as Minister of the Interior, but the Indians ,,.. ri'r -ti i because 1 amMmisteroi the interior, i happen also to be Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. To the Indian, wild life is almost all of life. Possibly for many generations yet the Indian will not be able to subsist, to fight against the inroads of disease, and to maintain himself as a healthy and real Indian, except by access to sufficient wild life to enable him to so do. By reason of the de- pletion of deer and other game in the Ungava district — which de- pletion took place most pronouncedly some thirty-five years ago, at the time of the great fire — it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain the life of the Eskimo and Indians of that territory. It is not that the Department of Indian Affairs is negligent of them, because direct assistance to the Eskimos and Indians has been on the increase during all these years. But such assistance can never take the place of that ability to help themselves which Indians alone can exercise if they are in the environment of wild life; consequently we are making an effort to re-establish the conditions under which the Indian and the Eskimo can survive by their own resources and their own energies. Help them as we will, the more we help them the faster they die. Tuberculosis invades their huts; they do not get out as much as they did; if we help them more they get out the 'ess, and we are steering towards the extinction of the Indian and the Eskimo in that territory unless some successful change of policy can be made. It is not an easy matter in a country of such vast extent as ours to bring game into a territory of that kind and to preserve it through its earlier stages and enable it to become sufficiently numerous to be of real utility to the people. We are making arrange- ments that, we trust, in the course of time will take care of this con- dition, by co-operating with a concern which hopes very shortly to 6 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION bring Alaskan reindeer from the northern portions of Canada and thence across Hudson bay into Ungava peninsula. I wish to express my appreciation of the calling of this conference, and to hope that the exchange of opinions and experiences and the deliberations generally of you who are assembled here will result in advancing the knowledge of every section of the matters you are called upon to consider, as well as what may be described as a really practical outcome — greater uniformity in wild life administration and in the laws relating to wild life, and tangible progress in furthering the preservation of wild life itself. Senator Edwards: It is always interesting to hear Hon. Mr. Meighen, and I am sure you have listened to him with a great deal of pleasure. His tribute to Sir Wilfrid Laurier must be appreciated by every one, and particularly by his close friends. As one of Sir Wilfred's intimate close friends, I thank Mr. Meighen very much for the remarks which he has made. I was very much interested in Mr. Meighen's remarks with regard to Ungava. I know that country, not personally, but by proxy; our firm has explored it. I may say that a good deal of the burning that is going on — at least, this was the case a few years ago, and I imagine the condition still exists — is done by the parties whom our friend Dr. Grenfell is helping to maintain there. His friends in that district are misguided, and he is making a great mistake — unintentionally, of course. I shall now call upon Dr. Hewitt, Dominion Entomologist, Dept. of Agriculture, and Consulting Zoologist to the Commission of Conservation. Dr. Hewitt will address us on the Need of Nation- wide Effort in Wild Life Conservation, Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt: Before reading the few remarks which I have to make I should like to add a word of tribute to the words that were spoken at the Annual Meeting of the Commission of Con- servation yesterday and to those that have been so well spoken by Hon. Mr. Meighen this morning, to the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. „. . It was pointed out yesterday that Sir Wilfrid Laurier Interested in was the chief man who was responsible for the Wild Life creation of this Commission. But we are gathered here to consider a certain aspect of the Commission's work, namely, the conservation of wild life. It may not be known to most of you that Sir Wilfrid took a very keen interest in wild life. It was my privilege to be on terms of friendship with Sir Wilfrid, consequently I had many opportunities of learning of his great interest in wild life. Of course, public men in his position are generally regarded as politicians only; few trouble to think that there may be another CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 7 side to their lives. As a matter of fact, Sir Wilfrid had a very great love of nature, particularly of birds and trees. I never met him without the conversation turning to the subject of birds, or to the work that was being done by the various provinces and by the Dominion for the protection of birds. He took a great interest in our work here in Ottawa. The last communication I had with Sir Wilfrid was a letter from him, stating that he had written Sir Lomer Gouin asking his interest in the work that this Commission and the Advisory Board had undertaken to secure the reservation of the Bird rocks and Bonaventure island in the gulf of St. Lawrence as bird sanctuaries. During all the ten years that it was my privilege to know him. Sir Wilfrid evidenced a very real interest in wild life conservation, and it is fitting that this shquld be pointed out at a time when we are all thinking of what the nation owes him and the loss it has suffered at his death. The Need of Nation-wide Effort in Wild Life Conservation BY C. Gordon Hewitt Consulting Zoologist THIS National Conference marks an epoch in the history of the movement for the conservation of wild life in the Dominion. Convoked, as it has been, by the Commission of Conservation, with the co-operation of the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection, it represents the first occasion on which an endeavour has been made officially to bring together those who, through their official duties or public or private interests, are concerned in the protection of our game and fur-bearing animals and wild life generally. All to whom our wild life has any significance have been invited: officials of Dominion and Provincial Governments, representatives of sports- men's and game protective associations, of the fur-trading companies and of the railways. And the international significance of the prob- lem that we are to discuss is evidenced by the presence of those of our friends a ndco-workers from the United States who have accepted our invitation. National During the last decade there has been in Canada an Responsibility awakening to the fact that, of all our natural re- sources, the wild life was the most sensitive to human interference, and there has been a realization of the responsibility that rests upon our shoulders as trustees of the greater portion of what remains of the big game animals, of the breeding grounds of the wild fowl and of the most valuable fur-bearers of this continent. The manner in which the wild life over most of the United States has suffered through lack of adequate protection has furnished an object lesson that Cana- dians have not been slow to learn; and, while wanton destruction and excessive and unwise killing have taken place throughout Canada, our comparatively small population has not depleted our wild life so well favoured in haunts by Nature, and we are still fortunate in pos- sessing a fair proportion of our original stock of game and fur-bearing animals, well distributed over the country. We have convened for the purpose of determining the best methods by which we can con- 8 CONFERENCE ON WILD L 1 F IC 9 serve our wild life for the use and enjoyment of the people of to-day and of the future. Before we commence our discussions, I should like to emphasize two points, which are vitally important in their bearing on this subject, namely, the desirability of the greatest degree of co-operation, and the necessity of foresight. Taking the last point first, why should we not now Delay may mean resolve to use that faculty which distinguishes us Extermination . . from our fellow creatures and exercise our reason, which should make us provident? In the past it has been almost an invariable rule to wait until serious depletion of game animals has taken place before instituting protective measures which, had they been in effect earlier, would have prevented such depletion. Why should we continue to be so lacking in foresight, and of those attri- butes that make a nation progressive, as to be unwilling to provide against contingencies that we know from experience will occur? Conservation is practical foresight. No natural resource needs the application of greater foresight for its conservation than our wild life, for it cannot be replaced once it is destroyed, and its destruction can only be avoided by wise prevision. Let us, therefore, resolve to look ahead of the present requirements, and plan with our eyes on the future. ' But the chief object of this conference is to secure as great a degree of co-operation as possible, in order to further the objects we all have in view. A significant change has taken place in our attitude towards wild life. Formerly, game laws were framed more with an eye to human advantage than for the benefit of the wild life. Our wild life resources were regarded as a convenient and easy source of revenue, and the issuing of game licenses was the principal function of the game ofiicer; the same attitude of mind existed in regard to our forest resources, which were regarded as a valuable source of public revenue, in the shape of licenses and stumpage fees, and not as an economic asset requiring wise conservation. But, when the limits of the, so-called, ' inexhaustible * come within the range of our perception, then the instinct of self-preservation comes into play, and we hasten to make such amends as may be possible by endeavour- ing to save what remains. The true game ofiicer to-day is more concerned in protecting such game as remains than in issuing licenses for its destruction, and, if we are to retain our game resources, their conservation must necessarily constitute the main function of the game officer; he must be truly a game guardian or warden. 10 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION This broader conception of the significance of our wild life and of our attitude towards it has, in turn, brought about a greater sense of our responsibility with regard to the future, and a realization of the fact that the conservation of wild life is not a matter which any one province, state or territory' can undertake alone, but that its successful prosecution demands neighbourly co-operation and mutual assistance. The extent of our success in protecting our wild life will depend upon the degree of our co-operation. In every sphere of activity the spirit of co-operation Co-operation in jg crowing ; in industrial labour, agricultural pro- Protection , *■ . *". . , , ^ . . duction or mternational conduct, co-operation is re- placing separate effort. Similarly, in conserving our wild life we are appreciating the necessity of co-operation. So long as our migratory birds were subject to excessive destruction during their winter sojourn in the south and their spring migration northward, our effort to protect them in their breeding grounds was likely to prove unsuccess- ful altruism; the conservation of these birds demanded international action, and now we are endeavouring by mutual co-operation to pro- tect them. This conference will afford an opportunity of discussing the means whereby we may co-operate in this problem to the best advantage. Indeed, there are few phases of wild life conservation which cannot be promoted with a much greater degree of success by mutual co-operation between governments than by individual effort. In the regulation of the fur trade, which we propose to discuss, the enforce- ment of the best laws that a government can devise may be seriously hampered by the limitations that provincial or national boundaries place upon the jurisdiction of such governments. The same difficulty is met where contiguous governments have different policies; for example, where a provincial government, such as that of Saskatchewan or New Brunswick, prohibits the sale of game, and an adjacent province permits it; the absence of uniformity in policy leads to infractions of the law and trouble in enforcing it. While it is too much to expect uniformity in all cases, it cannot be denied that a much greater degree of co-operation than exists at present can be secured, and we believe that the best mode of obtaining such co-oper- ation is by such a conference as this. The migratory tendencies of most forms of wild life Predatory annul the effect of provincial or national boundaries, Animals . and the results may be for good or for evil ; a territory carrying on a wise protective policy with regard to its game or fur- bearing animals will bring about an overflow into the more depleted CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 11 contiguous areas; or an area in which an ineffectual policy for the control of predatory animals will serve as a source of supply to neighbouring territory. For good or for evil, contiguity has an effect on the wild life. In the control of predatory animals it is now obvious that complete success can only be obtained by co-operative effort. There is abroad in Canada an impression that the Canada Protects Dominion Government concerns itself little, if at all, Its Wild Life . , 1 1 . r -I 1 IT ^1 • • With the actual protection oi wild lite. 1 his impres- sion may have been justified by apparent inactivity in former years: it is not justified to-day, and the proceedings of this conference afford confirmation of the fact. While the Dominion Government has left to the provinces the protection of the game, fur-bearing animals, and other wild life within their respective territories, it is nevertheless responsible for the protection of the wild life over an enormous portion of Canada, namely, the Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, and in the Dominion parks. In order to carry out our national obligations with respect to the treaty with the United States for the protection of migratory birds, it has also assumed the guardianship of our migratory birds; this is being undertaken with the practical co-operation of the Provincial governments. The legislation governing these matters is administered by the Minister of the Interior. In order to supervise the enforcement of this legis- lation, and to advise on such matters affecting the conservation of wild life as might be referred to the Government, there was appointed, two years ago, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior, an Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection, which is composed of a representative from each of the departments concerned in wild life conservation, namely the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Mines (Geological Survey), and Indian Affairs, and the Commission of Conservation. The chief activities of this Advisory Board, up to the present, have been the drafting of the legislation under the Migratory Birds Treaty and the revision of the Northwest Game Act. The policy adopted in respect to the protection of Migratory Bird migratory birds serves to illustrate two points that I Protection .,..., , . r- i -i -i- • • i should like to bring out: First, the possibilities in the way of co-operation between the Dominion and Provincial govern- ments; and, second, the useful functions of our Advisory Board as an instrument for bringing about or facilitating co-operation between the Dominion and Provincial governments, inter-provincial or inter- national co-operation, all cf which, as we cannot insist too often, are 12 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION essential to any policy for conserving our Canadian wild life. In regard to the first of these points, the government's policy in the administration of the legislation carrying out the Migratory Birds treaty is to rely on the provincial governments, so far as may be possible, for the enforcement of the provisions of the treaty within their respective territories. With this end in view most of the Pro- vincial governments have already amended their game laws to con- form with the provisions of the treaty. Where assistance is necessary to secure the adequate enforcement of the regulations, it is intended to furnish such assistance; and where it may be necessary for the Dominion Government to enforce the regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, owing to the failure of a Provincial government to do so, the Dominion Government will live up to its obligations under the treaty, which is by no means a 'scrap of paper', but the most far-reaching measure that has been yet put into operation for the preservation of our valuable bird life. A great responsibility rests upon the Dominion Government in this matter, inasmuch as it is solely responsible for the enforcement of the regulations in the Northwest Territories, which now constitute, perhaps, the chief breeding grounds of the greatest number of the migratory birds of this continent. „ . . - It may not be out of place to discuss as briefly as Revision of -^ ^ r i_ • Northwest possible the conservation of the game, fur-bearmg Game Act animals and wild life of the Northwest Territories, on which subject I have addressed the Commission of Conservation at previous annual meetings. The Commission recommended the revision of the Northwest Game Act in 1916, and that revision was subse- quently undertaken by the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection, a new Act being passed in 1917. The new Northwest Game Act, and the Regulations passed thereunder, have two main features: First, the needs of the wild life in the Northwest Territories are more adequately satisfied; and, second, the fur resources receive a greater degree of protection by the institution of a licensing system for trappers and traders, thus providing a safeguard against exploitation by unscrupulous individuals or companies. The Canadian people generally fail to realize, chiefly because they lack the information upon which to form an opinion or do not give the subject a thought, what an immense economic asset the wild life, and particularly the fur-bearing animals, of the Northwest Territories constitute. Reliable statistics of the fur production of these vast territories are unavailable, and, in passing, may I say that we hope that one of the resuhs of this conference will be the development of a scheme for securing reliable CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 13 statistics of one of the country's chief natural resources, the resource that first attracted the outside world to our shores. But it is safe to say, that millions of dollars worth of furs of the finest quality obtain- able are exported annually from our Northwest Territories. Furs constitute the main available resource, and capturing fur-bearing animals is the occupation of practically the entire population of those territories at the present time. In an address which I gave before the Commission Control of North- of Conservation two years ago on the " Conservation west Fur Trade of our Northern Fur Resources," I pointed out that the Danish Government administers the fur trade of Greenland as a government monopoly, and has thus been able to exercise a great degree of control, with a view to ensuring the conservation of the fur resources, and, what is of still more vital importance, the conservation of the health of the natives by protection from foreign traders. So far as I have been able to ascertain, this policy has met with success. Why should not a similar policy succeed when applied to our North- west Territories? The policy of state ownership of public utilities has its adherents and opponents, but the state ownership of natural resources is not in the same category, and the state ownership of certain resources, such as forests, has undoubtedly proved successful, from both the point of view of conservation and of revenue. A dis- cussion of this subject in these introductory remarks would be out of place and I have enlarged upon it elsewhere. It is desirable, however, that all who are interested in the conservation of our wild life, and particularly the fur-bearing and game animals, should consider the suggestion that these wild life resources in the Northwest Territories might be administered as a government monopoly, and for three reasons: First, as a means of securing adequate protection for these resources; second, as a source of revenue; and, third, in order to safeguard the native population, which is dependent upon and is the chief means of harvesting the crop. In addition to the protection of wild life in the Reservations and Northwest Territories and Yukon and of migratory anc uanes birds under the international treaty, the Dominion Government is activ?ly conserving the wild life in another direction, namely, by the establishment of natural reservations under the Dominion Parks Act. The wild life in all the national parks is protected, and these parks comprise an area of nearly 9,000 sciuare miles. But certain parks, such as the Wainwright Buffalo park, the Foremost Antelope reserve and Elk Island park, are maintained solely for the conservation of native mammals that would otherwise 14 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION have been exterminated. The Commissioner of Dominion Parks, who is also charged with the enforcement of the Northwest Game Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act, will, no doubt, give further details regarding these Dominion game and wild life reserves, when he opens the discussion on game sanctuaries, which is one of the subjects that it is desirable to consider at this conference. In the establishment and maintenance of wild life or game reserves in Canada there are unlimited opportunities for co-operative action between the Dominion and Provincial governments. In fact, the reserves in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are co-operative in character, inasmuch as such reserves are chiefly established by the Provincial governments in Dominion forest reserves. We feel, however, that closer co-operation is both desirable and possible, particularly in the matter of the appointment of wardens for such reserves. A wild life reserve fails in its object to a very large extent unless it is adequately patrolled; there are law-breakers everywhere, both white and Indian, and, if a reserve lacks sufficient protection, it will be a reserve in little more than name. The wild life inhabitants of a reserve must receive protection, both from human enemies and from the predatory animals that will be attracted to such a district providing more abundant food. In the conservation of our wild life one of the chief Conservation factors we have to consider is the native, whether he on Natives ^g Indian or Eskimo. His attitude towards the sub- ject is naturally different from ours, and he affords a problem that demands sympathetic treatment and careful consideration. The Deputy Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs is a member of our Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection, and, in consequence, it is possible for us to give the fullest consideration to questions arising out of the relations of natives to our wild life and to take such action as may be deemed necessary and advisable. As this question will be discussed during the present session of the conference it is unnecessary to say more in this introductory statement than to point out that it affords, perhaps more than any other question, opportunities for co-operation between the Dominion and Provincial governments, and one of our desires is that this meeting and our free discussion will result in a greater degree of mutual understanding and co-operation in dealing with the problem of the Indian in the future. In the foregoing remarks, government activities in the conserva- tion of wild life have been chiefly considered. But, unfortunately, governments arc more apt to follow than to lead public opinion in CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 15 questions of this nature. Consequently, the creation of a strong public opinion on the necessity of conserving our wild life Is essential. It is essential, not only from the point of view of promoting the ends we have in view, but also in order to carry out effectually such mea- sures as may be established. The Commission of Conservation has taken the lead Educating [^ educating public opinion in Canada as to the im- Pubhc Opinion /» ^ . '^ -i i i-r , • portance ot conservmg our wild life resources and in promoting measures to effect such conservation. The work that has already been accomplished has only served to indicate how much greater an effort is necessary. The assistance of all organizations concerned in the protection of wild life is essential. In a country so rich in game animals, it is surprising how few associations there are of those interested in the protection of such animals. There are a few associations of sportsmen scattered through the Dominion, but how may of these ever endeavour actively to promote wild life con- servation or exert themselves except when their immediate interests are involved? Such associations of sportsmen should become active centres of propaganda for wild life conservation, not confining them- selves to merely selfish interests, but dealing with the subject in a broad, public-spirited manner. Further, we should like to see asso- ciations of persons interested in wild life conservation, both sports- men and nature-lovers, organized throughout the country. The effect of such organizations would be incalculable. Not only would they serve to educate the public, but they would be able to assist the governments in the effectual enforcement of the game laws. Where we now have one game protective or sportsmen's association, there should be at least ten. The possibilities of mutual co-operation between such associations and the governments are indefinite. In no way could an endeavour to promote nation-wide effort in the conservation of wild life meet with greater success than through the assistance of such organizations of sportsmen, of guides and of nature- lovers — in a word, of all who are directly interested in the adoption and carrying out of all measures that have for their object the preservation of our wild life resources. j^jggj ^j. Time will not permit a further review of the various Nation-wide directions in which our fur-bearing and game animals Effort ^^^ ^jj^ jjfg generally may be more successfully conserved by co-operative effort, not only between governments but between organizations and governments. The need of such nation- wide effort was never so pressing as it is to-day. We shall never again have such an excellent opportunity of attaining, by mutual 16 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION effort, the ends for which we are individually striving, as we have now. Everywhere ideas are in a state of flux, and the extent to which they crystallize out in forms that will promote the welfare of the country as a whole will depend upon the justice of the cause, the weight of public opinion behind it, and the prescience of our govern- ments. A great responsibility rests upon those of us who are en- deavouring to form and guide public opinion, and, at the same time, are called upon to advise on the conservation of this and other resources, but we can discharge our obligations with a greater degree of success if we work together with the same ends in view, and, instead of limiting our vision by regarding our problems as local, make our cause a national one. Discussion Dr. Hewitt : May I suggest that this paper is really not meant for discussion; it is intended as a general introduction to the work of the conference. Our programme has been purposely made brief, as we felt that the objects of the conference would be better attained if we had plenty of time for discussion of the subjects with which they deal rather than a large programme which would leave prac- tically no time for discussion. You will see, therefore, that we have endeavoured to select subjects that seemed to us to need discussion by such a conference as this and, possibly, action by resolution. On the other hand, delegates to the conference may wish to discuss subjects that are not on the programme. We had that also in view, and we welcome the discussion of any further questions which delegates to the conference desire to bring up during the course of the meeting. Dr. a. R. Baker (Chairman, Provincial Game Conservation Board, Vancouver): Dr. Hewitt remarked that game wardens, instead of being sellers of game licenses should be game conservers. British Columbia has taken a forward step in the conservation of game by appointing a Game Conservation Board, whose sole duty it is to see that the game of that vast country is conserved as far as possible. It has always been the object of governments to derive as much revenue as possible from the sale of licenses and from the exportation of the skins of our fur-bearing animals. For many years I worked to get the British Columbia Government to bring about a system whereby we would have an opportunity of conserving our game and our fur-bearing animals. ■•<:, ty re ^ c ft' t r « « ' CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 17 Dr. Hewitt spoke about the fur-bearing districts of the North- west. British Columbia produces about one-third of the fur pro- duced in Canada We have estabhshed a system, under which we can give you exact figures of all the fur that is taken in the province and exported at any time. Mr. Hose, who is with me, will be pleased to explain the system and to give an idea of the amount of fur taken out yearly. One year ago, the Game Conservation Board of British Columbia was created, of which I am proud to be chairman. During the short time that we have been in existence, we have accomplished wonderful results. I should like to see Conservation Boards and Game Pro- tective Societies established in all the other provinces. In British Columbia two game protective associations have been established — one in the interior and one on the Pacific slope — comprised of repre- sentative sportsmen of the province. These associations have en- tered into the spirit of conservation and are doing a great deal of valuable work in preserving, protecting, and conserving game. Hon, E. A. Smith (Minister of Lands and Mines, New Brunswick) : At the last session of our Legislature we passed what is known as the Forest Act. Formerly we employed a number of men, at a certain time of the year, to scale our logs. Then, a certain number of men were employed, during portions of the year, to protect our forest lands from fire, and we had another set of men temporarily employed for the conservation of our game, and known as game wardens. I do not think that any of these branches of work was carried on in ths best interests of the province. The Forest Act, as passed last year, was coupled with the Forest Fires Act. Under the Forest Act we consolidated or combined those three outside services, and made the employees permanent instead of temporary. I do not think there was any saving of money ; I did not take that into consideration. What I did take into consideration was chiefly the conservation of our game and our forests. In placing the Bill before the Legislature I contended that we did not get efficient service from our temporary employees, and that the appointment of permanent employees would give better results. Examinations of candidates were held, and no man was given a position who did not possess qualifications for the line of work in which he was to be employed; and, when selected for appointment, the first six months of his service was to be a probationary period. Lumbermen and others in the province are objecting to the new Act, but I feel that it was a forward step, and we are getting the results. 63267—2 18 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Last year I had the temerity to prohibit the sale of Restriction on ^yji^j meat. I do not think the Eastern Provinces Sale of Game ,1111 1 have really undertaken to ensure the conservation and preservation of our wild animals. However, owing to the high price of these meats, the pot-hunter was encouraged to violate the Game Act, and that is one of the reasons why I had this Act passed. I do not know whether we shall continue it or not. There is a great feeling against it; the poor people say they have always enjoyed their wild meat, and that what they did not eat they sold to their neighbours. However, if I cannot keep that Act on the statute book, it will not be my fault. Relation of Indians to Wild Life Conservation BY Duncan Camfbell Scott Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs IT would take a good deal Of time to deal fully with all branches of the subject which you have allotted to me; therefore, I will only say something of what the Department of Indian Affairs is actually doing to conserve wild life by endeavouring to induce the Indians to obey the laws. We should have a good deal of sympathy for the Sympathy for Indian. He is the original fur-hunter of the country, and, when he was alone in that industry, he had everything his own way. When the fur-traders came, everything was changed, and, looking back over the old days, and reading records of that time, one cannot help wondering that any Indians now remain to hunt or to be subject to restrictive regulations, con- sidering the stormy period they went through in their first relations with the white man. The Indians were then debauched by liquor supplied to them by government employees, military officers, and fur-traders, until the middle of the last century — 1850 or thereabouts, when laws were enacted, providing that no more liquor should be given to Indians. Then a halcyon period for the Indian set in, when he could not get whiskey in trade, and when the fur-trade was in the hands of one or two great companies. The fur-bearing animals were carefully conserved by the companies and by the Indians them- selves in their own interests. The number of skins to be taken was limited, and the trade was very carefully regulated. These con- ditions prevailed until the independent fur-trader made his appear- ance upon the scene. Now the trade is so divided and parcelled out between hunters, who are not Indians, and many companies and individuals who are engaged in buying furs, that the Indian finds it, year by year, increasingly difficult to support himself and make way amidst competition and the restrictive regulations which he is ex- pected to recognize and obey. 63267—2^ 19 20 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION The Provincial governments are attempting to deal Restrictive with the fur-trade by enacting restrictive legislation, and the Department of Indian Affairs endeavours to induce the Indians to obey the Provincial laws. That is the fixed policy of the Department. As you are all well aware, we have what we call 'treaties' with the Indians. These treaties are really cessions of land, surrenders of large areas of Indian lands over which the Indians had usufructuary title. It has been British policy, ever since the year 1763, to require a surrender of these titles before the country was thrown open for settlement. In most of the treaties the question of hunting and fishing was mentioned. I will read the clause which is inserted in these treaties : — " His Majesty further agrees with his said Indians, that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunt- ing and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by His Government of His Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering, or other purposes, by His said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof fully authorized therefor by the said Government." While allowing the Indians this privilege, these treaties, for the most part, contained the general provision that the Indians shall be loyal subjects of His Majesty and obey the laws passed from time to time by His Majesty's Government. The Indian Act contains no specific legislation on th^e Indians under subject of hunting and fishing, but contains the Provincial Law ■-,,. , i-i 11 i-- followmg clause, which controls he application to Indians of Provincial laws in Manitoba, Saskatche- wan. Alberta and the Northwest Territories: " The Superintendent General may, from time to time, by public notice, declare that on and after a day therein named the laws re- specting game in force in the Province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or the Territories, or respecting such game as is specified in such notice, shall apply to Indians within the said Pro^■ince or Territories, as the case may be, or to Indians in such parts thereof as to him seems expedient." From time to time, by proclamation, we have brought Indians under the provisions of the provincial game laws, and, through correspondence with our agents, and, through the exercise of all the influence we can bring to bear on the Indians themselves, we are endeavouring to get them consistently to obey these laws. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 21 We have not had much trouble with the Provincial governments on the question of Indian hunting. Of course, we sometimes get exaggerated reports that the Indians are killing all the moose in certain districts, but, when we investigate them, we usually find that there is little foundation for the reports. On the whole, it may be said that the Indian obeys Indians Kill ^^g hunting and fishing regulations equally as well as the white man. The Indian, who has to maintain himself on his hunting grounds by killing animals for food, is entitled to a measure of sympathy, and we have found that the Provincial governments are willing to recognize his exceptional position in this regard. The Indians who are difficult to deal with are those who are remote from civilization, living in aboriginal conditions and not open to the influences of civilization ; but this class is fast disappearing. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that, so far as the Department of Indian Affairs is concerned, our fixed policy is to endeavour to induce the Indians to obey the laws passed by the Provincial authorities for the conservation of wild life and the preservation of game, and to endeavour also to mitigate the laws to meet any special conditions that surround the present mode of life of the natives. D1SCUS.SION. Mr. F. Bradshaw (Provincial Game Guardian, Saskatchewan): We have listened with interest to Mr. Scott's remarks, but I, for one, do not think that everything possible is being done to control the Indian. One of the most difficult problems we have to contend with in Saskatchewan is the non-observance of the game laws by Indians. The Indian does little or no big game hunting during the lawful open season, but it is an established fact that, during August, Sep- tember and October, when the moose and elk are easily lured within range by the use of a call, he kills far more big game than he is legally or morally entitled to. In the early days, when there was an abund- ance of wild life, no reasonable objection could be taken to the killing of big game for legitimate requirements, but, in these days, when the annual toll taken seriously endangers the very existence of some of the magnificent species of our North American fauna, I think we would be very remiss in our duties as wild life conservationists if we closed our eyes to the unwarranted violations that are being perpe- trated by the Indians at this time. 22 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION I do not know whether this problem affects the whole of the Dominion or not, but I think I may safely say that it applies with equal significance to all the western provinces, and, for this reason, I .presume the subject to be of sufficient importance to warrant my bringing it to the attention of this conference. Each year our department receives an increased number of complaints of wanton slaughter of big game by Indians. These are usually received from settlers who reside in the vicinity of where the Indians are operating, or from sportsmen who go to considerable expense and trouble in preparing for their annual big game hunting trip, only to find, on arriving at their camp, unquestionable evidence that the Indians have preceded them. I suppose, in some cases, the complaints received are prompted by selfish motives; in others, the motive is purely a desire to secure a square deal both for the game and for the law-abiding sportsmen. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that, for the most part, the complaints are justified, and, in nearly all cases, they are fully substantiated upon investigation. Perhaps, the best way to open up this subject for discussion would be to quote from a few of the many letters recently received by the department on this subject. But first of all, I will read a news clipping from the North Battleford News, dealing with the situation as it obtains north of that city: " The slaughter of moose in the north country goes steadily and craftily on. This autumn has actually been the worst, positively the worst, in years. According to reports from those who know, and with whom The News is in close touch, fully two hundred moose were uselessly slaughtered by the Indians in the country to the north of us during the season just closed. Hunters who have lately returned from the moose-hunting grounds of the north emphatically state that the hunting this year was the dullest yet experienced. Few traces of moose could be found. For days the forests could be scoured for these monarchs of the woods without success. Indian encamp- ments could, however, be seen in plenty, profusely decked for rods around with moose heads, hair, and hides, proving beyond any doubt that, throughout the summer and early autumn, the country was stripped clean by these marauders of the animals that should be only killed off sparsely by legitimate hunters annually. This wanton slaughter, the work of Indians from across the border to a large extent, is the talk of the whole country, and much resentment is felt at the condition of affairs existing. " The Provincial Government should investigate the affair at once, and, hereafter, appoint a game warden to preserve the game of this last great moose rendezvous of this portion of the West." The reference to Indians from across the border would indicate that natives from the south are now making an annual excursion to CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 23 our big game hunting grounds, and we are informed from another source that a large band of half-breeds from Montana visited our northern woods last summer and feasted on moose meat during their sojourn, and then returned with what they considered enough dried meat to carry them through the winter. So pleased were they with the success of their trip, that it is stated, they contemplate a return visit next summer. While the accuracy of the figures contained in the below letter might be questioned, it will suffice to show the views of a sports- man whom, I would judge, from my own personal knowledge of him, can at least be credited with sincerity of purpose and an enthusiastic desire to further any project that has for its object the conservation of wild life. This is part of his letter: "While I had almost decided never again to say much with regard to the big game conditions, I again feel that it is my duty to tell you some of the conditions which exist there, and how imperative it is that thorough and drastic measures be taken immediately in order to preserve the game of our big game fields, not from licensed hunters, but from Indians and those who kill for commercial purposes. " Two years ago I was over very much the same ground as I was this year. That year I saw 157 head. Each and every mem- ber of our party saw a large number of animals, these being prin- cipally cows. This year, with cows and all, I saw only eight head, putting in a week extra over what I did the previous year. I am reliably informed that one party of Indians alone killed 127 head of elk during the month of September. While it is hard to prove these things, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind but what this is done. This, as you know, is the rutting season, or calling season, and it is no trouble whatever for any one to go in and kill and kill and kill without eff'ort, and the evidence of this slaughter can be found in many places. Some of the finest heads, that would be con- sidered almost priceless, are slaughtered and left to rot. That these Indians may, in a sense, use this meat for food, I do not doubt, but, in view of your intending to close the season on elk for three years, I might say that, under the conditions which exist at present, you may as well throw the season wide open and let the white get his share of the game with the Indian, for, if you close this season for three years, you only close it against a few of your licensed hunters who have to go over a railway. The Indian and he who wishes to com- mercialize in game are not afifected in the least, and I daresay, under the present conditions, that, although you may close the season, within three years from now there will be no elk on the big game fields of the north to be secured by any one. " I never in all my life saw such a slaughtering of game in two years as has taken place in the elk fields north of Prince Albert; and, on the other hand, I feel that, if the Government does owe a just debt to her returned soldiers (of whom many are our most loyal 24 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION sportsmen), it is to the preservation of these game-fields that they may be again able to enjoy a little hunting after their return, as these men are surely entitled to every consideration. I am absolutely convinced that the licensed, legitimate hunters are not, to-day, depleting your game-fields of the north. ... I again state that, if you wish to preserve the big-game fields of the north, it is necessary to put on more patrolmen, enforce the law more rigidly, and stop the illegal killing in September and October, as it is the market-hunter and the Indian who are depleting the game of the north." The two letters I will now read give a very clear insight into the methods pursued by the Indians. The first is from a man at Unity, Sask., and is as follows: " I do not wish to make a complaint against any one responsible for the enforcing of the game laws, as, with the great area of the province, it would require a force large in number and of the right stamp to strictly enforce the laws. But, if we are to have big game in the years to come, we must have three or four resident game wardens right in amongst the game to watch Charley Grey-eyes and Johnny Rain-in-the-face. " It does seem pretty hard, when everything is so high in price, to think the Indian has a source of revenue right at his door and we will try to deny him. But he is preparing himself for a period of game scarcity if his present methods are not stopped. During my four trips to the big game country we found only one spot which lacked the marks of the Indians' visit. That was Tp. 57, Rge. 15, and in the season of 1915. We went in on an old surveyor's trail, and cleaned out windfalls, etc., for several miles, and there was game to repay us for our labour. The next season, we took the same trail, but the Indian appreciated our efforts at road-making, for he spent a good part of the summer of 1916 right on our old camp grounds and left his drying-racks and piles of moose hair as evidence that the game was plentiful in the summer at least. We had to hunt hard that autumn to get a moose, and decided to try a new spot in 1917. This lay by way of the Green Lake trail, and we got into a nice run of game, despite the fact that Indian signs were plentiful. During 1918, we went to the same grounds, and I was sorry to see the de- struction which the Indians had wrought during the previous summer. The drying-racks still had the leaves on them, showing that they were cut when poplar was in full leaf, and we judged the date to be not later than August. We made careful examination of the many camps, and found skulls of cows, calves, and bull moose, as well as does, fawns, and bucks of the jumping deer. I venture to say the Indians killed more game illegally in 1918 than all the licensed hunters saw during the big game season." Here is another one: " I hunted moose this fall in Tp. 56, Rge. 16, W. 3rd Mer., and, I am sorry to say, found no moose, although they were very plentiful last autumn. But I did not have to look very far to find CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 25 the reason. The Indians had been there before us. While up there I saw several hunters, and all were complaining of the same thing. I saw six Indian camps in Tp. 56, one in Tp. 55, and one in Tp. 57, and pack trails and wagon roads were in evidence everywhere. Some of the camps had eight stretching racks, and moose hair four inches deep lying around them, also several cow moose heads. They must have been there in the summer, as the trees they had used for shading their camps had dried leaves on them, and were mostly alder and poplar. I heard one report of an Indian saying they killed 200 between Meeting and Witchekan lakes, and I should not be surprised if evidence to that efTect could not be found in the way of buckskin in either of the Witchekan Lake stores." In that connection, we made an investigation, found that such was the case, and the storekeepers were heavily fined. The letter continues: " I think it is up to the game department to go after the Indians and put a stop to the killing of moose for their hides. I am afraid if the Indians had been there when we were, they would have had a rough time." Here are two letters from settlers whose chief grievance seems to be that the Indian is obtaining undue advantage over the white man: " I would ask a few questions regarding the killing of big game in the province of Saskatchewan. Is it lawful for the Indians to come in from their reserves and kill moose out of season? " For the last two years they have just about succeeded in clearing the surrounding country of all big game. Some of the farmers are asking: Is there one law for Indians and another for the white man? " Not that we want to see the Indians go hungry, but we do not like to see parts of moose and jumping deer lie rotting in the bush, which has occurred. And not only this, but they have the presumption to come around on Sunday selling this meat from door to door. " If the Government sees fit to allow these Indians to obtain food in this way, all well and good; but some of the residents and farmers are under the impression they are doing more than the In- dians towards opening up the country and advancing civilization. This may not be a democratic spirit towards the red man, but, if the deer are to be wasted, we would like a small share to help lessen the high cost of living, but we dare not. " Sir, we are not hunting trouble for the poor Indian, far from it. But is it justice? " I would be very much pleased to hear from you on this matter, as a moose has just been slaughtered not half a mile from here." This is the other letter: "All last winter and most of the summer of 1918 a lot of Indians in this settlement were killing moose and deer and selling as much of it 26 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION as they could; then, about October, 1918, about fifty Indians came in to hunt before the season opened; while, if we, who are doing something for the upbuilding of the country, should kill game out of season for our own use, we are liable to a heavy fine. The Indians seem to have a special privilege to kill and sell as much as they wish, "At present a lot of Indians are camped here, are killing moose and deer and selling same. " I ask that you use your influence and, if possible, have the Indians removed from here at once, and not permit them a privilege that we do not enjoy." The next one is from an old-timer, whose opinion on these matters is highly respected. It gives some idea of t'he destruction that it is possible for a single Indian to execute, and, when we consider there are hundreds; yes, I think it would be no exaggeration to say thous- ands, of such Indians engaged in similar destruction throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion, we may form some idea of the tremendous slaughter that takes place annually as a result of this unlaivful practice. Here is the letter : " One of our business men was hunting north of Fort a-la-Corne this autumn, and had no luck; a large party of half-breeds were camped close to him. He joined them often at the camp fire, and, naturally, game was discussed. The remark was made that if the game were protected from Indians it would be more to the point, and an instance was quoted where an a-la-Corne Indian named Britain had killed 30 moose that autumn before the season opened. It might be difficult to verify this, but I have no doubt of its truth myself, as the Britain (or Poonaman) family are noted hunters. " I was at St. Brieux for a week sjnce the New Year, and was then credibly informed that Indians from Batoche and Duck Lake make a point of coming down just before the season opens and cleaning up the game in the Basin Lake country, where I do not think any of the parties I issued licenses to secured any last autumn. " I knew you would be interested in this matter; it is an old fight, and I have had correspondence with both Dominion and Pro- vincial Governments over it in. the past. There is no doubt in my mind that Indians should only be allowed to kill game in season. Talk about them being hungry, they always are; what would keep a family of white people all winter in the way of venison would not last them a week, as they eat steadily until the supply is finished." I might cite innumerable instances of similar charges against the Indian, but I think enough has been said to establish the fact that he is a real menace to the big game, and that the operations of the Big Chief Company are contrary to the most elementary prin- ciples of economy and conservation. As a matter of justice to law- abiding citizens; as a matter of protection to the game; and as a matter of insurance for the future welfare of the Indian himself, this CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 27 unlawful practice must be checked, or there can be but one result, the annihilation of the big game in all the districts affected. From time to time, we have sought the assistance of the Indian Department in our endeavours to curtail this wanton slaughter. Our correspondence has always been courteously acknowledged, and promises of co-operation were repeatedly given. I regret to say, however, that there is little or no evidence of any improvement. I may be wrong, but the attitude of the Indian Department seems to be, that, while they are extremely sorry that such things are happen- ing — the poor Indian must be fed, and, presumably, in the cheapest possible manner. I venture to say, that the average Indian agent encourages, rather than discourages, the illegal killing of big game. He feels it incumbent upon himself to keep expenses down to a minimum; in fact, I have reason to believe that this is expected of him, that he may present a report that is favourable to the Administra- tion in regard to its avowed policy of making the Indian self-sustaining, so far as it is possible to do so. Consequently, the more moose meat the Indian secures the less beef the agent will have to provide. We do not deny the Indian's right to be fed, but he has the opportunity of securing an ample supply of meat during the lawful open season. If he fails to avail himself of this opportunity, the Federal Govern- ment, as guardian of the Indian, should assume the responsibility of providing the necessary food supply. Notw'ithstanding the many complaints we receive of the Indian's depredations, there is still displayed an unmistakeable trace of sympathy for the Indian by most complainants, a sympathy, I think, which in a greater or less degree is found in every person who recognizes the red man's former privileges, and his present day improvidence. Nevertheless, none of these things should be allowed to blind us to the inevitable results of slaughter-house methods when applied to the killing of big game. If the Indian Department has no control over the Indians in this respect — a condition of affairs which I am not prepared to accept — there seems to be but one other solution of this problem, and that is the vigorous enforcement of the game laws, a policy which we would be reluctant to adopt, if we could find any way of avoiding it. However, I am firmly convinced that, under present conditions, it is absolutely necessary that stringent measures be taken if we intend to stamp out this evil. No doubt there are many representatives of the other provinces here who have a similar problem on their hands, and a full discussion on this important question would doubtless be the means of formulating some practical 28 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION plan that would help to bring about a solution of this perplexing problem. Mr. D. C. Scott: I think the speaker should describe what Saskatchewan is doing by way of having her responsible game wardens look after this matter. The responsibility for the enforce- ment of the law rests upon the province; the Indian Department can do nothing about that. Mr. Bradshaw: I am pleased to answer that question. At present we have four salaried game guardians, and provision has been made in our estimates for the appointment of five or six additional game guardians to enforce the game laws in connection with the Indians. I should like to ask Mr. Scott a question. Is the Indian Department in sympathy with the enforcement of our Provincial laws? Mr. Scott: Yes, decidedly; and it always has been. Mr. Bradshaw: Well, I have never seen any effect of it. Mr. Scott: We took the necessary action under the Act to apply the game laws to the Indians. But our men cannot enforce the game laws. The Indians of Witchekan lake, for example, are 'wild'; they have not signed a treaty; we have, as yet, no official connection with them. As for the bands of roving halfbreeds from the south, it seems extraordinary that Saskatchewan can not stop them from coming in. You should know when they come over; they should be stopped at the border. Mr. Bradshaw: We have only just received the information. Mr. Scott: This subject should not be discussed in a controversial way. We wish to preserve the game ; at the same time, we wish to have our Indians well fed, but we do not want the hunters to feed themselves entirely on the game of the country. It is diffi-- cult for us to control Indians that we do not come in contact with officially, such as the Witchekan Lake band, but they will, no doubt, settle down before long. Of course, they ought to be brought to time. Mr. Jack Miner: We are met here to discuss these matters in a friendly way, and to bring about better game protection. If I know of something that I believe is wrong, it is my duty to stand up here and say so. The Kingsville, Ont., hunting party has hunted in the country 50 to 75 miles west of Sudbury. The members of our hunting party all took out licenses and some of them started trapping a few beaver. They just took the old ones — some of us knew how to catch the old beaver and let the younger ones go, and we showed the others how to do it. They got a few beaver, but I do not think CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 29 one of the party ever thought of selling a beaver skin. But this year, when we went up there, the Indians had come in and were camping right where I had camped for twelve or thirteen years — two brothers and a son — and they had three dogs. And of all the destruction! What is the result? Our party has to go to a new hunting ground. I will give the Indians their due: if we had a trap set they did not let that dam out. But they let the other dams out and they destroyed the beaver. I was writing a letter for an old Indian to his son in France, and among other things he said: " Tell him one hundred and fifty." I said " One hundred and fifty what?" " Well," he said, " he know what that is." I went to the Indian camp. The squaws were skinning the beaver. Some of them were thrown out; you never saw such a slaughter of our game. I went to the Indian one Sunday morning, and I said: " I have been hunting here now thirteen or fourteen years. You should not let those dams out and destroy the beaver in this way. I am not a game warden ; I am your friend, but you should not do this." He said: "I kill him all; none get away." He commenced to show signs of anger, and I changed the subject. We found eleven sets of beaver entrails where they had let out two dams. I questioned this Indian and found that, originally, he had come from James bay. He knew the Indians at Hudson bay and James bay who were getting the tags off my wild geese. There was a game warden with us, and I think he reported this Indian. I did not report him; I would not invite him into my tent and talk it over with him and then report him. I had a talk with the game warden about this affair, and he told me that his sympathy was with the Indians. Every word he spoke made me feel as if some one was throwing ice water on me. He said: "My sympathy is with the Indian in every respect; they are starved out. Do you know the treaty the Government has with the Indians? Did you ever read it?" I said " No." " Well, he said, " before you go further I would advise you to read it." The game warden told me that if I did what the Indian had done, he would prosecute me — and I would respect him for it if he prosecuted me a dozen times. Can we do anything to stop this thing? A young Indian told me that he got $10 a quarter for moose meat. We find deer heads in the woods that have been taken the year before, with no horns on them. Mr. E. T. D. Chambers (Quebec) : Had I known that this matter was to come before the meeting, I could have interested you fully as much as representatives of the other provinces have by reading correspondence showing the terrible depredations made by Indians 30 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION in the province of Quebec, expecially in the Abitibi country, a little to the south of lake Abitibi, and in the Gaspe district. I assisted in a prosecution a few years ago of some of these Indians in the Gaspe district, on the shores of the Bonaventure river. There, the slaughter was simply dreadful. The Indians were slaugh- tering the animals, taking away the meat for food, and leaving the heads to rot in the bush — in other localities taking away only the heads. There is no doubt that the destruction by Indians of wild game in portions of our province is terrible, and, in that respect, I endorse some of the things that have been stated by representatives from the other provinces. Dr. A. R. Baker (British Columbia) : I am sure it was with a great deal of interest that we listened to the remarks of Mr. Bradshaw, from Saskatchewan. Everything that he said with regard to the Indians is absolutely correct, and it applies equally to British Colum- bia. We have more difficulty with Indians than with anybody else. In the northern country, Atlin and Cassiar, we have experienced a great deal of trouble with the Indians in the slaughtering of moose. When they go on a trip they slaughter one every day for their dogs ; they never think of carrying any. We have proof positive that, on a four-day trip through that district, two Indians slaughtered thirty- two moose. In the Chilcotin country, where there is a tribe of Indians on the Fraser river, they have slaughtered the Rocky Mountain sheep. They gather together at certain times of the year and have potlatches. They organize what is known as a 'drive' — they surround a mountain, drive all the game to the top, and simply slaughter it and let it lie there; they do not even take the hides away. They kill them just for the love of killing. The only way we have been able to do anything with the Indian is to segregate the areas where the game is plentiful into organized districts. Once we form an organized district the Indian must take out a gun license, same as anybody else; then we have some control over him. In the unor- ganized districts they are allowed to shoot under the Game Act, or allowed to kill for meat ; but it is a well-known fact that the Indian on the Pacific coast and through the valley of the Fraser kills the animals simply for the love of killing — not even for their hides. Destruction of beaver dams is another thing we have to contend with. The Indians take the beaver in the northern country by destroying the dams. Fortunately, streams are plentiful, and where the dams are destroyed the few beaver that escape migrate to other streams. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 31 I am not criticising the Indian Department, more than to say this: When a district is organized, an Indian must take out a license or must get a permit to hunt, and the Indian agents apply for too many permits for the Indians. At the last meeting of the Conservation Board we decided that we simply would not give the Indians permits; they will have to take out licenses. We made recommendations to the Government for the organization of certain game districts, that we may put our own game wardens in and control the Indians. We have a great deal of sympathy for the Indians and have no objection to their killing all the animals they need for their own use; but we do object to absolutely wanton destruction. Four years ago I went into a section of the Lilloost district for bighorn, or what are known as Rocky Mountain sheep, and on that trip I counted 50 rams. I went in there over a year ago, and could find only eight sheep left in that district. We are putting that area into a reserva- tion. These animals were destroyed by the Chilcotin Indians. The year before last they organized a deer drive in the Lillooet district. We did not have a Game Commission at that time, but I made it my business to go into that country to get some information about that deer drive. I found that the Indians killed on that occasion alone something like 150 deer. If this thing goes on it will be only a question of time when the big game of British Columbia, Saskat- chewan and Alberta will be a thing of the past. Senator Edwards: We have now heard a good deal about the Indian as a destructive agency; perhaps we might have an expression of opinion on the constructive end of it. I think I am correct in saying that, some years ago. New Brunswick was almost denuded of its moose, but that, through the enforcement of proper regulations for some years, moose are again numerous in that province. Perhaps we might hear from some gentleman from New Brunswick on that question. Further, the beaver had almost disappeared from Algon- quin park in Ontario; now they are very numerous, the Government having prohibited the taking of beaver. So we have evidence in two provinces of what conservation can do; we should like to hear from other provinces on that point. Dr. Hewitt: It is, of course, quite to be expected that the various delegates will have complaints to make, and the object of this conference is to hear those complaints. But we are not going to get ahead if we do nothing more than hear complaints. What we really want is, not only accounts of destruction, but suggestions regarding conservation. I have no doubt that Dr. Baker, Mr. Brad- shaw, and others, who conplain of the great destruction caused by 32 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Indians, have ideas of their own as to what should be done to abolish that. I suggest, therefore, that future speakers on the subject bear that in mind ; together with their criticisms we would like to hear some useful suggestions as to how to deal with these difficulties. Mr. D. C. Scott: Dr. Hewitt's suggestion is certainly very much to the point. While the Indian has been blamed, as well as the Indian Department, I wish to say that our policy is to support the provincial authorities in the conservation of game, and anything we can do through your agents to assist, we shall do energetically. If the provincial delegates can make any suggestions at any time as to action that might be taken by the Indian Department we shall be delighted to co-operate. Of course, the law-making power is in the hands of the provinces, as well as the enforcement of the law. But the Indian Department will do what it can, through its officials, by way of advice or otherwise, to put a stop to these illegal practices, which, of course, we deplore as much as anybody. Mr. G. H. Rapsey (Superintendent of Game and Fisheries, Ontario) : On behalf of Ontario, I wish to thank Mr. Scott for the co-operation of his Department with the Department of Game and Fisheries of my province. I have no adverse criticism to offer, so far as Ontario is concerned; the Department of Indian Affairs gives us every assistance. Mr. Scott: I thank you very much — but we have not assisted you more than we have the other provinces. Mr. Rapsey: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my thanks for the kind invitation I received to attend this conference. I only regret that Mr. McDonald, the Deputy Minister, who, until the last moment, had intended to come, found it impossible to get away, and asked me to attend in his stead. I am not prepared, therefore, to give you an address; in fact, I hardly knew what was to come before the meeting until I received the programme this morning. I am greatly interested, however, in hearing from the other provinces and being informed somewhat fully of their difficulties. I realize that the Indian problem is a great one, and that the Indians are causing a great deal of destruction. But the Indians are not alone to blame. In Ontario a good deal of destruction is due to the white man, particularly in the northern part of the province, where lumbering operations are being carried on. There, a common practice is to engage men by the month to go out and shoot big game for the camp table. Hon. E. A. Smith: I think that in New Brunswick the big game has been really on the increase; there is no particular scarcity in the YOUNG ANTELOPE IN BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT, ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Parks Branch BUFFALO BULL, ROCKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, BANFF, ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Mr. Dan McCowan CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 33 province to-day. We have no Indians to speak of, and the few we have are no menace to the big game, for they are too lazy to hunt. I have never heard of any depredation or violations of the law by the Indians of New Brunswick. We have increased not onlj' the big game of our province, but also the beaver. For years, we prohibited the killing of beaver, and the results have been so effective that, during the last three or four years, we have allowed killing under permit from the Department of Lands and Mines. We receive quite a revenue from our beaver permits; those who take them out have to pay two dollars per beaver killed. I would be very much in favour of the fur business being handled by the Provincial Govern- ment. Instead of selling permits, we should do the killing ourselves, thus doing away with the violations of the law which now take place. Some two years ago we received a letter from the Dominion Food Controller, asking if we would allow the killing of some 2,000 deer. My answer was that we had not the deer to spare. I believe that to have consented to do so would have amounted to the extermination of our moose and deer. I am sure that you would like to hear from our Chief Game Warden, who will be able to give you a good deal of information. Mr. L. A. Gagnon (Chief Game Warden, New Brunswick) : Under the energetic direction of our Minister of Lands and Mines, we have now on our statute book a very good game law. We have about 45 temporary game wardens on duty, who are doing good work, in co-operation with the forest rangers, who are also charged with the protection of game. I think I am safe in saying that, during the past year, the game in our province has been better protected than for many years. As evidence of that, it has been observed that lumbermen are taking much more domestic meat to their camps this winter than formerly. I am not quite satisfied with the regulations respecting beaver that we have now, but we will improve them before long. Lender those regulations some abuse is made of the use of permits granted by the Department. However, our beaver have increased consider- ably during the last few years. With respect to our big game, the deer are certainly on the increase. From the information at hand, the moose is also on the increase; if not, it is undoubtedly holding its own. I do not know that we ever had any trouble with respect to the Indians. They are few in numbers, and they are subject to the game laws the same as white men ; so far as I know, they have observed the game laws even better than the white men. Our trouble there is entirely with white men. I am absolutely in sym- 63267—3 34 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION pathy with the men froii the West, particularly the representative from Saskatchewan, who stated his troubles in connection with the Indians in so able a manner. While people sympathize with the Indians to some extent, it is not right to give them a monopoly of the big game, and it is my opinion that something should be done to straighten out that matter. Mr. J. A. Knight (Chief Game Commissioner, Nova Scotia) : The Indian is not a great issue with us; some of them are engaged in a small way in agricultural pursuits and work in the lumber woods during the winter season. Few of them depend to any extent upon hunting for a livelihood. We sometimes have trouble with them, particularly with regard to beaver. They kill the beaver, and it is not easy to discover the offenders. But the Indians do not market the furs outside the province; and so would not kill them off if they did not have the assistance of white men. Let me give you an illustration. For several years we have had a close season for beaver in Nova Scotia, with a view to restoring them. A fur-buyer in Nova Scotia shipped some beaver skins to St. Louis, Mo., a month or so ago, but the St. Louis fur -buyer refused to handle them. That is an illustration of the benefit of co-operation in game pro- tection. The St. Louis fur-buyer telegraphed the Nova Scotia man that he would not handle the skins, and the latter, realizing that he was caught, went to our game inspector and made a clean breast of the matter. The Indians are hard to deal with in the matter of trapping beaver, because it would take an army of game wardens to watch them. It is easier, perhaps, to put a stronger check on the fur- buyer, and, in that way, prevent the killing of the beaver. Game protection is not a new thing in Nova Scotia. It must be nearly 150 years since we passed our first migratory bird law. Dr. Hewitt referred to the importance of game societies as agents for game protection. In Nova Scotia we have what I think is, with one exception, the oldest game society in North America, the Nova Scotia Inland Game and Fishery Protection Association. The first one established in America still exists, I believe, in the state of New York. For many years the Nova Scotia Game Society were the chief agency of game protection in our province. They received a govern- ment grant and administered and enforced the laws. They received the license revenue, or the greater part of it, and used it for the purposes of their society. Recently, we organized a game com- mission. Dr. Baker spoke of the newly-organized Game Conserva- tion Board of British Columbia; I am not sure that Nova Scotia was not the first province to introduce that method of game protec- CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 35 tion. I do not know that we spend as much on game protection as most of the other provinces, but there is one thing about game pro- tection in Nova Scotia: it has never been in politics. When the management of game protection was taken out of the hands of that society, in order to bring it up to date and introduce more modern methods, it was placed under the operation, not of a department of the Government, but of a commission appointed for the purpose. Some kindg of game are, of course, more difficult to protect than others. Migratory birds are among the most difficult, because, whatever we may do within our own province, we cannot protect them outside. Fur-bearing animals are also difficult to protect, as they are an important article of commerce. But some of our game, at all events, has increased in recent years. I am sure we have more moose in Nova Scotia to-day than we had ten years ago, and probably as many as we have had at any time during the last fifty years. We have more deer than we ever had. We have a few caribou on the mainland of the province, but they are of a migratory nature, and I think they must have left the province and gone north to New Bruns- wick and Quebec. There are a few traces of caribou on the mainland. Although we have protected them for a good many years, they have not increased there. But on Cape Breton island there is a tableland similar to the caribou barrens of Newfoundland. It is suitable for caribou, and, if they are not increasing in that district, at all events, they are holding their own. They are not hunted a great deal. The place is not very accessible to outsiders, and the natives, vvho live chiefly in the fishing settlements around the coast, are busy in the autumn with their farming and fishing. The chief killing is done in the winter by trappers — out of season, of course. But they are not being destroyed, owing to their peculiar situation. They are on the extreme northern end of the province, and cannot migrate without coming down through the more settled parts of the island and cross- ing the strait of Canso. The probability is, therefore, that, with a reasonable amount of protection, we shall have caribou there indefinitely. Our position in Nova Scotia in respect to migratory birds is also a peculiar one. I am not sure that the wild geese winter anywhere else in Canada than on the southern shore of Nova Scotia. The wild geese that winter there are said to be somewhat different from and of a larger size than the wild geese from the south. We have set apart a section there as a refuge or feeding ground, and the wild geese are not decreasing. The people on the coast where the geese winter think there should be some change in the regulations to suit the 63267—3^ 36 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION peculiar conditions prevailing there. If some change were made, of course, it could be confined to the particular counties where the wild geese winter. Mr. J. M. Macoun: I should like to make a suggestion with regard to dealing with the Indians, and that is, that the law be enforced with regard to the Indian as well as to the white man. The Indian likes as little as the white man to go to jail, and anyone who has been in northern Saskatchewan knows that a small party could detect the Indians who are killing deer or moose in contraven- tion of the game laws, as the routes are well known by water and trail. A volunteer party might go after them. My experience has been that sympathy is generally with the game killer, whether he be Indian or white man. I know British Columbia well, but nowhere in that province have I seen any attempt to enforce the game laws. I have spent the last five summers in British Columbia, and, while I do not mean that the law is not enforced anywhere, I have seen it violated in every part of the province that I have been in during that period. I know a case where, at a general boarding house in a lumber camp, near La Tuque, Que., moose meat was served at every meal. Every- body knew that; the resident game warden must have known that. I was in Mr. Bradshaw's province, ten years ago this autumn, a month before the moose season opened. My work took me to the lumber camps, and I was told that the lumbermen were living on moose meat. I know the sectionmen were, because my work kept me along the line of the Canadian Northern Ry., and I have eaten moose meat myself at the section -houses at practically every meal. Just when I was leaving that district, two days before the season opened, a young man who was with me wanted a moose head. I knew the game warden, and I asked him if he could get a moose-head for my friend after the opening of the season and ship it down to me. He said that he could, and when I asked him how much he wanted for it, he said " Fifty dollars." I said, " If you send the moose-head to me I will send you the money ". He said: " Have you the money with you?" When I replied that I had, he said " I will give you the moose-head right now." That was two days before the moose season opened. I do not mean to say that the chief game wardens are not doing their duty. But, in the Lillooet country, three years ago, I was within fifty yards of the place where a deer was killed — not by an Indian — • and, if I had come along the next day with the game warden, he would have said: " Oh, those damn Indians again." I was on one of the islands in the strait of Georgia the summer before last. Two bands of fishermen were there, one a large Indian CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 37 family and the other a band of four or five white men and a woman. The Indians lived on seal meat and fish; the white people lived on deer meat. I went to the camp of the Indian, who was observing the law, and asked him why he did not kill deer meat, and he said, " Oh, I like seal meat better." This was an island with a game warden on it; everybody knew these people; there was no attempt to seize the meat. I do not say that the chief game officials and some of the game wardens are not trying to enforce the law. But, if there are not enough game wardens to cope with the situation, the province or the Dominion Government should contribute money so that the law can be properly enforced. No game warden or chief game warden need tell me that he cannot find the people who are doing these things. If some one 18 miles up the Gatineau is killing deer or moose out of season, give me a man or two, and we certainly can locate him — any one can do that. My suggestion, then, is: Enforce the law against both white man and Indian. Mr. Jack Miner: I have hunted in Northern Ontario for thirty- four successive autumns. The last three seasons, 1913, 1914 and 1915, in the country where I hunted, the beaver doubled each year. I do not think we could obtain better results than that. Another point: A fur buyer came into my tent, and offered an Indian $12 each for the beaver he had, provided he could get the tags off, but for those he could not get the tags off he would only give him $7 each. Mr. E. E. Lemieux : The Petawawa Camp Fish and Game Club, for the last nine years, has worked steadily in the interests of the conservation of game. Game has been increasing very rapidly, simply because we did everything possible to prevent people from shooting during the close season. I think, however, that, especially in that district, the wolves have a great deal to do with the diminution of deer. Three or four years ago I was in that district, and I found as many as thirty -six wolf tracks on a 12-mile tramp. We made several attempts to get rid of the wolves. We found the best way was to kill a rabbit, put strychnine into little pieces of the meat about an inch square, and stick these on the alders near lakes and creeks, or at projecting points. By these means we have got as many as twelve wolves. One was a she-wolf with from four to six young; so it will be seen that very good results are accomplished in that way. Many died somewhere else, we do not know how many; but it is safe to say that at least twenty-five wolves were destroyed. We send our game wardens on this work every winter, and results are very satisfactory. We supply them with $10 worth of the purest str>'chnine, and have put out about 150 baits. Occasionally we get a 38 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION fox, but no other animals. There is no doubt that the deer are much depleted by the wolves. I myself on a short trip came upon seven or eight deer that had been killed by them. I have the picture of a deer that had been freshly killed by wolves; you can almost see the freshly-made wounds. Dr. Bryce: I have been asked by a gentleman from the Dun- vegan country, Peace River district, where they propose to set aside large areas for the returned soldiers, to mention to the Commission the difficulty of raising sheep in that part of the country, on account of coyotes, which are becoming very numerous and very dangerous. I do not personally know the facts, but I assume that this gentleman knew what he was talking about, and perhaps we should take some steps towards the destruction of the coyotes in that district. They are doing great damage, and if that is to be a sheep-raising country, and to be settled by returned soldiers, it is very important that this matter should be kept in view by the Commission. Mr. W. F. Tye (Montreal) : We have heard a number of remarks about the destruction of game by the Indians, and one would imagine they were the people principally at fault. But does anyone say that the Indian is the man who has destroyed the game of this continent? Surely we are big enough to put the blame where it belongs — that is, on the white man. In the early days, when I was in the western country, there were just as many Indians and there was plenty of game — buffalo, deer, antelope, small game of all kinds. The Indians were there, and the white men were not. It was then in the days of the Sioux troubles — I am speaking now more of the country to the south of the border — and the only way the United States Government could get rid of the Indian trouble was to kill off the buffalo. Men were hired at $75 a month and furnished with guns, horses, and an unlimited amount of ammunition; the result was that the buffalo departed from that country like the snow before a Chinook wind. That was not the Indians, was it? We taught the Indians bad habits right there and then. Later on, I was connected with the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway — I was out there before the construction of that railway was commenced, for that matter. The country was then filled with little lakes, and I am sure you could go to one of these small lakes and see 1,000,000 ducks, geese, swans, and birds of that kind. And there were more Indians in that country then than there are now, and the game was there. The Indian killed because he required the food. He killed the buffalo because he required the skins to make tepees, but the white man came in, with his insatiable desire for furs, and not only taught his own people to kill off the CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 39 game, but taught the Indian as well. The Indian has learned bad habits; now he kills the game not only for food, but, in imitation of the white man, also by way of useless slaughter. If you are going to preserve the game the first thing to do is to make the white man obey the law. The white man makes the laws, the Indian does not; the white man is used to obeying laws, the Indian is not. First make the white man obey the laws, and the Indian will, in the course of time, follow. It is to supply the demands of the white man that the Indian does this killing. Mr. W. C. J. Hall: In the far north, where the Indian has the territory all to himself, have you ever known him to kill the game in such a way as to exterminate it? Mr. Tye: No, I never did. I was not far north; I was in Dakota, Montana, and what is now Saskatchewan and Alberta, far in advance of civilization, and I am sure that — ■ — Mr. Hall: How about the Arctic Circle, where the Indian is not molested by the white man? Have you ever heard anything of the Indian exterminating the game there? Mr. Tye: No, and the same applies to the country which is now Saskatchewan and Alberta; before the white man went there there was no extermination whatever. There was a superabundance of game; therefore we are the people who are responsible — let us accept the blame. Dr. Hewitt: If the discussion on this subject is now concluded, I should like to make a suggestion with a view to carrying out the idea I put forward a short time ago, namely, that, together with the complaints that have been made, we should have some really constructive suggestions. I would move, therefore, that a small committee be formed, consisting of Hon. Dr. Smith, of New Brunswick, Hon. Mr. Daniels, of Nova Scotia, Mr. J. E. Bellisle, of Quebec, and Dr. Baker, of British Columbia, to consider this question, and, at a later session of the conference, to bring in any recommendations that it may see fit to make with regard to this question of Indians. The motion was adopted. Gun Licenses Dr. Howard Murray (Dalhousie University, Halifax) : Those who are interested in the wild life of our country and its continued preservation — and that should include all good citizens, I should say — must be viewing with concern the gradual disappearance of most forms of our wild life. Legislation, it seems, has done some good in various parts of the Dominion with regard to particular forms of wild life. For instance, we heard this morning that, in New Brunswick, and in my own province of Nova Scotia, the legislation that has been put into effect has produced good results in the preservation of moose. The deer in Nova Scotia is also increasing because of protective legislation. The caribou is remaining in the island of Cape Breton and is holding its own, as Mr. Knight has informed you. But other forms of wild life throughout the Dominion are disappearing, some of them rather rapidly, con- stituting a great and growing menace to our country. One of the contributing causes to this disappearance, or extinc- tion, of wild life, particularly in the case of birds, is the fact that, throughout the greater part of the Dominion, no license is required for the carrying of fire-arms, and boys of tender age, as well as men of more mature years, go out with guns seeking game, and, not finding it, decide that, at any rate, they will have a shot at something. You know, a live target is more interesting than a piece of paper; and thus a great many small animals and small birds that are of no use as food, but which are of great value as insect killers, are made away with. I know something about that, because I carried a gun when I was a boy — before I reached the age of discretion — and I can remember what happened on various occasions then. I feel sure that my experience was not unique in that respect, and I believe that, if people were required to take out a license for the carrying of fire-arms, it would help, at any rate, to restrict the indiscriminate killing of small wild life. I desire to move the following resolution with regard to gun licenses: "That the National Conference of officials, sportsmen, and others interested in the conservation of our game animals and wild life generally, is of the opinion that, as enormous destruction of all forms of wild life, and particularly of insectivorous and other birds, is caused by the wanton killing by guns, especially .22-bore rifles, in the hands of persons wholly indifferent to the conservation of wild life, CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 41 and, as such destruction can only be checked by making it illegal to carry fire-arms without a license, the Provincial Governments be strongly urged to adopt legislation that will permit the carrying of fire-arms to be regulated, thereby safeguarding human life, in addition to conserving our wild life." Mr. F. Bradshaw: I have much pleasure in seconding that resolution. There is a difference between a game license and a gun license. This resolution recommends that a license be required for anyone to carry a gun. If a man goes out shooting gophers he must have a license to carry the gun. Dr. Baker: Is any provision made in the Northwest Game Act with regard to the carrying of fire-arms? Dr. Hewitt: Yes, the carrying of fire-arms is regulated. Mr. L. a. Gagnon: There is a provision in the New Brunswick game laws forbidding anyone during the close season to go into the woods where game is to be found without a permit. Dr. Hewitt: We are trying to check the people who are not sportsmen — boys, too — around our cities, who go out with .22-calibre rifles and shoot everything in sight. That could be stopped, to a very large extent, if we had a system of gun licenses. The resolution recommends that the Provincial Governments be urged to amend their game laws so as to provide for gun licenses as a means of prevent- ing indiscriminate shooting of wild life. Danger to human life also would be averted by such a system of gun licenses. Mr. J. M. Macoun: In British Columbia we have gun licenses. I was wondering whether that resolution could not be extended so as to provide that, during certain seasons of the year, even gun licenses need not be carried, unless for a specific reason. For example, in British Columbia, prospectors naturally have to carry rifles with them; but, go where you like in the west, the people round the towns and villages do not go anywhere out in the country without carrying a gun. In addition to providing for a license, there should be a close season for carrying guns, unless for a specific purpose. Hon. O. T. Daniels: I am rather in sympathy with the resolu- tion, but I want to point out the great difficulty that exists in my province in developing our law along the line of the suggested motion. This is no new thing in Nova Scotia; I take it that it is no new thing in any of the older provinces of Canada. There is no trouble about gun licenses for persons residing outside the country, because the provincial legislature is very glad to make regulations in the best interests of the game and that will conserve it for the people of the province in question. But, in Nova Scotia, public opinion is not yet 42 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION sufficiently ripeneji to ensure the approval of a system of gun licenses applicable to the people of our own province. I am afraid you will find that the same thing applies to some of the other provinces. The advantage of gun licenses is apparent to those who are very desirous of preserving the game, but it is not so apparent to the great majority of the people; an awakened public sentiment is necessary before recommendations of that nature could be enacted into law. The motion was duly carried. Fish and Game Protective Associations Rev. Father Crowley: I feel very strongly on the subject of Fish and Game Protective Associations. I became interested in the question about three years ago, when the sportsmen in Sudbury realized that, unless some steps in the matter were taken by some body, there would be no more game. We felt that the Provincial Government was not taking as much interest as it should in that particular phas3 of conservation, with the result that game was being unnecessarily slaughtered, both by the Indian and the white man. As was mentioned here by several speakers this morning, a great deal of gams — moose and deer — was going into the lumber camps. I know, as a matter of fact, that some of the lumbermen were buying this meat and, of course, were getting it a great deal cheaper than beef. Another resident of that part of the country who is responsible for a great deal of the slaughter of game is the Finlander. Ha does not seem to respect the laws at all. Not only has he slaughtered moose and deer, but he is also depleting the lakes of our fish. Every Finlander about the country has one or more nets; so, when we found out what the situation was in that regard, we decided that the best thing to do was to organize an association, composed of the sportsmen in that district. The organization is not confined to the town of Sudbury; it embraces the whole district, and includes a membership of about 150. A fee of one dollar a year is charged. That is good as far as it goes, but what we should have is a province-wide, if not a Dominion-wide, organization. I do not suppose there are in Ontario more than half a dozen such organiza- tions; there are one or two in Essex and a couple of others in the southern portion of the province. We have tried to get other towns in our part of the country to organize similar societies, but we have not succeeded. The matter is of sufficient importance, I think, to be taken up by the Department of Game and Fisheries, which might send out an organizer to establish such societies in different parts of the province. I feel strongly that the public must be educated. Our first difficulty was the fact that the people were not behind the game wardens in the enforcement of the law. The game warden in our district now feels that he has behind him a body of men, members of the association, who pledge themselves to observe the 44 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION laws and to do everything they can to see that others observe them. If the game warden brings up a man for an infraction of the game law, he feels that he has that body of men behind him, and that is a great help. I assure you that a great deal has been done by our society during the last two or three years. We have only one game warden, where we should have half a dozen. It is impossible for one man to go through a district embracing thousands of miles; if the game is to be protected there must be more game wardens. Last year the game warden was successful in having $5,000 in fines imposed in convictions he secured. With two other delegates from our society in Sudbury, I have come to this conference, feeling sure that we would hear something which would help us in the objects which we have in view — the pro- tection of the game and fish, not only of Ontario, but of the whole of Canada. Mr. S. Harris: I represent the Essex County (Ontario) Wild Life Conservation Association, an organization which has been in existence for some time, and which was brought about by a recog- nition of the fact by the men of that district that, if something were not done, the game would disappear. This organization is composed of such men as our friend Jack Miner, who did not wait until governments took action, and, from being an ardent hunter of game, came to be the best friend the wild fowl ever had. As you know, he started a sanctuary of his own, and any of you who have visited it will agree that it is a sight to see hun- dreds of Canada geese showing by their actions that they feel per- fectly safe because thay are in Jack Miner's sanctuary. I notice that about ten acres of his farm is being turned into additional ponds and retreats. I have seen the Canada goose come over in flocks and families and drop down into the pond; and, although we were only fifteen or twenty feet away from them, they took no more notice of us than if they were hand-fed fowl brought up in the farmyard. The report of our third annual meeting, held a few days ago, gives you an idea of the work we have done. Last year the Govern- ment of Ontario assisted by making a very large area a sanctuary where not a gun shall be fired. The reason was that pot hunters would get out on point Pelee and take a shot at Jack Miner's geese and ducks; many a duck came back with a broken wing or a broken bill. I have a great deal more to say on this subject of a constructive nature, but I shall defer my remarks until later. I have not very many complaints to make, but I have some. I was sorry that the CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 45 representatives of the Ontario Government had not a little more to say, because there is a whole lot in the game life of Ontario. We have the wolves, of course, and they are increasing. I would advise our forming national organizations throughout Canada to meet once a year in convention, exchange views and coinpare notes with regard to the conservation of game. I am certain that we would have great results from it. Senator Edwards: I think I have attended every meeting of the Commission of Conservation since its inauguration, and I will say that this morning we have had one of the most valuable sessions we ever had, considering the interesting and helpful discussions that have taken place. Mr. Jack Miner: Twelve years ago I called together the sportsmen of my county, and we organized the Essex County Game Protective Association. I said: "Men, we should stop shooting quail." I was almost hooted out of the town hall. At the last meeting over eighty per cent of the people joined in the expression " We will stop shooting quail for ever." That is education. TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION The conference resumed at 2.30 p.m., Hon. O. T. Daniels pre- siding. Hon. Mr. Daniels: The first subject this afternoon is " Wild Life Sanctuaries," which was to have been introduced by Mr. J. B. Harkin, Commissioner of Dominion Parks, but we learn with regret that Mr. Harkin is unable to be present. Mr. Harkin, as you are aware, has charge of the Dominion National Parks, several of which have been established solely for the purpose of conserving game, fur- bearing animals, and other wild life. The purpose of the discussion is the value and need of wild life sanctuaries in Canada. Mr. Harkin's paper will be lead by his assistant, Mr. Williamson. Wild Life Sanctuaries BY J. B. Harkin Commissioner of Dominion Parks I T is assumed that the subject of wild life sanctuaries was assigned to ■^ the Dominion Parks Branch because the Dominion parks in the west, which aggregate about 10,000 square miles in area, are main- tained as game sanctuaries. They have been maintained as such for about ten years, and, if an exceedingly great increase in wild life is the test of their success, then there can be no doubt that sanctuaries, properly and fearlessly administered, will inevitably result, not only in the preservation, but in the very great increase of all forms of wild life. In the parks to-day the casual visitor does not need Abund^t *^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^'*^ ^^^^ ^^ abundant. He constantly has the best evidence of this fact, because wherever he goes his own eyes show him it is so. Perhaps the greatest results have been obtained in Rocky Mountains park, of which Banff is the centre. Even in Banff, evidence of the results can be seen from day to day. Deer may be seen at the most unexpected moments walking along the streets and paths of the town. It is a common experience among residents to have deer eat food from their hands. In fact, they have become so plentiful that, last year, some of the residents actually circulated a petition to the government protesting against the depredations of the deer in flower gardens and back- yards and demanding a remedy. This petition was dropped, but no better evidence could be submitted of the success of the Rocky Mountains park as a sanctuary. Ten years ago, in all the districts within easy access W^den^Service ^^ ^^^ railway, big game had practically disappeared. Although regulations forbidding the taking, killing or wounding of any wild bird or animal had been in effect since 1890, it was not until about 1909 that an effective warden service was estab- lished. At that time, deer were rarely seen near Banff, and sheep and goat were to be met with only in the outlying portions of the park. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 47 Today, a person can sit on the piazzas of the Canadian Pacific hotel at Banff and, with a pair of glasses, pick out mountain goat along the slopes of mount Rundle, the jagged, saw-tooth mountain that lies directly opposite the hotel. Golfers repeatedly stop in their play and watch mountain goat on this peak. The black bear has become so plentiful that, from time to time, they have to be shot by the wardens, because they have developed a liking for the larders of the citizens. A few days ago a letter was received from the Alpine Club, stating that, unless some special means of protection of their property against black bear were pro- vided, the club could not open its club-house for guests. Any person walking or riding for a few miles along the main automobile road west of Banff will see at least a few mountain sheep and he may see two hundred. Often, an automobile proceeding up this roadway has to slow up to let the sheep walk off the road. Photo - graphs of mountain sheep, which, as you all know, is ordinarily one of the shyest of animals, can be taken from the seat of an automobile. The conditions stated above with respect to wild life in the vicinity of Banff prevail throughout the park. In this connection a few extracts from diaries of the Securer*Results g^mc wardens may be of interest. They have been picked at random and cover all our Alberta parks: " Sawback district — saw about 150 sheep. " Government ranch and Panther river — counted 35 deer. " Ranch to James river — saw about 70 deer in my day's travel. " Banff from lake Louise — saw about 40 deer, 60 sheep and 14 goat. " North End park, Hay river — there are quite a lot of moose along the north end of park and caribou are plentiful north of Hay river." The facts which have been given you demonstrate, I think, that a game sanctuary, efficiently protected, invariably obtains the desired results. One of the main reasons of the success of sanctuaries is the fact that wild life very quickly learn that they need have no fear of molestation by man. The deer on the streets of Banff, and the mountain sheep in the immediate vicinity of Banff bear this out. The fact that animals very quickly learn that a Appredat«i sanctuary is a sanctuary was forcefully brought to the attention of the Department a few years ago by conditions that developed at Buffalo park near Wainwright. A protest was received from the residents in the vicinity of the park, stating that the park was becoming a sanctuary for coyotes. As you know, at 48 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION certain periods of the year, many of the farmers in the west go out coyote hunting, for the specific purpose of reducing the numbers of this predatory animal. The farmers in the vicinity of Buffalo park complained to the department that, as soon as they started coyote hunting, all the coyotes made a ' bee line ' for the park, where they evidently knew they were safe. There is no doubt about the facts of the case, and we have had to hunt the coyote within the park with dogs and traps. The eastern portion of Jasper park and the contiguous country outside the park has a large wild life population. Wardens who patrol that area report that, as soon as the hunting season arrives, all the wild life takes refuge in the park. These facts are recited to emphasize one of the fundamental justifications for wild life protection by sanctuaries, namely, that wild life very readily recognizes the areas where it is free from molesta- tion and, as such, invariably takes advantage of them. There is another matter which experience in connec- the^ubUc°" ° ^'°" with the park sanctuaries has brought out, and that is that the public are very readily educated as to the sanctity of the parks from the wild life standpoint. Of course, a preliminary necessity in connection with this education is administra- tion with a firm hand. Despite the huge area of the parks, there is very little poaching. The great majority of people, after a very few years, become thoroughly s>Tnpathetic with the efforts of the admin- istration to protect the sanctuary, and have no desire to go out to kill. The small minority who fail to develop such sympathy, on the other hand, develop a wholesome respect for the strong arm of the law. The Indian has a bad reputation in the eyes of most of the public in regard to the matter of game slaughter, but even the Indian appears to have been educated to at least respect park boundaries. We practically have no trouble whatever with the Indians in the matter of the protection of wild life in the parks. An incident illustrates how completely even the Sanc^uaries^*^^^ Indians have accepted the idea that there must be no game slaughtered within park boundaries. A provincial game warden had just completed a patrol through a large mountain area not within a park, and found that the Indians had been through some time previously and had carried on the most reckless slaughter. He travelled for several days without seeing fur or feather. The previous year he had patrolled the same area, and knew that, at that time, the district contained quite a fair proportion YOUNG LIVE BEAVER Photo, Courtesy Mr. E. E. Lemieux FLOODS AT POINT PELEE, ONT., IN THE SPRING OF 1919 Pno'.o shows flooded land at the south end of Point Pelee. Photo, Courtesy Mr. F. II . f'onocer 63267 CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 49 of wild life. As he proceeded homeward, with this lesson fresh in his mind, he came to a camp of Indians close to the boundaries of one of the parks. It had been suggested that this park should be reduced in area, and that the portion along which the Indians were camping should be thrown open. The first question these Indians asked the warden was as to the date when this area was to be thrown open, because they desired on that date to begin a big hunt. The warden was so impressed with what he had seen in the devastated area and what he saw would happen in the other area that, though he had, pre- viously, expressed himself favourable to the reduction of the size of this park, he promptly urged, that under no consideration, should this park be reduced in area. It is scarcely necessary to add that the reduction did not take place. This incident, which demonstrates that even the Indians have a wholesome respect for park boundaries, also indicates plainly that white men, who may be inclined to slaughter wild life, can all the more readily be educated to the fact that a game sanctuary must b^ respected. Unrelentless ^^ connection with the protection of the game Pursuit sanctuaries, the first essential is a policy of absolutely o en ers unrelentless pursuit of all offenders, and this policy has probably been one of the main reasons for the success of our sanctuaries. Game wardens are born, not made. They must have, above all things, a very strong natural love for wild life. With such officers, the rest is simple. A few years ago, one of our game officers prosecuted his own brother. When the public, Indian or white, recognizes that an offence will be followed up, regardless of cost or effort, they evidently make up their minds that any hunting they do shall be done elsewhere than in a sanctuary. With respect to regulations, one of the most important Fke^arms" ° ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^" offence for a person to have an unsealed firearm in his possession. Under the regu- lations the moment a firearm is brought into a park it must be pre- sented to a warden for sealing, and it must remain sealed so long as it is within the park. Another important regulation is that any persons who outfit within a park for hunting purposes outside a park, or who go out on trail trips with guides, must be registered. The failure to do so constitutes an offence. With registration, the chief warden knows at all times how many parties are out on the trails and the routes they are following, and, with a system of intersecting trails, it is compara- 63267—4 50 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION tively easy for the wardens to keep in touch with such parties. The telephone system used in connection with fire protection is also a great aid. Under the system which I have described, it is com- paratively easy for a small body of wardens to efficiently patrol and protect the large area. Our wardens look after both fire and game protection, and yet, in Rocky Mountains park, our warden force consists of only eleven ; in Jasper park fourteen ; in Waterton Lakes park, six. This is a very small force when you consider the large areas to be protected. Rocky Mountains park covers approximately 3,000 square miles, Waterton Lakes park almost 500, and Jasper Park nearly 5,000. You will notice that the points I have endeavoured to make are, in the first place, that sanctuaries do result in a very great increase in wild life, and that these results are obtained, primarily, through the following causes: That the animals themselves readily recognize and take advantage of sanctuaries; that the public, includ- ing Indians, can be very readily educated as to the sanctity of sanctuaries; and that energetic, fearless and unrelenting pursuit of offenders, together with intelligent patrol work, and the insistence on the sealing of firearms, practically eliminate any destruction by man of wild life within sanctuaries. Suggested Results in the Dominion Parks sanctuaries have Increase of been SO successful that it seems to me it would be a Sanctuaries j i- r r i ^ u j • i. good policy lor a careful survey to be made m each province of the Dominion, before it is too late, with a view to the setting aside of areas for sanctuary purposes, that there may be an absolute assurance that, for all time, there shall be no danger of the disappearance of the characteristic wild life of the Dominion, Discussion Mr. W. C. J. Hall: I fully agree with Mr. Williamson's remarks about conservation in this part of the country. I myself have had a little experience in that line. In 1895 I succeeded in getting the Laurentides National park created in the Province of Quebec, embracinganareaof 3,500 square miles. At that time the moose had been so depleted that the inspector of the park, a very able and experienced man, had forgotten that the moose carried a bell on its neck — there were no animals of that description left. To get a beaver you practically needed a search-warrant; there were hardly any left. I am happy to say that, before very long, we had both moose and beaver; and, as a matter of fact, we have received com- CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 51 plaints from clubs that their lakes are flooded as a result of the work of the beaver. We have so many moose that one of them actually got astray this year and found its way into the city of Quebec and was killed, as it had been worried by dogs and injured. As to the smaller fur-bearers, many people had been in the habit of hunting in what is now Laurentides park, and they found it very hard to keep out. Before many years, however, they volun- tarily called a meeting, when they found that, although they did not get into the park they were buying 300 per cent more fur than they did when the park was open to them. They were extremely well satisfied that the park had been created, although, at the outset, they were dead against it. Mr. Benjamin Lawton (Provincial Game Guardian, Alberta): I can bear out every statement made by the representative of the Dominion Parks Branch as to the results accomplished in these parks. The province of Alberta is very fortunate in containing the greater part of this park property. In my opinion the establishment of game preserves is the proper system of game protection. Of course, all these areas are really not parks; one of the largest, Buffalo park, is more of a game preserve than a park. The same would apply to the Elk Island park, on the main line of the Canadian Northern railway at Lamont, and which contains sixteen sections, fenced. It was originally established for the purpose of protecting the elk in that district. In fencing the park they enclosed a number of elk, and these animals are rapidly increasing. It was the original home of the buffalo, the greater portion of which were later transferred to Wainwright. The Rocky Mountains park, prior to 1909, was not a satisfactory game preserve from the standpoint of game preservation. There was practically no game there except on the outskirts, and that is where the hunting parties went to get their gamie. Hunting parties from the United States would come in, be outfitted at Banff, and taken by their guides out into the park, securing all their game in the game preserve. But, since 1909, a proper and effective system of warden service has been established and the results are as stated in Mr. Harkin's paper. You may enact laws and you may enforce them, but a guardian service cannot prevent the decimation of game unless it is operated in conjunction with game preserves. Public sentiment is not usually in favour of the expenditure of public money for the preservation of game unless some returns are to be had from that expenditure. Our department in Alberta has worked along 52 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION these lines, and the result has been that, following the organization of the Game Protection Branch in 1906, there is in the provincial treasury over and above the cost of game protection, some $40,000. Possibly we spend more money in Alberta per capita in the pro- tection of game than most of the provinces do. The results are not all that I desire, although we are doing our utmost. From year to year, we try to improve our legislation and make it more restrictive, and I hope that, in the next ten years, we will make even greater progress than we have made in the last. We have probably a greater variety of big game animals than any other province. We have the mountain sheep, the mountain goat, the elk, the moose, the caribou, the antelope, the white-tailed deer, the mule deer, and I have heard some say we have the black- tailed deer. In 1914 our revenue was probably the largest in the history of the Department. That was just at the beginning of the war. We had more sportsmen buying licenses and the result was that more game was killed than in any previous year. We expect a big increase in the number ol sportsmen this coming season, because the great bulk of those who enlisted for overseas service undoubtedly were sportsmen — at least a large proportion of them were — and with the increase of population our troubles this year and in succeeding years will be greater than they were formerly. Improved legislation properly enforced will undoubtedly have an important bearing in the matter of protection and should eventually bring good results. But the increased number of hunters and sports- men will mean greater killing of game, and, if we permit the use of unsportsmanlike weapons, which, with the improved mechanical methods of manufacturing, are becoming more destructive every year, the result will be the decimation of the game, notwithstanding any legislation we may enact that is not along the line of establishing game preserves. I have in mind some weapons which I consider unsportsmanlike. Prior to 1905, before the western territories were erected into provinces, the Territorial Assembly enacted legis- lation prohibiting the use of the automatic shotgun. I would rather see a man use an automatic shotgun than the pump shotgun; I believe the pump shotgun, with six shells in the magazine, is more deadly to the game than the automatic shotgun, and its range is greater. Both guns should be prohibited. Still, I regret to say that the greater number of sportsmen in our province have provided themselves with pump guns, and it would be unfair to ask them to throw them away. The method of British Columbia should, perhaps, CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 53 be adopted by all the provinces — that of cutting down the magazine of the pumpgun to, at most, two shells. We have probably more antelope than any other province or state in the North American continent, but we have only a small fraction of what we formerly had. Years ago these animals were slaughtered much the same as the buffalo were killed. A very limited number were killed during the hunting season; settlement is gradually crowding them out. A few years ago the Parks Depart- ment enclosed with a woven-wire fence about 20 of these animals in the southern part of the province on the range where a band of them was running, and 1 understand that they are now increasing. Between the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Bow river, about half way between Medicine Hat and Calgary, a count made two years ago showed approximately 600 animals there at that time, but settlement is bound eventually to crowd them out. We have not as many elk as we should like to have. The elk is one of the animals which was persistently hunted in the early days, and, outside of a few scattered bands, we have not very many left besides those which are in the game reserves. There is a nice band in Buffalo park, also one in Elk Island park. In connection with the game reserve question, it would be advisable to discuss the matter of allowing domestic animals to pasture in game reserves. In my opinion this should not be per- mitted, especially in the case of sheep. Sheep are very close feeders and destroy the vegetation on which the wild animals subsist, and, while the wild animals might be able to exist during the summer months in an area that has been de-pastured by sheep, they would stand a very poor chance during a hard winter, if there was a heavy snowfall. At the session of the Alberta Legislature in 1918 two areas which are not covered by the Dominion Park Regulations were declared game preserves, namely, that portion of the Cypress hills to the south of Medicine Hat, containing approximately 51,840 acres, and the Cooking Lake reserve, directly to the south of Elk Island park, which borders the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, 25 miles east of Edmonton, and contains approximately 61,120 acres. No special provision has been made for the policing or other protec- tion of the game on these reserve; we are depending entirely on our voluntary game wardens, with a periodical inspection by our salaried guardians. Our system in Alberta is to appoint guardians at every point in the province where we can find men sufficiently interested 54 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION in the protection of game, and sufficiently public-spirited to under- take this work in a voluntary capacity in their particular districts. These men are also issuers of game licenses, and the only remuner- ation they get is a small commission on the sale of these licenses. The establishment of game preserves is, I believe, the ideal system where there are still Indians. The Indian will not continue to hunt where he feels that he is being watched by an officer of the law. Even when he is uncertain as to the standing of anyone in his district he will eventually become uneasy and move on. We have had and we are still having our troubles with Indians in Alberta, but I believe we are in a fair way to effecting a remedy. Some years ago, we prosecuted some Indians, and, on that occasion, the agent of the reserve entered an appeal against the decision of a justice of the peace, and succeeded in having the conviction quashed. That resulted, however, in clearing up the situation with respect to the Indian and provincial legislation. One or two years afterwards, the Indian Department issued the proclamation which is necessary to make the provincial laws effective in the case of the Indians. I may say, for the information of those who find difficulty in this Indian question, that such a proclamation by the Indian Department, bringing Indians of a particular province under the provincial laws, applies only to the laws as they exist at that particular time. Any amend- ments made afterwards do not come under the proclamation; a further proclamation is necessary to make operative any amendments subsequently passed by a Provincial Legislature. Then it has full force and effect as if it had been prescribed by the Indian Deparcment. I have also had some success in taking up the matter of game protection with the chiefs of some of the tribes. In the majority of cases the Indian chiefs are. anxious that the game should not be destroyed, because they realize that the time is coming when there will be no game, when fur-bearing animals will be exceedingly scarce, and their people will have to depend on their own efforts in an industrial capacity, just the same as the white man. It is not necessary to say that, in addition to the red Indian, we have also many white 'Indians,' and their habits are just the same. But this is a matter which can only be dealt with by persistent enforcement of the laws by salaried game guardians, as we call such men in western Canada, or game wardens, as they call them in the east. The Indian Department, in dealing with these matters, considers them from the standpoint of the treaties which were entered into between the Dominion government and the Indians. We are not justified in legarding those treaties as scraps of paper; it is up to the CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 55 Indian Department and the people of Canada to live up to those agreements, but I believe there are many ways of dealing bUccessfuUy with the Indian. We have succeeded in making arrangements whereby the Indian agents issue game licenses for big game to Indians on their reserve. These licenses are issued free of charge. The certificate of the Indian agent is sufficient to show that the licenses have been issued to treaty Indians, and the certificate is accepted by our government in lieu of the usual fee. The Indians, of course, are expected to send in their returns at the end of the year, stating on the back of the license what game they killed, and, although they do not all do this, they are gradually coming to it. In the northern portion of our province is a large section of unsettled country, inhabited by Indians, half-breeds, and white trappers. The Provincial Government has seen fit to give these people special privileges in the matter of game: they are permitted to kill game at any season of the year when it is required for food. There is no restriction as to age or sex. This also applies in the case of the white settler; but, in the settled districts, there is very little game; it is more in the nature of an open country, and those who- are making a success of farming in that district do not find any time to go hunting. I think it is only in the timbered areas that any substantial amount of game is killed. We have no means of finding out definitely what amount of game is killed there, but we realize that it is necessary to kill some game for food. Since 1902 there has been a close season for beaver in the whole province. North of the 55th parallel, we have been compelled, from time to time, to throw the season open, by order-in-council, to meet the situation resulting from the scarcity of fur-bearing animals. As the killing of beaver is permitted at these times, we have, at present, fewer beaver in northern Alberta than we have on the prairies to the south. Some of you may know the Medicine Hat country. It is a bald prairie ; the only trees are brush along the streams. In 1916, the beaver had becone so plentiful in southern Alberta that they were damming the streams and destroying the willow brush and the trees which the farmers and rangers were maintaining for sheltering their stock. We were compelled to issue permits to meet that situation, but these were issued only to the owner of the land or their agents and allowed him to trap only on his own land. In 1917, the conditions were the same, except that the trouble was creeping further north, until, last year, we were granting permits as far north as Battle river. This season we are granting the per- 56 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION mits on the payment of one dollar, and the parties who secure the skins are compelled to turn them in to the government, which brands and sells them. Seventy-five per cent of the proceeds is repaid to the owner of the skins. During the coming summer we will be in a better position to evaluate the results of this method. These permits expire on May 1st, and those to whom they are issued are compelled to make returns of what they secure. Under no circumstances will we allow a beaver skin taken south of the 55th parallel to be sold to a private individual. There is a loophole there, of course, in the matter of the skins taken north of the 55th parallel. It is a situation that will eventually have to be met, with a view to preventing the taking of skins south of the 55th parallel on the representation that they were taken further north. Game Preserves in Eastern Provinces Hon. E. a. Smith: I believe that the Maritime Provinces are the only part of Canada which has not a sanctuary for wild game. The only difficulty I see, so far as New Brunswick is con- cerned, is the very small area of our province. We have only about 10,000 square miles, and, according to the paper that was read a few moments ago, the sanctuaries in the west include four or five times our total area. Of course, the question is whether the small preserve which we could have in our province would be of any benefit. I have no doubt that it would. In the centre of our province we have a beautiful chain of lakes, and probably a more suitable situation for a sanctuary could not be found in any province.* During all the discussion to-day I have not heard any reference to a little animal that has neither fur nor feathers; nobody has mentioned it, or suggested that it be conserved. It is a small animal but we get blood-thirsty about him. We put a bounty upon his head, and we have about exterminated him — at least I should think that we have, judging from the amount of bounty that we have paid out. I refer to the porcupine. The lumbermen sent a very large depu- tation to the Government and contended that the porcupine should be anihilated. One lumberman said that one porcupine would destroy one thousand feet of lumber in a year — and we know pretty well the value of a thousand feet of lumber to-day. Up to January 31st we had paid bounties on the heads of 2,222 porcupines; this year we are not going to offer any further bounty, because the finances of our province will not stand it. I have much pleasure in moving the following resolution: "That the National Conference of officials, sportsmen, naturalists and others interested in the conservation of the wild life of Canada is of the opinion that, in view of the important influence that the existence of a game preserve has upon the conservation of the game of any region, and that, as such preserves have now been established by the Dominion and Provincial governments in all the provinces of Canada that possess big game and fur-bearing animals, with the exception of the Maritime Provinces, the attention of the Govern- ments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia be drawn to the value of such preserves, and that they be recommended to consider favour- ably the establishment of game preserves in the central non-agricul- tural sections of their respective provinces, which regions are admir- ably suited to such purpose." •Since the Wild Life Conference a game preserve, including an area of over 250.000 acres, has been established by the Province of New Brunswick, in the Western portion of Northumberland county. 58 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Mr. W. F. Tye: I beg to second that motion. I do not think any one can have any doubt about the good results which come from establishment of game preserves. Those who have seen the national parks and game preserves of the west, both in our country and in the United States, realize the extent to which game is developed there and increased. While New Brunswick and Nova Scotia cannot expect to have game preserves as large as those in the West, they can have them in proportion to their size. Dr. Howard Murray: I was on the point of rising to second that resolution; I am strongly in favour of it. I was much pleased to hear Mr, Williamson say so emphatically that every province should have at least one animal sanctuary. It is a dream which I have sometimes had that a sanctuary should be established in Nova Scotia. As Hon. Dr. Smith said, with regard to New Brunswick, we have a somewhat limited area. I do not think the situation is quite as bad as Dr. Smith pictured it with regard to New Brunswick, but, since Mr. Williamson mentioned the number of miles included in the sanctuaries out west, I have been trying to do some figuring as far as Nova Scotia is concerned. I was wondering where we could put a sanctuary of 3,000 or 5,000 square miles in Nova Scotia. We might get some useful information with regard to the size of a sanctuary from the gentlemen who have had experience in that connection. What is the smallest sanctuary that could be considered likely to bring about beneficial results? Mr. Jack Miner: Ten acres. Dr. Murray: I think we could do just as well, any way, in Nova Scotia. I was going to express the hope that the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection would institute an investigation in Nova Scotia with a view to selecting a possible site for such a sanc- tuary. After that is done, no doubt some difficulty will be found when the local government is approached. You realize, Mr. Chair- man, that those who go before a government with a proposal that calls for the expenditure of money are not received with open arms and told to "Go ahead and do it, we will see it through."- It is necessary to make sure that you have public opinion behind you. However, if it can be shown that this will be a good thing for the province — and I do not think there will be much trouble in showing that — I believe that the Government will help the project out. Particularly may this be said, in view of the statement of the repre- sentative from Alberta that the sanctuaries in his province were paying their way. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 59 Mr. Lawton: Not the sanctuaries; the game protection in general throughout the whole province. Mr. a. Knight: We have made a small beginning in the way of sanctuaries in Nova Scotia in setting apart winter feeding grounds on the south shore for the wild geese. The Game Commission has more than one district in view in Nova Scotia which might be set apart for a game sanctuary, but we have hesitated to proceed further with the matter because we realized that a game sanctuary was of no use without protection. Before we go further with the matter of game sanctuaries in our province we want to see where the money is to come from to protect the sanctuary after it is set apart.' The motion was duly carried. Dr. Howard Murray: A resolution has been handed to me by Hon. Mr. Daniels, and Hon. Dr. Smith, Minister of Lands and Mines for New Brunswick, seconds it. It is as follows: Resolved, that the Dominion Government be respectfully asked to establish in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Domin- ion Parks which may also serve as Game Sanctuaries and that the Governments of these two provinces be asked to co-operate. The resolution was adopted. Dr. Howard Murray: We have the pleasure of having with us this afternoon a gentleman whose name is well known in Canada, Dr. Hornaday, Director of New York Zoological Park. Dr. Horna- day is to address us on the subject of " The Rational Use of Game Animals." He has long been the foremost campaigner in the interest of game preservation in the United States, and he has summed up exceedingly well his views on that subject in his book entitled Our Vanishing Wild Life. Dr. Hornaday has also been active before Congress and before many of the state Legislatures in the matter of game laws, with a view to securing better regulations and enactments for the preservation of wild life. Dr. Hornaday is also the author of that delightful book Camp Fires in the Canadian Rockies, which, no doubt, has been read by many of the gentlemen present at this conference. I have much pleasure in calling upon Dr. Hornaday. The Rational Use of Game Animals BY Dr. W. T. Hornaday Director, New York Zoological Park '' I ^HE words " rational utilization of game " immediately send my thoughts travelling into a region" where the rational utilization of game has now become more than ever a burning ques- tion. I refer to the regions of the far north, sometimes called the inhospitable regions of the north, where the wild game of the country constitutes each year a very important part of the solid food of the white population. It is not my purpose to enter in detail into a consideration of the needs and the rights of the Eskimo, Indians, and wild tribes of that region; I am thinking mostly of the white popu- lation. We know that white settlements are pushing further and further into Alaska and northern Canada. We know that conditions are changing rapidly these days — in Alaska, at least. Conditions have so changed during the past ten years that it is now time to take thought for the morrow and proceed along new lines. In every new country man struggles mightily to Wild Life in the harmonize with his environment and survive. Nat- Hands of Man ,, . . , . . urally, it is the newest countries that contain the most wild life It is the way of the average frontiersman to make war on the game, and war on every man who seriously attempts to protect it from his onslaughts. In every country, new or old, the utilization of the wild game, and its perpetuation or extinction, are all determinable by the inexorable rules of logic, and of reasoning from cause to effect. The interests of a great number of people are paramount to the interests of a few. To the conservationist of natural resources, waste is abhorrent, and the extermination of valuable species is a crime. The robbery of posterity is wicked and repulsive; and all robbery deserves to be either prevented or punished. In every well-settled country containing a fair supply of game birds, game and fur quadrupeds and food fishes, the questions involved in the taking and utilization of those assets of nature create CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 61 an irrepressible conflict. Every country produces its annual crop of uncompromising destroyers, and some countries contain a few real conservators. The western world contains few fanatics of the oriental type, to whom all killing is abhorrent and wicked. The white races of men believe in the doctrine of legitimate sport and sensible utilization; but the game-hog is a constant menace. The game-hog is a factor with which every government and every individual game protector must reckon. In the slaughter of game he has no conscience, and to him, game laws are an intolerable evil. He is utterly devoid of sentimental or scientific interest in wild life, and he will go far to kill the last representative of a species in order to boast of it. Some game-hogs, who are honestly ignorant of what Killing Everything j-j^gy ^j-g^ ^^^j^ \^q educated out of their evil ways, and reformed; but others can not be. The last annual report of the New York State Conservation Commissioner, George D. Pratt, contains this striking passage regarding the confirmed game- hogs of the Adirondacks who slaughter deer illegally, and for whom no one can plead the excuse of ignorance. Commissioner Pratt says: "An analysis of the violations thus reveals that they were due not to dissatisfaction with any one law, but to general contempt for the Conservation Law, per se. The protectors (disguised as sports- men) were all required to report whether the hunters in the camps to which they were assigned operated on the general plan of killing practically anything that they saw, and more than two-thirds of the protectors answered this question in the affirmative. The result of this determination is shown in 101 deer that came within the protec- tors' immediate knowledge, in most cases under their personal observa- tion: 46 were bucks, 44 were does, and 11 were fawns of both sexes. It was a matter of great interest in one camp that one man had killed eight does in the season, while another at the same camp, by a singular coincidence, had killed eight bucks." It is to be remarked that the killing of does in the Adirondacks or anywhere in the state of New York is entirely illegal. "There were many more illegally killed deer than those mentioned above," says the Commissioner, "regarding which the protectors obtained evidence that resulted in settlements or convictions. Cases arising from the 1917 work were settled for $3,511.50. They involved 79 individuals and more than 125 violations. Already in 1918, 38 cases have been settled, with a total recovery so far of $4,245. 62 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION The 1918 cases alone will number between 200 and 300 when all have been closed. "The Commission wishes particularly to point out that the violations of the deer law involve no particular class or locality more than another. Men of all walks of life are involved, and even some women, who deliberately stood upon runways in wait for deer that were being run by dogs. Efforts to correct the old, outworn point of view regarding wild life — a point of view that would make game the property of whoever can get it, regardless of law — must accordingly be directed to every class and locality ^ Laws made to Now, in the making of laws, it is always necessay Cover Worst to make the laws adequate to curb the worst elements. Conditions jyj^ sooner is a new game law enacted than the human vultures who prey upon wild life immediately scrutinize it and study it in order to find its weak spots, and to plan evasions. It is this devilish spirit of criminality that renders it so difficult to provide for the utmost utilization of wild game as food for man. Whenever we see the day wherein all men will gladly obey the spirit of a law, as well as its stern letter, then may we say that the millenium of game protection has arrived. The continuous development of the interior regions of Alaska and northern Canada, the increase in power transportation, of mining and of general exploitation, has brought a corresponding increase of pressure on the remainders of big game. The valleys of very few navigable streams now contain any considerable remainder of moose, caribou, mountain sheep or bear. To find big game now it is necessary to strike into the interior. The great herds of caribou that only forty years ago came within gunshot of St. Michaels, Alaska, at the mouth of the Yukon, have vanished from the lower Yukon almost as completely as if they never had known that region. Now the residents of St. Michaels must travel hundreds of miles to find the nearest herds of the caribou millions. T^. But the disappearance of northern big game is a Disappearance i . i i i T tit of Northern large subject, and not to be entered upon here. We Big Game ^j.g concerned with the rational utilization of the stock that remains. The practical questions now before the people of Canada and Alaska are as follows: (1) How can we secure the most thorough legitimate utilization of wild game? (2) How can wastefulness be prevented? (3) How can the continuity of supply be insured? CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 63 The moment we undertake to conserve big game in the northern two-thirds of Alaska, which is north of the 62nd parallel of latitude, we come up against some strenuous demands for the sale of game. Fairbanks now is the storm-centre of a new demand, for the sale of game all the year round instead of in the open season only. Most Alaskans believe that the game of Alaska belongs to the people of that territory, that they should administer it as they think best, and, above all, that the sale of game is not only right, but absolutely necessary. In 1918, it was noted that the laws of the United States were permitting the sale of moose, mountain sheep and caribou meat during the open season for hunting, everywhere in Alaska north of latitude 62°, and that, during the year 1917, 6,000 pounds of big game meat lawfully had been fed to the labourers employed in the construction of the Alaska Central railway, actually under the supervision of the present Governor of Alaska. That large figure was given by Mr. Thomas Riggs himself, then Alaskan Railway Commissioner, at the hearing on the Sulzer bill, in Congress on March 5, 1918. The Sulzer bill proposed that mountain sheep, moose and caribou meat should be sold all the year round, everywhere north of latitude 62°, and it was ardently supported by Mr. Riggs and the people of Fairbanks. The Sulzer bill promised to be so destructive to the big game of Alaska that it was easily killed. The episode emphasized with new force the fact that a new game act for Alaska now has become an absolute necessity, and must be worked out in the near future. Every conservator of American big game is at least Living Conditions partially aware of the conditions that surround in the North ^ , , ,. ,, , , • , white people who live all the year round in the north- ern regions of Canada and Alaska. Away from the influence of the lines of power transportation, the procuring of supplies of fresh meat from the flocks and herds of the stock-raiser and farmer is an impos- sibility. And it is not good that men, women and children should be compelled to subsist for long periods on no other flesh food than dried fish, dried venison, bacon and ham. If we concede that it is right for the trader, the missionary and the soldier of fortune to live in the far north, and rear families there, then we must concede that they are entitled to some supplies of fresh meat from the wild herds that can aff^ord them without the risk of extermination. In the language of commerce, we believe they are entitled to all that the traffic will stand. 64 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION The question is, how can we meet the legitimate needs of the widow of fort Churchill, the trader at fort Resolution and the mis- sionary at point Barrow, without the risk of annihilating the breeding stock? Let us assume that no one of these can go out, license in hand, and himself hunt and kill his own lawful quota of game. In the utilization of the wild game food of those regions, the non-hunters must be fatally penalized because of their physical or other disabilities that prevent them from personally taking their own share of game on the hoof. Now, what is to be done? The men of the Far North at once will say: "Provide by law that all those who cannot hunt may buy their share of game from those who can hunt." This proposal merits careful analysis and consideration. It is now a widely accepted principle of conservation that no wild species can long withstand commercial exploitation. It is an accepted fact that the surest way quickly to exterminate any wild species is by placing a cash price on the heads of its members. Throughout the whole of the United States, and I Opposition to think all of southern Canada, the conservers of wild Sale of Game /- , , , it . • lite are a nxed and unalterable unit in opposition to the sale of game, anywhere, in those regions. That matter has been considered, and at times fought over, for fully ten years; and, if any principles in wild life protection can be regarded as settled for all time, it is the ban on the sale of game and on the sale of the plumage of wild birds. The Sulzer bill could have been, and would have been, buried under a mountain of opposition, both in and outside of Congress, had it been pressed forward. In view of the well-known and legally recorded beliefs of the wild life conservationists of Canada and of the United States, I now reg ^.rd it as a waste of time to attempt to devise ways and means for the !^ of wild game. The principle that lately has been so gloriousiy reaffirmed and so everlastingly fixed by the international trerty between Canada and the United States for the protection of migratory game birds against the market hunter and the game-dealer, must not now be discredited in the Far North. The time has come that the sale of game in Alaska must positively stop, before it has brought great harm to the game and to the people of Alaska. It is a curious circumstance that the men who thus far have saved some of the game of Alaska from annihilation, have done so without either appreciation or thanks from the people of Alaska. But for the initiative of the meddlesome eastern naturalists, in 1902, by this time the accessible regions of Alaska would have been swept iejl^ ELK IN BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Parks Branch 3Ib£ ,1- ELK IN BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Parks Branch CONFERENCE ON \\ I I. D LIFE 65 bare of hoofed game. It is utter folly to assume, or to believe, that the people of Alaska alone are either willing or able to protect their big game from extermination, and utilize it on a real continuing basis. In times like the present the truth may better be told bluntly than in any round-about way. The people of Alaska are, from first to last, diligent exploiters of the natural resources of Alaska, and the majority of the white population look forward to getting out of that territory to spend the remainder of their lives elsewhere. Twenty-five years hence a majority of the Alaskans may be sincere conservers; but a quarter of a century is a long time to wait, and, in the interval, much mischief may be accomplished. No, we can not agree to any sale of game anywhere; Big Game must because that policy is known to be extra destructive. At all hazards, the big game of Alaska and northern Canada should be conserved on a continuing basis, for the good of the residents of those difficult regions. The hunters of Alaska may find it impossible to believe that eastern sportsmen have at heart the welfare of the future residents of Alaska who will need wild meat. No doubt very many of them feel that all the protective efforts of United States men are designed to protect United States hunting grounds; but all misunderstandings of our motives in Alaskan conservation we must accept as an un- avoidable part of the burden, and as coming all in the day's work. I believe that, on this point, we are indeed thinking more of the welfare of the Alaskans of the future than is thought by the Alaskans of today. And now what can we oflfer as an attempt at a solution of the puzzling question raised by the widow at fort Churchill? It is time to put forth something intended to be constructive. We are abso- lutely certain that a way can be found to protect the rights of the widow, the missionary and the trader without the surrender of a great foundation principle, and without going halfw^ay to meet disaster by providing for the sale of game. In an effort to be both brief and clear, we submit the following proposals as candidates for adoption into a code of principles: Proposed Principles 1. In the well-settled regions of the United States and Canada, the supply of wild game is nowhere sufficient to render it an important food supply; and in view of its steady destruction by man, predatory mammals and birds, severe winters and scarcity of food and cover, 63267—5 66 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION game killing in those regions must be regarded as a severely limited pastime, and not as an industry in competition with the stock-raiser and the butcher. 2. In well-settled regions, it is impossible to make bag limits too small, or open seasons too short, for the best continuance of the game supply. 3. No frontiersman can reasonably be expected either to devise, or to execute, unaided by his Federal Government, methods for the adequate preservation and increase of large game. 4. Well-settled and well-fed regions require game laws of greater stringency than frontier regions. 5. Frontier and savage regions require to be especially defined on the map, and provided with game laws specially adapted to the needs of their inhabitants and to the available supply of game. 6. The strict regulation of game-killing in frontier regions inures directly to the benefit of the people most dependent upon the game for their existence. 7. The sale of game should not be permitted at any time, any- where; because all commercialization of wild game and other forms of wild life is thoroughly exterminatory in its effects. 8. In all countries, the rational utilization of game is desirable, but only on a basis that will provide amply and adequately for the perpetuation of the breeding stock. 9. Regions that are remote from lines of power transportation, or are, in winter, entirely cut off from supplies of fresh meat from without, are entitled to preferential treatment. 10. The relief of persons inhabiting frontier regions who by reason of sex, age or other causes are unable themselves to take out licenses and hunt and kill their animal quota of game must be specialh- provided for by law. 11. Every community large enough to contain a post office should be established as a game-protection centre, or unit, and a deputy game warden should be appointed for each centre, to whom an annual salary should be paid during satisfactory service, no matter how small the salary might be. 12. The duty of every such deputy game warden should be to issue hunting licenses, check up the reports of license holders, and generally promote and be responsible for the observance of the laws affecting game. 13. The cold-storage of legally-killed game to promote its full utilization by the holders of hunting licenses, beyond the regular season for hunting, is desirable and necessary. 14. It is time for the Governments of Canada and the United States to stop all killing of female hoofed game, other than caribou, by Indians, by prospectors, and by all other persons. 15. The waste of game should, under certain fixed conditions, be made a penal offense. 16. Regulations should be framed to require the reasonable salvage of game meat by sportsmen. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 67 It would be placing a very low estimate on the mental Laws to Cover fertility of Canadian and American law -makers to special Conditions ... m i <• assume that it is impossible for them to provide a share of caribou meat and snow geese for the widow and the missionary without the sale of game. To the lay mind it seems entirely possible to work out a scheme for having a certain amount of hunting by proxy, under special licenses, prepared and issued to meet such cases. The game warden or his deputy, or, in their absence, some other government officer, could determine the merits of each application and exercise the discretion of issuing or not issuing a license to hunt by proxy. The holder of such a license could be relied upon to find a suitable person to act as a proxy, go out and make the kill and haul in the meat, for a daily wage consideration. Such proxies should not be issued to persons able to hunt for themselves ; and the transfer of game by barter should be treated the same as the sale of game. The feeding of the refuse portions of game to sled dogs should be provided for by law and regulation rather than be permitted to continue unchecked in the total absence of regulations. In the issuance of licenses, the family unit should Family Unit the constitute the basis of issue. Any law which, like Basis for Licenses , , . r \ • • i i those of certain western states of America, provided for the issue of a full hunting license to each member of a family would be a mistake, and occasionally would lead to heavy slaughter. A hasty survey suggests that, with a liberal bag limit, one hunting license to four persons of one family would not be very wide of the mark. The bag limit of our Alaskan Game Act permits the killing of two moose, five caribou and three mountain sheep, which is certainly enough fresh meat for four persons for four months, if it be properly utilized. The Nova Scotia law, that forbids sportsmen to leave large quantities of good meat to spoil in the wilderness, or to be devoted to the maintenance and increase of predatory game-destroying wolves, is an excellent law. Ethically, no sportsman has any special right to waste good edible meat in hungry lands. Let the salvage of meat be a part of the price that the sportsman pays for the privilege of pastime slaughter of valuable food animals. New Alaska ^^ response to the demand of the people of Fairbanks, Game Act Alaska, and others nearer home, that the sale of . ugges e game privilege be greatly extended throughout northern Alaska, we reply that the time has come for a new Alaskan Game Act which will completely stop the sale of game, and provide for a safe and sane system for the better utilization of the wild game 63267— 5i 68 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION of that territory. We have suggested to the Fish and Game Club of Juneau, southeastern Alaska, that an unofficial commission be assembled, to consist of five persons, three of whom shall be residents of Alaska, to consider all the facts and proposals available, and evolve a new Alaskan Game bill. While that proposal has met with some favour, its future is, of course, uncertain. At all events, however, it appears to the writer to offer the best approach to a new system of combined protection and utilization. Alaskans are greatly disturbed by the destruction of valuable game by wolves, and they appeal insistently for governmental relief. That subject is of pressing importance, but is quite apart from these observations. In conclusion, there is now every reason for advocating, in the rational utilization of game, prompt and thorough consideration, and firm and energetic action. Sale of Game Mr. F. Br.\dshaw: We have all listened with a great deal of interest to Dr. Hornaday. This is the first opportunity I have had of hearing him, although I know him very well by reputation. I think that the dominant note in the address which we have just heard is that the commercialization of game is one of the most difficult features of the movement in which we are all interested. That should be eliminated throughout this Dominion if we can possibly eliminate it. Up to 1917, our Saskatchewan Act prohibited the sale of game, but a proviso made it possible for any keeper of a restaurant or boarding house to serve game on his table, provided it had been secured in conformity with the provisions of the act. Last year we amended that section, and now it is against the law to sell game under any circumstances. Little or no opposition has been made to this amend- ment; it is one of the most popular sections in our act. I have much pleasure in moving the following resolution: " That this National Conference of officials, sportsmen, natural- ists, and others interested in the conservation of the game animals of Canada, is of the opinion that the sale of protected game for food purposes is not only unnecessary, except in certain of the more remote districts of the Dominion, but it is positively inimical to the con- servation of our game resources, inasmuch as it leads to the destruction of wild game mammals and birds by market hunters rather than by sportsmen and farmers desiring the game for their own consumption, and that the game so killed for purposes of sale is consumed largely by people who do not need it and who, as a rule, have no in- terest in the conservation of the game they are helping to destroy. And that, in view of the fact that more than two-thirds of the chief big game states of the United States and several of the provinces of Canada have already prohibited the sale of protected game, this Conference would respectfully urge the governments of those provinces in which the sale of certain game animals is still permitted to pro- hibit the sale of all protected wild game and to make such provision as may be necessary to permit the sale of game animals propagated in private or government game preserves." Dr. a. R. Baker: It affords me much pleasure to second this resolution. In British Columbia we have practically done away with the sale of all kinds of game, except in some of the remote districts of the north, the residents of which find it impossible to get fresh domestic meat during two or three months of the winter. We allow the sale of moose and caribou bulls over one year of age only in the 70 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION electoral districts of Atlin, Prince George, Omineca and Cariboo from October 1 to December 15. These are the districts in which it is practically impossible to get any communication with the outside world during the period mentioned, and, for that reason, we must allow the residents there to kill moose and caribou during a short season for food purposes. I am very much in accord with the sentiments in the paper which has just been read to us, and with the sentiments expressed in this resolution relative to the sale of game. Dr. Hewitt: I wish to read some extracts from a letter which we received from Mr. W. H. Allen, president of the New Brunswick- Guides Association, as it rather bears on this subject: New Brunswick Guides Association, Penniac, February 10, 1919. Mr. James White, Assistant to Chairman, Ottawa, Canada. My Dear Sir, — -Your letter relating to the meeting of those who are interested in the preservation of wild animal life came to hand in due time. I thank you for advising me of the same, and would be very glad and willing to attend this meeting, had I not made previous arrange- ments to go to New York, Cleveland, Syracuse, Buffalo, Paterson and other places with some motion pictures that I have. The preservation of big game interests me, as I have been a sportsmen's guide for over 30 years, and know what the game means as an asset to our country. As you perhaps know, one moose killed by a non-resident will bring to the country where the moose is killed over $300, while, if killed by a resident, it will only bring the price of the antlers and skin. I am glad to tell you that New Brunsw^ick, last year, passed a law prohibiting the sale of game, and the efifect of this law is easy to see, as there were no pot-hunters roaming through our forests, killing these beautiful animals for sale. As you might know, there has been great 'kicking' about this law by the pot-hunters and their friends, and I greatly fear that the pressure will be so great at the coming session of the House that this law will be changed and the sale of meat again made legal. I hope that CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 71 at your Conference you will dwell at some length on the matter of prohibition of the sale of all kinds of game. Your organization has much weight, and let us assure you that the influence of such an organization will be felt throughout every province in Canada. I would suggest that as soon as your meeting is over, your Secretary write a strong letter to each of the provinces, having big game, urging the prohibition of the sale of all kinds of game. The matter of game sanctuaries is one that should interest every lover of the out-of-doors. In closing, let me urge that you put determination into your efforts along the lines mentioned in your letter. If the assistance of the guides, being members of the New Bruns- wick Guides Assn., should be of service to your association, let me assure you that I will use my influence to give this assistance. Wishing you every success, I am, Sincerely yours, (Signed) W. H. ALLEN President, New Brunswick Guides Assn. That is the opinion of the president of the New Brunswick Guides Association, which, I believe, is the only Association in New Bruns- wick interested in the protection of wild life. It illustrates very well the attitude which the guides take towards this problem. Dr. C. a. Wilson: In the far north, particularly in the Mac- kenzie basin, the consumers of game do not buy it; in fact, ammuni- tion is so expensive in that part of the country that very little game is killed by the natives. As long as they can get rabbits, and things of that kind they live very largely on them. The motion was duly carried. Game in Cold Storage Mr. Benjamin Lawton: I have a resolution relating to the storage of game. The sentiments that have been expressed certainly meet with my approval, in view of the experience we have had in connection with the storing of game. There is a great quantity of game at present in the cold storage plants of the Dominion. Some of this is moose, and there are ducks — I will not say that the larger quantity of those killed two years ago are still in storage, but, of the game killed one year ago, there is still in storage quite a large quantity of moose meat and ducks. The resolution is as follows: "That the National Conference of officials, sportsmen, and others interested in the conservation of our game animals, is of the opinion that, as one of the chief incentives to securing as large bags of game as the law permits, and thereby encouraging excessive slaughter, is the fact that cold storage plants afford facilities for the storage of such game, the different governments be recommended to require the owners of such plants to furnish to the respective game officers periodic reports on the quantities of game in store, and the ownership of the same." Mr. Harris: After game is kept in cold storage a certain length of time it becomes poisoned and unfit for consumption. It should not be held in cold storage longer than six months, and, if the mover will add that to his motion, I shall be glad to second it. When these meats are held in storage a long time, the cold storage plants, instead of being useful to the people, assist in increasing the cost of living. Mr. Lawton: I am agreeable to having that added. The following words could be inserted at the end of the resolution : " and to require that such game shall not be kept in cold storage longer than six months." Mr. Harris: I have much pleasure in seconding the resolution as amended, and I trust that this meeting will express itself in no uncertain way on that point. Mr. E. E. Lemieux: In Ontario we are not allowed to keep game in cold storage after the 31st December. That gives ample time for taking it out. The period during which the game is in storage is, therefore, a reasonable one, and there is no use in keeping it there after that date. Resolution as amended, agreed to. ANTELOPE IN BUFFALO PARK WAINWRIGHT, ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Puiks Branrh ANTELOPE IN BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT, ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Parks Branch 1 1 ' « 1 * CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 73 Hon. Mr. D.vniels: We have with us Mr. E. W. Nelson, Chief of the Biological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture. Mr. Nelson represents the United States Government at this confer- ence, and for this reason, as well as for personal reasons, we are most gratified to have him with us, particularly as one of the objects of the conference is to promote not only inter-provincial co-operation but international co-operation as well. The successful conclusion of the efforts to secure the international protection of migratory birds indicates what can be done in the way of international co-operation, and we hope that this will be followed by further efforts in the future. We should be glad to have Mr. Nelson address us on the work that the United States Government is doing and the possibilities of international effort in wild life conservation. The Migratory Bird Treaty BY E. W. Nelson Chief, Bureau of Biological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture I assume that it is not necessary to tell this audience anything about the history of the Migratory Bird Treaty for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United States. The regulations under the treaty were put in force in the United States the 1st of August, 1918. At first, although most of the State game commissioners in the country had been heartily in favor of the Migratory Bird Treaty, following the issuance of the Federal regulations there was a feeling among some of the game commissioners that the Federal authorities might be inclined to unnecessarily interfere with State game affairs and thus weaken their authority and standing in the States. Through correspondence and personal conferences with the State officials, however, only a short time elapsed until a change of sentiment was evident. The State game commissioners became convinced that it was the purpose of the Biological Survey not to work to their detriment, but to assist them so far as possible in build- ing up the game supply of the States, and, through them, the game resources of the country. I am pleased to be able to say that the Biological Survey is now on the friendliest terms of co-operation with the game commissions of practically every State. The advantage of the Federal law in bringing uniform- General Law j^-y Qf seasons over great areas in which approxi- Covering the , .. ... -i • i_ Country mately uniform conditions prevail, is becoming more and more apparent not only to the State game officials, but to the sportsmen at large. The States are rapidly modifying their game laws to make their seasons covering migratory birds conform with the Federal regulations. Already more than half the States have brought their laws to so conform, and many of the others are taking steps to the same end. One of the advantages in having State laws conform with the Federal regulations was evidenced in one of the States I visited last CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 75 autumn. At one time, the game commissioners of this State were inclined to hold the opinion that, with its small appropriations for the administration of the Migratory Bird law, the Biological Survey would ask for an unreasonably large amount of co-operation from the States in administering the Federal law. The State game law there had already been made to conform with the Federal regulations under the former Migratory Bird law. Soon after it became evident that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act carried with it real powers of enforce- ment; it also became obvious that a violation of the State law at the same time was a violation of the Federal law and the violator became liable to prosecution in the Federal as well as in the State courts. This served greatly to strengthen the hands of the State game com mission in enforcing the State law, since violators who had been more or less defiant in regard to the enforcement of the State law, when confronted with the alternative of having their cases taken to the Federal courts for prosecution, desired at once to plead guilty in the State courts. It is apparent that this double liability, to which a game law violator becomes subject, will serve as a strong deterrent against illegal shooting. In the State mentioned the game commission not only lost its feeling that it might be imposed upon by the Federal authorities in requests for co-operation, but urged the Biological Survey to appoint a considerable number of the state wardens, deputy federal game wardens, in order that the State as well as the Federal law might be more effectively enforced. There is little doubt but that experience will so Public Sentiment thoroughly demonstrate the usefulness of the Federal Favourable , . . . , r- • • • • i i_ -u- law m assistmg the States m mamtammg and buiidmg up their game resources and in enforcing the State laws, that the friendly feeling for the Federal law will continually increase. We have been gratified also to receive offers of co-operation from State game officials and expressions of hearty approval from sportsmen, after our first efforts to enforce laws in several of the States in which, heretofore, through the backward state of public sentiment, game laws have been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. One of the greatest effects of the migratory bird law will be in building up a healthy public sentiment for game conservation in many parts of the country where this is much needed, and in this way also it will be of the utmost service to the State game authorities. The Federal Government — I speak only for the United States of course, but think the situation is very similar in Canada — desires to interfere as little as possible with the administration of the State game laws, except as the requirements of the Federal law render it 76 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION necessary. As Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, in charge of the administration of this law, it is my earnest desire that we may be as helpful as possible in building up the game resources of the country. This will be to the advantage of all the States. Personally, we gain no benefit from this in Washington other than the satisfaction of doing a good piece of work. We are thoroughly interested in the conservation of game, and have a keen desire to be useful in perpetuat- ing the migratory game supply which, as is well known, previous to the enactment of Federal legislation was rapidly decreasing. Game is one of the valuable natural resources of all Game a Valuable Qf ^j^g States, and there is no question that the Federal Natural Resource . , . . , . ^ . law is resultmg m the mcrease of migratory game and of certain useful migratory insectivorous birds. Ever since the original migratory bird law was passed in the United States in 1913, spring shooting has greatly decreased, and every reliance can be placed on the hundreds of reports from all parts of the country that there has been a steady increase of migratory wild fowl. In many of the States, especially in the north, ducks and geese are reported as breeding in places where they have not bred for years, or that there has been a great increase in the number of breeding birds, simply because they were not molested by hunters in spring. Before the Federal law was passed it was difficult for a duck or goose to linger anywhere in the United States without being killed or hunted away from its resting places, and often it was given no peace until driven beyond the Canadian border and far into the north, where people were so scarce that no one was there to molest it. Now many birds may stop to breed in marshy water-holes and ponds in many districts, especially in Minnesota, the Dakotas and other Western States. A letter from the President of the State University of Nevada stated he had lived for many years in that State, and, after the Migratory Bird law was passed, had for the first time, seen wild geese stop and nest in marshy lakes there. The present season has been an extraordinary one owing to the unusually mild winter. The birds of the autumn migration failed to appear as usual in many of the Middle Western States and ducks were not seen in various localities where, in normal seasons, they have been abundant. As against this, we had reports from different sections of Chesapeake bay that canvasbacks had appeared in enormous numbers, exceeding anything remembered by most of the local hunters. From other places came reports of enonnous flights of geese and other waterfowl. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 77 One of the most effective regulations for conserving ^'■°^*^*^*°" game birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty law has been the prohibition of the sale of migratory game birds throughout the United States. In addition we have made a daily bag limit of twenty-five ducks. Under the Federal law, while no State can make a bag limit exceeding that number, the States retain the right of still further protecting them by decreasing the limit if they so desire, and smaller bag limits are now in force in numerous States. Under the Federal law, the States are not permitted to exceed the limit set for the protection of migratory birds, but are given the general authority still further to protect them by decreasing the season or the number of birds to be killed within the Federal limits, or entirely to prohibit their being killed. Some objection has been raised to the Federal limit of twenty-five ducks a day as being too large, but, in view of the right of the States to reduce this number, it appeared advisable not, at first, to make the Federal limit too restricted. Some sportsmen, especially those who maintain large shooting preserves at great expense, held that the bag limit of twent>'-five was too small a number. I am pleased to say, however, that these and other sportsmen are continually becoming better conservationists. For instance, several friends of the Biological Survey, who are shooting-club members and who had first thought that we were doing an unfriendly thing by establishing the Federal bag limit of twenty-five ducks a day, have since admitted that it was the right thing to do. They are expressing a willingness to forego their former privileges on the admitted grounds that it is necessary if our supply of wild fowl is to be maintained. The continued transformation on a large scale of marshy lands into farms in the Western United States and in Canada is decreasing the resting places and feeding grounds of migratory wild fowl, and constitutes one of the most serious dangers to the future of these birds. This is not only operating greatly to the detriment of bird life at the present time, but is proceeding at a rate which raises a serious problem for the not distant future. The splendid whooping crane, that was formerly so Some Species abundant in Western Canada and the United States. Almost Lost . • 1 1 IS now almost extmct, as is also the trumpeter swan. Their homes have been taken from them by people occupying areas where they formerly bred. Unfortunately their breeding grounds were situated within what has become a great farming region, which is being more and more densely populated and increasingly cultivated, so there appears little hope of saving them. The more insignificant 78 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION birds, and those which go to the north to breed, have a better chance for the future. Those nesting in the far north will no doubt have abundant breeding grounds into the distant future, the greatest danger to such birds being a lack of food and resting places in their southern wintering grounds. Formerly many hundreds of thousands of our geese and ducks wintered in Mexico. Enormous numbers resorted to the lakes in the v^alley of Mexico, where there were large areas of ideal feeding grounds. Unfortunately, the lakes in the valley of Mexico have shrunken to only a small percentage of the size they once had, and the birds that are left are being shot in great numbers for market purposes. The marshy ground about lake Chapala, also on the southern border of the Mexican table-land, formerly constituted a splendid resort for wild fowl, where myriads of ducks, geese, cranes, and other birds passed the winter. The decrease of available marshes, with increased hunting, have sadly reduced the birds there, as well as in many other parts of this region, where they formerly abounded during the winter months. These reductions in the wintering homes of our migratory wild fowl emphasize the urgent necessity for providing, not only breeding reserves, but wintering sanctuaries and feeding grounds for them. Such sanctuaries are especially needed in the United States. We already have two great refuges on the Gulf coast in Louisiana, but others are needed in Texas and in various parts of the Mississippi valley, as well as on both coasts. I rejoice to learn that such refuges are being provided in Southern Canada, places where birds may stop to rest during their migrations and be assured of food and safety from molestation. If a sufficient number of such sanctuaries are not supplied and if the drainage and devotion to agriculture and other purposes of the marshy areas continue, migratory waterfowl will diminish despite every effort along other lines to conserve them. It is obvious that these birds cannot exist unless they have sufficient areas in which to resort and feed, and particularly, sanctuaries where they may be safe from the persistent harassment that is bound to increase in unprotected areas with the growth of population. Wild Life ^"^ °^ ^^^ most helpful ways in which the people of Sanctuaries Canada and the United States can co-operate is through ssen la working out a plan whereby sufficient refuges for wild fowl can be provided and maintained on both sides of the border. Preliminary to a thoroughgoing plan for such refuges, a survey is needed to determine the available areas and other relative fitness for the purpose. Such a survey the Biological Survey is now conducting in the United States, taking the work up state by state as we have CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 79 the means for the purpose. Much useful information has already been obtained. The violators of the Migratory Bird law have not all ceased their activities. Convictions have already been secured and fines imposed in seventeen cases; about two hundred other cases of violations of the law are ready for presentation to the courts and will be prosecuted as rapidly as possible. We are making a special effort to stop the killing of the beautiful white herons and the traffic in the aigrettes obtained from them. Owing to the demand for the plumage of these birds for hat ornaments they have been nearly destroyed in many of the states where they were once abundant and among the most interesting and picturesque members of the native bird life. Under the Migratory Bird law these birds are protected, and we are seizing plumes in millinery stores and otherwise working to discourage the destruction of the birds. We are not proceeding against ladies wearing aigrette plumes, although it is unlawful for such plumes to be held in possession. It is considered that, in stopping the killing of the birds and preventing dealers from handling the plumes, this matter may be controlled more successfully. and without the friction which would ensue from taking up the matter with the individual wearers of the plumes, who frequently possess them in entire ignorance of any law against it. We are, however, conducting a publicity campaign to inform the public, and I am pleased to say that some of the organizations of dealers in millinery goods are preparing to inform their members and the public of the illegal character of dealings in aigrette plumes. The losses to the dealers of plumes are severe enough, so that it will take but a few- examples to render traffic in aigrette feathers highly unpopular. One milliner in Little Rock, Arkansas, had $1,500 worth of aigrette plumes seized from his stock a short time since and was fined for possessing them. In another case, a dealer in New York had a great number of bird skins for hat purposes. On learning this, one of our men examined them and returned a few days later for the purpose of seizing them, but the dealer stated that he had consulted his lawyer, and, as a result, had destroyed the skins. As the vast majority of dealers in millinery goods are reputable merchants, there is no question but, as soon as the fact becomes known that traffic in these bird skins and plumes is unlawful, this traffic will soon come to an end. Migratory Bird ^^ '^ probable that you are all aware of the fact that Treaty Act the constitutionality of the original bird law in the Constitutional United States, which was passed in 1913. was questioned through a case originating in the United States Court in 80 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Arkansas. While this case was still before the Supreme Court ot the United States, the Migratory Bird Treaty was negotiated and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and regulations put in force. This act repealed the old law, and, as a result, the Attorney General of the United States requested that the old case be dismissed, since, in view of the repealing of the law, any continuance of the case would be purely for academic purposes. The day following the dismissal of this case the newspapers came out with the statement that the Migratory Bird law had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This statement has caused much trouble and a host of inquiries, even including many from Canada. We have been kept busy ever since explaining that the Supreme Court had made no decision in the case, and that the dismissal had nothing whatever to do with the constitutionality either of the old or the new law. How- ever, the confusion resulting from the misleading publicity in the press revived the spring shooter in various parts of the country, and we have had many letters from various sections stating that plans were being made for spring shooting. As a result a considerable number of men have been arrested for violating the law, who have claimed that the law is unconstitutional. Such men will have an opportunity of taking up this contention with the courts. About a week after the mis-statement concerning the Lesson^*'^ action of the Supreme Court had appeared in the newspapers, 81 canvasback ducks were found on sale in the market in Washington. They were seized and donated to the patients in the military hospital, so that there was no profit in that transaction for the dealer. A Washington restaurant was found at this time serving canvasback ducks to its patrons. These also were seized and a case made against the restaurant and against the man who sold the ducks to it. All such cases are educational. It does not take dealers long to learn that the authorities are in earnest in enforcing the law, and the great majority of them are ready to abide by it. It is probable that it will be a long time before it will be possible to find another dealer selling ducks in the Washington market. The seventeen cases in which violators of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have been fined cover violators from California to Maine, including many of the intermediate States, so that the public has had an opportunity of being advised as to the enforcement of the law. There is no doubt but that a case will eventually be brought before the Supreme Court of the United States to test the constitu- tionality of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but we have every T -?'t,' '>;|^»«H>)^iA*i ■ III ■'■1*4 1^' coMMfssion Of amsfmATia/i WILD GZESE ON PREMISES OF MR. JACK MINER, ESSEX CO., ONT. ^^ ! I I -1^ ■ n "'"-'"-'"" *' ■ sa WILD GEESE ON PREMISES OF MR. JACK MINER, ESSEX CO., ONT. The aDove ponds are the stopping off places for the Canada geesD, in their migratory flights in the spring and autumn. From a nucleus of five, the number has grown to thousands. Photos, Courtesy Mr. Jack Miner ■ c c CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 81 confidence in its being declared absolutely constitutional. There was a great division of opinion concerning the constitutionality of the original Migratory Bird Act, but a considerable number of lawyers who doubted the constitutionality of that Act, after careful inves- tigations, have expressed their full confidence in the constitutionality of the present law. We implicitly believe that we have a law which will stay on the statute books, and one which will build up our resources in migratory birds and serve as an insurance against the disappearance of many of these birds from the North American continent. WEDNESDAY MORNING SESSION Dr. Howard Murray: In the absence of Senator Edwards, the acting Chairman, I have been requested to take the chair at this meeting and introduce the speaker, who is to address you on the "Attracting of Wild Fowl." It is a case, however, where the chairman stands in greater need of being introduced to the audience than the lecturer himself does. The fame of Mr. Miner — Jack Miner — of Kingsville, Ont., and his great success in attracting the Canadian goose, which is about as wild a bird as can be found anywhere, and in his overcoming the fears and the prejudices of that wily bird, have extended far and wide. In fact, it has been said that his fame has extended as widely as the territory covered by the migratory birds in their wanderings — the birds which he has done so much to assist and to protect. 63267—6 Attracting Wild Fowl BY Jack Miner, of Kingsviile, Ont. I assure you it is a privilege for me to meet with so many bird lovers. We love out-of-door creatures, or we would not be here this morning. Now, you will have to pardon my lack of education. I am one of those men who are born bare-footed and educated out-of-doors. However, I was father's favourite. Perhaps it is not just the proper thing for fathers to show partiality, but mine did. He always called me in the morning to build the fires; possibly in that way I got out a little earlier than the rest to hear the birds singing. Outside of unavoidable sadness, my life has been one continuous round of enjoyment; the failures and disappointments and the dark storm clouds have been wiped out of existence by success, by out- of-door life — a light which has brightened my path right up to the present and given a faint glimpse of the beyond. I have heard people say they have read that there was never a tribe of heathen discovered on earth who did not worship some kind of god. No intelligent man can live out of doors without being compelled to believe that there is an over-ruling power. God created the fowls of the air, and so on, before he created man, according to Genesis, 1st chapter and 21st verse. Then in the 26th verse, we find these words: " And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Does that mean that we are to have dominion over those big flocks of wild geese, so far away that you have to'look twice to see them? You know how high they sometimes are; you can just hear them. That is what it says. Then we read further in Deuteronomy, chapter 22, 6th and 7th verses: " If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young; but thou shalt in anywise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; 82 CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 83 that it may be well with thee and that thou maycst prolong thy days." But, if a duck lit in one of the rivers here, all the educated people in this room would rush down — there would be ten guns out there to shoot it. Reading in the book of Job, we find these words: " No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you: yea, who knoweth not such things as these? But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee." Bam Swallows When the first barn swallows came to our tile Appreciate shed, on our little farm at Kingsville, Ont., they rotection nested 300 feet away — as far away as they could get from where we were working. We protected the swallows from their deadly enemy, the sparrow that man brought to Canada — the English sparrow; not the one that God put here, don't forget that. They destroyed the first brood, but we protected the swallows and consequently the sparrows did not destroy any more. Remember, the shed had stood there for ten years, equally as inviting. The second year there were two nests; the fifth year there were twenty nests in the tile shed, and, instead of being as far from us as they could possibly get, fifteen out of the twenty nests were within twenty feet of where we were working. They had come to us for protection. You have to believe that. They destroy large numbers of house flies. The ladies say — of course, the ladies never tell what is not true — that there is not more than one house fly now where there were five previous to the coming of these barn swallows, purple martins, and so on. Scientists tell us that the fly will carry that deadly disease, typhoid, and, if we preserve the swallow which destroys these flies, surely it shall be well with us and we shall prolong our days. We protected one nest; now, one hundred swallows are raised in that shed every year. Robins are Now, what good is the robin? Everybody knows Enemies of the robin. A boy came along the road with a . 22 Cut-Worms. ^j^^^ ^^^^ ^ robin sitting on the fence and killed it. I went over and picked the robin up. Two cutworms were squirming on the ground; the robin had had them in his beak. I held the bird up, and two more fell out of his mouth. Remember, one cutworm will cut down five tomato plants in a night. This fellow does his work and then hides under the soil; Mr. Robin comes hopping along, picks in there and pulls him out — and turns him into a robin. If anyone tells you that a robin will destroy one hundred cutworms 63267—6^ 84 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION in a day, take it from me that it is true. The following morning, this boy promised me that he would not shoot another robin. In the fir tree by our house were two little robins dead under the nest and two in the nest just alive. We took these two little robins in, warmed them up, and made some custard for them — one egg, half a cup of milk, no sugar. They couldn't open their mouths, they were so nearly gone. We took one of them, pried his beak open and dropped in some custard, and the first thing we knew he 'came to,' and in a minute or so began to squeak for more custard. The other little fellow was supposed to be dead, but he, too, soon began to look around, and these two robins became the sweetest birds we ever had on the premises. You know how a door will slam once in a while in the house. Well, there was a good slam one morning when someone had left the screen door open and my son Jasper's pet robin had come in and was resting in what we call the cold storage — a room in the front of the house which is sometimes called the front ' parlour.' Here he was on Mother's picture, and the broom was going smartly after him. Jasper came with a tin and carried friend robin out to safety. That is how we get enjoyment out of these things. Do birds come back to their homes? How many times I have been asked that question. Oh yes, they come back. " Well, how do you know, Jack?" Then you would have to talk about the weather — switch the subject. But I will tell you the rest of the story. I hatched four wild young mallards — well, I didn't Wild Ehicks hatch them; I stole the eggs. A domestic fowl are Tamed eventually hatched out four little wild ducks, and there they were, under the old hen, wilder than March hares. However, the old hen's voice soon brought them out, and several little girls began to come out from under their stepmother and look around, and eventually they would take some of the custard right in my presence. These ducks soon were so tame that the tap on a tin pan would bring them to you. They got to be quite a size and we named them, respectively, Polly, Delilah, Susan and Helen, and presented each one with an aluminium tag, on which was printed the words, " Box 48, Kingsville, Ont." The four ducks migrated on or about December 10, 1912. Dr. Rutherford, of Chatham, shot Helen at Mitchell bay, lake St. Clair. How they got to the west of us I don't know, for they started south. I suppose they had taken such a liking for me, that they started for Ohio, where I was born. On March 14, 1913, Polly came home. On March CON F E R E N C E ON W I L D J. 1 F E 85 18, Delilah came home, and on March 30, Susan, although wounded in the wing and foot, returned home. Is that not an answer to the question, do birds return to the place from whence they migrate? Well, I wanted to go down, hitch up the 'self-starter,' and go to town, so that someone would ask me, " Do birds return home?" They migrated that autumn, and on March 14, 1914, Polly again came home. On March 21, Delilah came home for the second time. The two girls brought a Yankee sweetheart with them and raised families the next year; and it is interesting, when they are arriving, to see the ducks come down and try to coax their new mates down too. Well, they migrated again for the third time. In the spring of 1915, Delilah got home first; she arrived on March 13, and Polly came home on March 16. Polly got her beak a little too far ahead, and a shot had grazed right across it and cut the side off leaving it hanging. She would just stand around with her mouth open. I got some porridge and mixed custard with it and, on the second day, I had Polly in my right hand. In a week or so I took these ducks to a photographer's, stood them on a table, brushed them down and talked quietly to them and got a photograph of them. We often make remarks about 'silly' old geese and Returned for 'silly' old ducks; sometimes I wonder what the ducks Fifth Time . and geese are saymg about us. These ducks have shied around to keep clear of people hiding in ambush for them; then they come home, and, in a few days, are eating out of our hands. Isn't that worth thinking about? Talk about loving these birds; you simply can't help it, if you are human. Polly said: " I am going to stay with you. Jack, from now on," and she stayed with my hens in the winters of 1915 and 1916. However, in the spring of 1916, she was shot, but Delilah migrated and got back on March 5, for the fifth time; migrated again and got back in 1917 on March 25, and, last spring, she came back for the seventh time on March 19. Do birds return to their homes? I know that it was the same tag she had on, because my wife and I took it off her leg after it had been on five years, and presented her with a new tag. I am now making my tag system a little more interesting, by putting on the blank side a verse of scripture. Everybody who brings down a goose with my tag on it it gets a verse of scripture, whether he needs it or not. Mack Stewart, of Tennesee, writes: "Send me the history of this bird, or of some other Canadian bird. " Corporal John R. Smith writes: " White, age 23, still unclaimed, can you help me out "f So I took the tvvo letters and handed them over to the ladies in our 86 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Sunday school, and the same day one of them came back. There are ten of us in one class and we went and stamped this on our tag — - " Hebrews 10, 24," (Let us consider one another). Now where do these ducks go ? "Ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air and they shall tell thee." I have caught and tagged 287 wild ducks. My home is at Kingsville, Ont., on the north shore of lake Erie, due north of Pelee island and twenty-six miles southeast of Detroit. Kingsville is the place where more fowls of the air f'^^^R-^H^'^^^* ^^ than anywhere else in North America, I believe. I have twelve tags from Ohio, nine from Kentucky, nine from Tennessee, and seven from Alabama. I have one from Saskatchewan, one from Alberta and several from Manitoba. I have only four or five tags from west of the Mississippi. I have them as far east as Long Island, New York, as far west as Alberta, as far south as Louisiana and as far north as Sault Ste. Marie. I haven't a tag for a wild duck north of Sault Ste. Marie, although I know they go further north. I have nine wild goose tags from Chesapeake bay, seven from North Carolina, one from Maryland and one from New Jersey, but none between my home and the southeast coast of Chesapeake bay. Do these wild geese fly clear over to that Kingsville pond without a stop? Now, they stay with me about two months. They come about the first of March — in fact, they have come as early as February 20, and as late as March 16 — and stay until the last week in April or the first of May. We have had 25 tags returned from James bay and Hudson bay, namely, 24 from the east coast but only one from the west side of James bay — ^from Albany. Those 25 tags, ladies and gentlemen, are in my possession, and I am sorry I did not bring them along. The Indians shoot them and take the tags to the Hudson's Bay Company agent, I suppose through curiosity, mostly, and the Hudson's Bay agents eventually return the tags. I have 25 out of 102 that I put on; 25 have been returned from there and only 9 from the south. How did I find out about these wild geese? I have ^f.^"^"^^'^? gone five miles from home before the stars closed Wild Geese ° . . . • ^-.r-i i their eyes m the mornmg. Wild geese were quite scarce; I went four mornings in succession and never saw one. There I lay under a blanket, just as the stars were closing their eyes, with three or four wild goose decoys out. Suddenly, at daylight, I see CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 87 friend wild goose coming, bringing his family with him. I can just see the tips of the wings begin to move — a faint hum, coming closer. Everything is pretty quiet — ^but my heart sinks; here are two men coming out there in the next field. It's all off; those fellows will secure the geese. But no, that old leader goes right over them — now he has passed them. There I am under the blanket — possibly it is a sheet if there is a little snow on the ground — the three corners are tied down and I am underneath it, just hidden there, with a gun ready. And the leader swings around, and, as he swings around, he calls and starts to drop his big black feet to come down. But, for some unaccountable reason, he changes his note and climbs into the air — everybody looks out for himself; and the minute he* changed his note they all darted in as many different directions as there were geese — it was the danger signal. What did he see? One of my red hairs, possibly, projecting from underneath that blanket. He did not shy from the other men, but, he said: " That red-headed fellow over there killed two of my family last year." Ladies and gentlemen, two and two make four— if the wild goose knows his enemy, why wouldn't he know his friend? I have only ten acres; how can I protect the geese? Protect the "oeese There are eight boys around the neighbourhood. In 1904, I said to them: "If you won't shoot at the wild geese around here, I will see that you get a chance to shoot one in the pond." In 1905, 1906 and 1907 no wild geese came. One morning in 1908, eleven wild geese came, and they had not been there ten minutes before the boys came along with their guns. I said: "Boys, leave it entirely with me; do not shoot at them for a week or two." "But," they said, "you said we could shoot them?" I said: "Boys, if you don't get the opportunity to shoot a wild goose I will give you $10 each, if you let me manage it." They said: "We don't want your money." Of course, they knew I didn't have it. However, in about three weeks, we hoisted a signal, "Go on, boys." We were behind a bank I had thrown up there. Uncle Jack was to shoot the two ganders. The boys lined up on one side and cocked their guns, and, as they raised them, I made it my business to scare the geese so that the boys could not shoot them. Bang went their guns. The two ganders got away, but five geese lay dead in the water — one for each family. I asked the boys not to shoot the others. To my surprise and delight, the other six did not stay away two hours; they came back, and stayed until the time came for them to migrate. If you get one bird to come, there is your opportunity. 88 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Next spring, I was asked whether the geese would Returned^^ come back. On March 18, I heard a strange honking and I looked up and saw that they were coming — 32 of them. They came down within 100 feet of us; I walked out, and they never flew away. I had the privilege of seeing them introduce their families. The boys shot 10, and that left 22 to go away. Next spring, I was asked: "When will the geese return?" They started to come on March 4, and, in less than two weeks, there were over 400 there. The boys shot 16 and let the rest go. See how our flock of geese had multiplied; we now had a flock of over 350. They started coming on February 20, and, when the first was whirling down, I counted 175 shots at him between my home and lake Erie. When the first was lighting in the pond, you couldn't see the end of the string of families that were coming. I don't know whether you have experienced it, but Geete '^^^ ° there is nothing more embarrassing than to have more guests than you can feed. There I was, on Good Friday of 1913, with a five-acre field full of wild geese. We couldn't begin to feed them. Some of the geese must have told their friends what was not true, and had induced them to come to a place where there was not enough to eat. We brought the feed close to the house and let the tamer ones come there to eat. I was speaking at the Rotary Club in London the other day, and one gentleman asked me how I moved the birds. This was my explanation to him : If you want to move your birds, keep moving the food accordingly, and pretty soon you can put the spoon in your mouth and the birds will alight on it. I will tell you about one family, one of a dozen interesting cases last autumn. On October 10, six geese came. By the way, we have never had over 150 in the autumn. I went out and called to these six geese, and the old gander answered. He knew me. I got twelve ears of corn, and threw one of them at him. Just as I did so the four baby geese jumped in the air, but he called them and they dropped down. Then I threw more ears of corn, and each time the same thing would happen; he would sound that low note, and every time he did so the geese would come down. By the time I had thrown the eighth ear he had convinced them that all was well, and they did not fly up any more. It was interesting to watch him trying to educate them to take the kernels of corn off" the ear, but it was strange to them. He would get a kernel off and drop it down, but it was fully fifteen minutes before he got those goslings to take the corn; when they did start, they cleaned off every kernel of the twelve ears. That told me these young goslings had never seen an ear of corn before. MOSS ON WHICH THE REINDEER LIVE, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN PEASEMARSH BIRD SANCTUARY View of portion of waterfront of Peasemarsh farm, Thornbury, Georgian bay, Ont. (From a painting Pholo, Courtesy .A/iss Edilh L. Marsh CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 89 and that they had come all the way from Hudson bay without a mouthful and had dropped down there. The old gander had led them all the way down. My mother-in-law's daughter and I coaxed this old gander and his five goslings into the coop and she held the door while I went in and clamped a tag on his leg. After I tagged him I took him to the door and threw him out — this same old gander that had been telling his boys and girls to eat the corn and to stay there and not be afraid. When I threw the gander out, did he fly to the lake? To know the Canada goose is to love him forever, and if there is any person in Ottawa who can tell me how that most intelligent, self-sacrificing bird came to be honoured by being called the Canada goose, I wish he would write me. You cannot show me any of his actions that one need be ashamed of, not one. To resume my story. This old gander went out, and Came Back when he was about tvs^o rods away he turned around and looked back. You could hear him calling for the rest of his family in that little catch pen. At this moment, Mrs. Miner would rather have been on the inside looking out than on the outside looking in, because, as I was catching Number 2, the gan- der came right back to the door and tried to break in and get at me. We are talking about the same bird that I tried to get a shot at' three fields away ; here he is now fighting to get at me to protect his young — trying to get his young out. He didn't leave that door until every one of his family had been liberated; he stood right there and fought for them. We caught him the second time, put a cuff^ on each leg and named him "Sir John Moore," and we put on the tag this verse of scripture: "No good thing will He withold from them that walk uprightly." They migrated as usual, and, on March 17 following, the boys said "Look, Dad," and there was Sir John Moore looking for more corn, with the two cuff"s on his legs. Five of his family had returned; he had taken care of them down in the southern states all winter, and brought them back. The last week in April they disappeared and my heart sank when I opened a letter from Fort George, James bay, and found four of the tags. The letter read: "The Indian says that seven geese came into their decoys, and they killed four of them. Each one had a tag on it." You know just how I would feel, although that is part of the game. To the fellow who wants to shoot, let me say this: I am not opposed" to a man shooting a bird or two, but will you not join with us in limiting your bag? Remember, the bird that falls out of the air from our deadly aim gives you and 90 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION me a little pleasure, but deprives thousands of people of pleasure and recreation in seeing it alive. Let us consider that; let us think it over. Delilah raised during the six seasons, five families. Protection Effect of ^^ ^£ eight, and two of nine, and, this year, she came home with twelve. What does game protection mean? Protect one duck, and you can quickly figure out what the total increase in six years will be. Delilah returned for the sixth time and raised these five families. I have not seen her since August. The Canada goose is the most faithful and self-sacrificing bird on earth. I kept one for four years, and I know. I kept old Jack Johnson for two years and a half, but I got rid of him. I wouldn't keep a wild goose or gander around the premises after he had lost his sweetheart ; they just keep on honking in that sad way. But the poorest principled piece of live flesh in feathers is the drake; he is nothing but a Brigham Young, that's all. Dr. Murray: I think you will agree with me that we have heard something very much out of the ordinary this morning; Mr. Miner's address has been the embodiment of red hot enthusiasm. I think it can be well understood how Mr. Miner — I beg his pardon. Jack Miner — and his "mother-in-law's daughter" live aVery happy life among the birds they love and that love them. Some exceedingly interesting things have been brought to our attention by the lecturer, perhaps not the least interesting being the different standards of morality existing between the goose and the duck. The goose, apparently, might be held up as a standard for the human race. Mr. Miner: The question has been asked me if the Bird* these geese all migrate. They do, this is only a stop- ping place for them; they are never there in the winter or in the summer. Someone enquired whether I supplied all the food? You have all noticed that the poorer a man is the more dogs he keeps. As a matter of fact, I got what we call "cold feet." A hard-working man, with no advantages, you understand — what could I do? Just at that time my particular friend, who is to speak this afternoon, Mr. John Burnham, of New York, invited me to go to Buffalo and to meet some of his friends there. I went, and they found out what I was doing. Before I left the building that night, they donated $125 to help feed the birds, and New York state that winter carried the feeding right through. A gentleman of New York state sent me enough money to feed the birds, but last spring costs got pretty heavy. Geese were lowering, feed was soaring, and I fed CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 91 them out of my own pocket over $600 worth of feed during the months of March and April. Our Ontario Government gave me $100 and I accepted it. Mr. James White: I asked Hon. Mr. McDiarmid, Minister of Public Works for Ontario, who is also in charge of the Department of Game and Fisheries, to do something in this matter, and we hope that the estimates of the Province of Ontario, when brought down, will contain an item sufficient to recompense Mr. Miner for any expen- diture that he may incur in feeding this wild game. Mr. Miner: Don't think that there are any hard feelings at all. I am glad as it is; I wouldn't undo it for $5,000. We have demon- strated what a man with no natural advantages and very limited means can do alone; what can the people of North America do for these God-given creatures with their combined forces? It is not what we can have ; it is what we will have. We want bird protection and we are going to have it. A Farm Sanctuary BY Edith L. Marsh Peasemarsh Farm, Thornhtiry, Ont. PEASEMARSH Farm has always been a favourite spox for birds, situated as it is on Georgian bay in the Blue Mountaci district, Grey county. It consists of about 300 acres of land, c )mprising upland, with orchard, good arable farm land and rough pasture, which forms cover for birds, and lower portion, comprising pasture, swamp and bush and open bush along the Georgian bay, both wooded with birch, cedar, hemlock etc., forming excellent cover for grouse and other wild life. With a spring stream on one side, which rises and empties within the property, and the Indian river on the other, ponds for fish and wild duck could be made. One important feature of the property is that it is situated in the midst of an agricultural and fruit-growing district, and the increase of insectivorous birds is of the greatest practical value. As a considerable acreage of the property is in crop and orchard some record can be kept of the benefit of the increased number of insectivorous birds. Ever since the founders of Peasemarsh acquired Birds Always ^j^g property, birds have been appreciated and have received as much protection as it was possible to give them. Clumps of trees and bushes have been left in various places, old rail fences have been preserved as far as possible, and a thicket has been left in the centre of the orchard in which have nested the black-billed cuckoo, indigo bunting and many others. Below the bank a large area of some fifty acres has been left in its original state of bush and swamp, where birch, pine, cedar and hemlock grow in profusion. It is an ideal place for grouse, and, at one time, they were very numerous. Wild ducks were also numerous in the sheltered bay at the lake front. However, as wild life became more rare it was difficult to protect the game birds and other large birds, such as the heron and bittern, and also desirable four-footed wild life. 92 CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 93 About two years ago the owners requested Ontario Given Govern- Government protection. Fortunately, thiswas granted. ment Protection „^ titt^ ri^ -a-i i Professor J. W. Crow, ot the Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, visited the property and made an official report of the advantages of Peasemarsh farm as a wild life reserve. In the autumn of 1917 government notices prohibiting shooting on the pro- perty were posted by Mr. Ely, who was much interested in its possi- bilities for game birds, especially grouse. The experience obtained as a result of protecting Observation, ^]^g birds in this sanctuary may be of interest to Work and Results , , , . , others who are endeavouring to carry on the same work in farming districts. It has been found that safety and suitable nesting places will invariably attract the birds. On some occasions nesting places have been made by the pruning of the bushes — for instance, cutting back a limb of a tree, so that the suckers grow up all round it, forms a favourite place for robins to build nests. Hollow trees and stumps left standing have kept bluebirds, flickers and other woodpeckers nesting on the property. To increase the number of such birds, and bring them nearer the house, nest-boxes have been supplied. The most successful are those made most like their natural homes, such as a section of apple- wood cut off in pruning, or of a cedar log hollowed out in the centre if possible in the form of a flask. The opening should be bored nearer the top as most birds prefer the seclusion of a deep home and the dimensions should be the same as those the birds hollow out for themselves. In an old apple tree in which the flickers nested the entrance they had made was round and measured exactly two and one-half inches in diameter. The roof should project over the opening, giving the shelter from storm which, in hollow trees, they get from the branches or the tree trunk itself, as they are sure to select holes on the under side. In hanging these boxes suggestions have been obtained from examining natural homes of birds in the hollow trees in the woods. The nest should have seclusion and protection from wind but not too much shade. It has been found that, even though a look-out be kept for bird enemies, the trees on which nest- boxes are hung should be protected so that four-footed enemies cannot ascead; they should be hung either on isolated trees or on posts. Our experience has been that, as the number of birds increases, the natural enemies of the birds also increase, and that a sanctuary should not be established unless the owners are ready to give the birds all protection possible and to preserve bushes and trees that afford them seclusion and cover. The song-birds are preyed upon 94 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION by hawks, owls, weasels and vagrant cats, while their nestlings are constantly in danger, not only from these but from crows, black- birds, red squirrels, etc., so that, unless time and attention be given to their protection, birds will rapidly decrease, as they are doing in many parts. The work done at Peasemarsh sanctuary shows the uselessness of establishing a bird sanctuary unless every effort is made to keep down vermin. One of the most difficult problems has been the keeping down of European sparrows, as grain about farm buildings attracts them from other places. Though Peasemarsh has no warden, the owners have given as much time as possible to bird protection, and have observed consider- able increase in the bird population. Now that the Government notices prohibit the gunner and his dog, it is hoped that the game birds will also increase. Dr. Howard Murray: We have another very interesting paper on the programme this morning. The gentleman who is going to speak now is Mr, John B. Burnham, President of the American Game Protective Association. We are fortunate in having Mr. Burnham with us. His presence is appreciated at this conference. He is no stranger in Canada, but is very well acquainted with the big game of our country — probably better acquainted with it than a good many of our own sportsmen — so that he is well qualified to speak with regard to its preservation. The War and Game BY John B. Burnham President, American Game Protective Association THE total death casualities of the war have been estimated by U.S. Secretary of War Baker as 9,000,000 men. The total population of the world is, I believe, something over a billion and a quarter souls, so that the world lost something like seven per cent of its population. But reproduction was going on all the time, and the world has more people to-day than when the war began. Audubon once estimated that a single flock of passenger pigeons which he saw contained more birds than the total population of the world, yet, only a few decades later, there were no passenger pigeons. The race had been annihilated. The comparison is interesting, for it illustrates the fact that the human being is the most hardy game animal of all. The greatest war of history not only failed to annihilate, but also failed to stop man's increase. Also it must be observed that, while humanity is increasing, game is decreasing. The ratio between man and the game he hunts is constantly assuming a more unfavourable percentage as regards the game. And the war itself, paradoxical though it may be. has, in many places and over large areas, accentuated the disparity. Almost everywhere except in North America the oif Game ^^^ ^°°^ shortage has caused appalling inroads on the game supply. In England, the honorary secretary of the English Game Guild tells me it will take at least twenty years to get game back to anything like normal abundance. The great increase in vermin, with the gamekeepers off to the war, is partly responsible for this. In Russia many of the finest preserves have been ruined and game nowhere exists in its former supply. In France, the poison gases have completed the work of destruction. The Mexican bandits, in their mountain retreats, have converted magnificent game sections into unproductive wastes. Carl A. Preley says that the war has taken a toll of from one-half to two-thirds of African game in the sections where there has been 95 96 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION fighting. Much of this game, he says, was wantonly slaughtered by the Boers for rifle practice. Aside from the northern portion of North America the picture is one of nearly universal gloom, but here, I am glad to say, conditions are much brighter. Both Canada and the United States have wonderful food supplies, and, what is more important still, an exalted brand of wisdom with regard to their natural resources. In both nations, the full meaning of the value of the conservation of wild life is at least recognized. This was never more clearly demonstrated than by the passage of the treaty for the protection of migratory birds which to-day unites our two countries in brotherly bond, and which was ratified by your country during the darkest hours of the war. Neither country for a moment lost its good sense. Food Value j^^ ^y^^ ^^^^ ^j ^^^ clamour for cheap food in the form of Game ^ . of marketed game, efficient protective laws were m no way relaxed. Both countries knew that, if the demand were granted, it would mean the annihilation of the game without any appreciable benefit, for the price of food would not have been lowered by any fraction of the medium of exchange. To-day, both countries have more game than when the war began — game which is of far greater value from the standpoint of making by the taking, men and soldiers, self-reliant and healthy individuals, than it can ever be for food alone. I have seen it stated that, of the first contingent which Canada sent to the war, 75 per cent were sportsmen. After the proof these men gave of splendid valour and efficiency no further argument is needed in support of game protection. If such men are bred and vitalized by any sport, then it is sacrilege to endanger that sport. Thank God, the officials who have been responsible for the preserva- tion of the game have been true to their trust. Just one word of caution here, which must be taken at its relative value to the whole subject. The tendency to-day is toward too much restrictive law. We must not let the tail wag the dog. Conservation of game is right, but the conservation of sport is righteous. Next to the advance of civilization, the chief factor Marked Hunter ^^^^ ^as reduced our game is the market hunter. Almost everywhere we have put an end to the commercialism of game, with the result that game is on the increase. The low- water mark in many places has been passed. We have the laws and the machinery for putting them into effect. From my viewpoint, we now need better enforcement of existing laws rather than additional restrictions, which are CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 97 only exasperation to good sportsmen. Where the law is not thoroughly enforced, you and I know that such restrictions penalize the best class only and that the others do as they please. Laws, as a general rule, should not be enacted too far in advance of public sentiment. Close seasons are worse than useless unless they are enforced, and the vermin kept down. I say they are worse than useless, because they do not increase the game, while they do increase lawless- ness and disregard for other laws. In the United States, antelope and mountain sheep have been exterminated under long closed seasons. In this instance, it is true there were closed seasons, but they should have been enforced. It would be much better to lose the game without law than to lose both the game and respect for law at the same time. Last Friday night, at the dinner of the Canadian not^Enforced Camp in New York, a member of the Legislature of a Canadian province told how generally game laws were violated in his province. North of this city, in time past, I have seen beaver skins openly trafficked in, while the beaver were nominally protected by a close season. There were plenty of beaver and the people could not see the necessity for protecting thexn. At Fort Yukon, Alaska, they fed dogs on white flour last winter, with moose in sight every day, but, on the headwaters of the White river, men were taking dogs to board and feeding them on mountain sheep. All you gentle- men, whether from Canada or the United States, could multiply such instances. We know that we do not enforce our laws properly anywhere; that is nothing to be surprised at. All of us believe in the decalogue of the ten commandments and we would not repeal them, if we could; yet they are violated every day. All we can do is to obtain a better brand of enforcement. We can go ahead and stop a great deal of this violation; meanwhile, do not let your laws run ahead of public sentiment. Do not spring your law, no matter how good, until you are pre- pared to put teeth in it. Better err on the side of too great liberality than err in the other way. Educate the public to see the necessity for protective legislation. The great mass of testimony proves that paper laws play into the hands of the Huns of sport. Let us, by all means, have fewer restrictions and better law enforcement. Effect of ^^ ^^^ United States, we feel that the situation as Migratory Bird regards the future of the wild fowl supply for the ^^^ ^ present and future is now amply safeguarded by the 63267—7 98 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Though of not nearly so great import- ance as our treaty with Canada, we hope within a reasonable time to secure similar relations with Mexico. The wild fowl supply has certainly increased tremendously in the last few years, and I say this, despite the fact that, on our side of the line, the shooting season just past was, in many parts of our country, the poorest we have had in forty years. This was due, of course, to the unusual mildness of the weather. It indicates that, under normal conditions, we will have a very fine season next year. In general, the States are looking much more closely than ever before to maintaining their supplies of localized game. A business-like feature towards this end which is receiving much attention with us is the game census. In many states, the new hunting licenses require, in addition to the usual facts, a report of all game and fur-bearing animals and vermin taken during the previous year. The killing of vermin is encouraged. This is being supplemented by estimates of the game animals and game birds at large in the covers. It is a business proposition, this inventorying of resources, and it furnishes a business basis for new regulations. I look to see the system greatly perfected in the United States and Canada during the next few years. Then, too, we are doing a tremendous work in the United States in propagating game, chiefly deer and pheasants, to stock depleted sections. The States, in the aggregate, are spending a good many hundreds of thousands of dollars in this way for the benefit of the sportsmen. Looking to the day when wild fur-bearing animals will be less numerous than at present, the United States Government, under the direction of Dr. Nelson's department, has established an experimental fur farm in Northern New York. Migratory Birds Convention Dr. Murray: The first subject for discussion is the Migratory Birds Treaty, of which so much is expected in the way of protection of our birds. Perhaps Dr. Hewitt will open the discussion. Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt: I was hoping that Mr. by Provirfces Harkin would be sufficiently recovered from his ill- ness to open this discussion on the Migratory Birds Convention, because now I feel that the matter is out of my hands. The enforcement of the Migratory Birds Convention Act has been placed under Mr. Harkin's direction, and will be administered by Mr. Harkin's branch. The regulations under that Act have been passed and are now in effect. As I said in my introductory remarks yesterday, the intention of the Dominion Government has been largely to rely on the enforcement of the Act or of the provisions of th2 Treaty, by provinces, where they are able to enforce them. We felt that, as the jurisdiction in this matter had been left almost entirely to the Provincial Governments, and that, as many of them had good organizations, it would be a mistake on our part to dupli- cate these organizations, if we could arrange a co-operative scheme to avoid so doing. For that reason we discussed the matter with all the Provincial Governments, and most of them, as a restllt of such discussions, have amended their provincial game laws to agree with the provisions of the Treaty. Where these amendments have not been made, we have the assurance of the Governments that they will be made. In some cases the Provincial Governments lack full and effective warden services; in such cases it is hoped that these warden services will be implemented by the appointment of officers under the Dominion regulations. Of course, in any province which fails to carry out the arrangement that has been suggested, the Dominion Government will be entirely responsible for the enforce- ment of the regulations. Thus we hope to have the whole system working very smoothly, with no conflict of jurisdiction or ideas. One of the respects in which we felt that this Con- of^PrcTvin^ces ference would serve a useful purpose was that it would give all the provincial delegates an oppor- tunity of discussing among themselves and with us the Migratory Birds Convention Act. While the convention itself may be discussed, we can hardly expect to do much in the way of amendment at present, 63267—7^ 100 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION though there are certain points which experience has taught us it would have been preferable to have a little different from what they are now. These points can be brought out; but it is chiefly with regard to methods of administration and co-operation that the discussion should take place. As I have said, we have already discussed the convention in- dividually with the different governments; we now think that a general discussion on the part of the representatives of the govern- ments among themselves and with us would lead to a much better enforcement of the regulations, to a better understanding of their significance, and, in general, to a better carrying out of the pro- visions of the treaty, which, of course, is what we all have in mind. As I pointed out yesterday, this treaty, to us, is not a scrap of paper; we regard it as being one of the most important enactments, if not the most important, that has been placed on our statute books for the conservation of wild life. We welcome discussion on the part of the various members, officials, and delegates from the provincial governments or from other organizations — indeed, from anyone. Possibly, Dr. Baker, who has a very great interest in the Migratory Birds Treaty, will open the discussion. Dr. a. R. Baker: When this Migratory Birds Treaty was first brought to the attention of the sportsmen of British Columbia, there was great opposition to it — as a matter of fact, I took the platform in opposition to it — and petitions against it were circulated all through the province. Between 4,000 and 5,000 signatures were presented to Hon. Mr. Bowser, who was then Attorney General of British Columbia, and I believe that he took the matter up at Ottawa. We made quite a fight against this treaty; the reason was that it had never been properly presented to us, and the sporting men of British Columbia felt that they should administer their own affairs relative to the game of the country. B 'f h C I mb' ^ ^"^ very glad to say, however, that there has been Strongly Favours an entire change of heart in British Columbia, relative Treaty ^^ ^^^ Migratory Birds Treaty. Last July, the Vancouver Angling and Game Society, of Van- couver — -which is the representative sporting men's association of British Columbia — -passed very strong resolutions condemning this treaty, especially with regard to the three and one-half months' season for migratory birds. They sent a representation to the Government at Victoria asking them to instruct the Conservation Board not to pay any attention to the regulations that were pro- mulgated. At the first meeting of the Conservation Board, held in CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 101 Victoria on July 29, \vc had the sportsmen there, and we simply said to them: " Now, we believe this is a good thing for British Co- lumbia. There may be some things in respect to which we cannot see eye to eye with the people at Ottawa, but we believe that, on the whole, it is a good thing for the conservation of migratory birds of our province, and we are going to force you to live up to it." Two nights before I left Vancouver, the Vancouver Angling and Game Association held the largest meeting in its history in the Hotel V^ancouver. I will read you the resolution that was passed at that meeting, showing that the sportsmen of British Columbia, during this last winter, have realized that the adoption of this treaty was to their benefit and to the benefit of all the sportsmen of the province. I quote the following letter from the Association to which I have referred : February 10, 1919 Dr. a. R. Baker, Vancouver, B.C. Dear Sir, — At the Annual Meeting of the Vancouver Angling and Game Association, held on the 4th instant, you were appointed to represent the Association at the National Conference on the Conservation of Game, which is to be held at Ottawa on the 18th and 19th instants, and this letter will authorize you to express the views of our Association on the various subjects which may be dis- cussed, and more particularly on the question of the Migratory Birds Treaty. The following was the resolution dealing with this matter, which was carried unanimously: "That this Association appoint Dr. Baker to represent them at the forthcoming Conference at Ottawa, and we are unani- mously of the opinion that the duration of the period for shoot- ing migratory game birds in British Columbia should be left entirely in the hands of the Provincial Game Conservation Board, but that, in the event of the open season being 3^ months in each year, the opening date should be fixed by the Provincial Conservation Board." The Association also went on record as being in favour of a three anfl a half months' season for British Columbia, provided that the time of opening the same be fixed by the Provincial Conservation Board. C. Less than a year ago, this same association condemned the Migrat- ory Birds Convention Act, and now they come forward with a resolu- tion endorsing the open season of three and one-half months. You 102 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION can see, therefore, that there has been a wonderful change of heart amongst the sportsmen of the coast. The next important representative body of sportsmen in British Columbia is the Vancouver Gun Club, Limited. About a year ago they held a meeting in Vancouver, at which they very strongly condemned the action of the Dominion Government in forcing upon the province this time limit for migratory birds. At their annual meeting in February, the following resolution was passed: " That Dr. A. R. Baker, Chairman of the Game Conservation Board of British Columbia, act as their representative at the Game Convention to be held at Ottawa on February 18, 1919, and that this meeting put itself on record that it is unanimously in favour of the wild fowl shooting being limited to a period of three and one-half months, as provided by the Migratory Birds Convention Act." It will be seen from these resolutions that the sportsmen of that part of the country have come to realize that the cutting down of the season is the best thing that could have happened to British Columbia. Of course, they have been accustomed to having five or six months' shooting in the year. I am very gratified, indeed, to know that the sportsmen have so readily come into line to help conserve the game of the country. Dr. Hewitt: Dr. Baker did not say that the position in British Columbia, as represented by those very strong condemnatory resolu- tions which were sent to the Dominion Government about the treaty, was largely due to the fact that the people had been misinformed as to the provisions of the treaty. We felt confident that, when the provisions of the treaty had been properly explained to them, they would fall in line, because the sportsmen of British Columbia are among the best-thinking sportsmen of the Dominion. Our anticipa- tions proved to be correct, as is shown by the resolutions which Dr. Baker has read. The Federal departments are indebted to Dr. Baker for the strong stand that he has taken in these matters and for the assistance he has rendered in placing the treaty in its proper light before the sportsmen of British Columbia. Mr. Benjamin Lawton: Not much greater praise irWUbcrta°° '"^ ^^" ^^ given to this treaty than has been given by Dr. Baker. I may say, however, that, for some twelve years, spring shooting in Alberta has been pro- hibited by law, with the exception that the shooting of wild geese has been allowed. We had an element which insisted that they should be permitted to shoot wild geese in the spring of the year, CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 103 and the passing of this treaty at once enabled us to enact legislation prohibiting the spring shooting of wild geese. I have heard of no opposition from any quarter to the Migratory Birds Treaty, nor did I hear any even when it was first mentioned as a possibility. It is the greatest move toward game protection that has ever been made on the North American continent. There arc one or two things in connection with the Federal law ratifying the treaty on which we are not quite clear, but undoubtedly they will be cleared up to day. One of these points is the position in which provincial officers will be placed in regard to the enforcement of the law. Before this conference disperses, I think that those who are responsible for putting this treaty through, and working it up to the stage where it was acceptable to all the provinces and to the great majority of the states of the union, should be commended on their work. Mr. F. Bradshaw: I am pleased to say that the Destruction game laws of Saskatchewan, at the time this ques- by Birds in . /- , , • , Alberta tion was first brought to our notice, were so nearly in accord with the provisions of the treaty that it was necessary to ainend them only in two respects. One was with respect to protecting the cranes; the other with respect to protecting the swans. In Saskatchewan, the cranes are found probably in the greatest numbers, and, in certain districts, chiefly between Last Moun- tain lake and the Quill lakes, they are very abundant during the harvest season and do an immense amount of damage to the crops. Some people are apt to pooh-pooh the idea that wild game do damage, but I have seen grain fields in these vicinities that were completely threshed out by the cranes and ducks. Naturally, the farmers have a grievance in that respect, which we have to meet; and there is a provision in our Act for the granting of permits to kill these birds where destruction of this kind is taking place. But, as I understand it, the treaty is the supreme law, and it is necessary for us to appeal to the Minister of the Interior for permits to relieve the situation. The farmers at that particular season are very busy, and have no time to write to Ottawa and wait till an investigation has been made and a permit forwarded, and so on; they want immediate action, and we must find some means of overcoming that difficulty. Aside from those two points, we have found the treaty to work out to the satisfac- tion of the sportsmen of our province, and I think it is the best legisla- tion that has ever been enacted in the cause of game conservation. Dr. George Bryce: I have been away from Manitoba for four months, but, having been a member of the committee that dealt with 104 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION this question, I have always taken great interest in it. Our Attorney General has never been able to come down here ; we have tried to get him several times. In this enactment we have a most important law affecting the passage of game from north to south. In the Red River district and from lake Winnipeg northward, large numbers of migrat- ory birds pass up and down. As far as I know, the Government is trying to carry out the law thoroughly. A great many prosecutions have been made for infraction of the law; the magistrates throughout the province are instructed to carry it out strictly. It is one of the greatest sights in the world to see the birds returning in the spring, darkening the whole sky in their passage from Louisiana away up to the north over lake Winnipeg, and to see the air full of ducks and geese in the autumn as they proceed towards the south to find their winter resting place. No part of the country needs this law more, and to those of us who have had something to do with it, it is grati- fying to see the results that it is bringing about. Mr. Griddle (Manitoba) : I do not think I can add Snow Geese very much to what has been said. Manitoba has practically had on her books for some years the law that we are discussing, except that we did not protect the geese and cranes. Mr. Bradshaw brought up an interesting point with regard to the destruction of crops. We have had that complaint in Manitoba, especially in some parts of the north, and in some districts frequented by the snow goose. The snow geese sometimes come in very great numbers, descend on the crops just as they are appearing above the ground, and literally tear up everything. That is a great objection, although, fortunately, the depredations are limited. Whether or not it would be necessary to compensate the farmers for this damage in local spots, I do not know. Otherwise the Act worked out splendidly; I never heard a single word of objection to its enforcement. Mr. James White: Does that damage ever occur when the weather conditions are not such as to drive the geese down to the ground? Mr. Griddle: The snow goose is a late migrant; it does not come until quite late in May, when there is an abundance of food ; but the sprouting grain is probably more tempting to it than any other food. As I say, the damage is only local, and does not occur every year. Ontario Passes ^^- ^- ^- R^PSEY: I have very little to say other Uniform than that Ontario is heartily in accord with the treaty egis ation ^^^ ^y^^^ ^j^^ province will do all in its power to en- force the law through its regular officers. Last year we passed an VIRGINIA DEER AT BANFF, ALTA., FAIRHOLME RANGE IN BACKGROUND Photo, Courtesy Mr. Dan MrCoiran SHEEP ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY, NEAR BANFF, ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Mr. Dan McCuuan • * • ''re CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 105 Act designed to cover the provisions of the treaty, and I understand that some minor changes are to be made to bring it more fully in accord with the provisions of the convention. Dr. Hewitt: We are glad to have with us Mr. Chambers and Mr. Bellisle, of the Department of Colonization, Mines, and Fisheries of Quebec. We are sorry that Hon. Mr. Mercier is not here, because he and his department played a prominent part in the early days of the negotiations to bring about this treaty. In fact, I think the province of Quebec made one of the first official moves — in a sense, it was not official, but it was officially inspired — in the direction of securing this treaty. For that reason we should very much like to have a few words from Mr. Chambers and Mr. Bellisle. Mr. E. T. D. Chambers: The difficulty which pre- Conflicting sented itself in the province of Quebec was the old Authority . . ... one which, in every part of the continent, has existed for many years — the misunderstandings between central and state powers, federal and provincial parliaments. There is no doubt that central powers are apt to encroach on other powers. In our province we have an illustration of that in the fact that the municipalities are complaining that the province is taking away their revenue. In many cases the provinces are jealous of their own powers, but, whether with or without reason, they have been more or less jealous of the Federal powers. I felt, therefore, that there might be some little difficulty in getting the necessary consent of the province of Quebec for the enactment of Federal legislation in this matter. But the difficulty was overcome for us through the fact that the legislation proposed under the treaty required us to make scarcely any amend- ment of our existing laws. I remember the time when spring shooting of ducks was permitted in our province; happily that was done away with years before the passing of this treaty, when Hon. Mr. Parent was at the head of the Department of Fish and Game. The fact that very few amendments were necessary made the securing of the consent of the province a comparatively easy matter. One or two minor details in the Act may yet require to be amended. There is just a little difficulty with regard to the trans- lation of the names of certain birds. We are anxious that that be put right at the earliest opportunity; then we shall be in full accord with the Act as it now stands. Mr. J. A. Bellisle (Inspector General of Fisheries, Quebec): I have really nothing to add to what Mr. Chambers has said as to the enforcement of the law. We have about 200 guardians in the province and are doing our best to enforce the law, not only with 106 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION respect to migratory birds, but also in respect to big game and fur- bearing animals. We are doing our best to preserve the wild life of our province. Protection of ^^- ^- ^' S^^'fTH (Minister of Lands and Mines, Game Birds in New Brunswick) : I quite agree with all that has been New Brunswick ^^j^ ^j^j^ ^.^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ legislation ratifying the treaty for the protection of migratory birds. Unquestionably, we wish to conserve our wild fowl and other migratory birds and to protect them on their way to the nesting grounds. The Treaty Act, as passed, was exactly the same as the law which we had in New Brunswick pertaining to the migratory water- fowl, except that there was a saving clause for the poor fisherm3n who live along our coast. This was in order that they, like the Indians, might shoot some of these birds in their northern flight for their own use. When we were notified, in 1917, that this Act had passed Par- liament, I thought that the best thing we could do was to eliminate from our game laws the provision to which I have just referred. I thought that would be proper. I will not say that we will not do it at some future time; personally, I consider it the proper thing. But there is this that we have to consider in New Brunswick; we have very little money at our disposal; we are like the business man who can hardly afford to touch anything that he cannot get some little return from. Protecting those birds would cost the pro- vince a good many thousands of dollars for wardens. On the face of it, it might appear that, under our forest service, the same wardens could protect those birds in their flight. That is not so; we have no wardens in the coastal area, as the Dominion Govern- ment protects and regulates the fish along the coast. I do not want to undertake anything that I cannot carry through. Fishermen ^^^ Spring shooting in our province does not amount Depend upon to very much. The settlers take strong exception Game for Meat ^^ ^^-^^ ^^^^ because all along our north shore we have fishermen who are not wealthy, who depend upon fishing, with a little bit of farming, for a living These men do not see meat every day, as many other people do; they do not see meat oftener than once a month, perhaps, and they have had the privilege under our Act of shooting birds which some people do not consider edible. 1 refer to the sheldrake or merganser and the coot. I am sorry that these birds were not left out of the treaty. A bounty is paid on the sheldrake in connection with the leasing of our salmon rivers, because they are the greatest known destroyers of young salmon and trout. Mr. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 107 Mowatt, superintendent of the Restigouche river, told me last year that he had ki'led a duck which contained no less then eighteen parr, or young salmon — and they have put a bounty on these birds. They nest up the rivers and bring forth large flocks, and the lessees of our rivers for fishing rights are put to expense in killing them off. 1 am sorry, therefore, that the sheldrake and the coot were included with the other birds in this treaty. I suppose that, in the western provinces, the sheldrake is not found in the areas where agriculture is carried on. Mr. a. Knight (Chief Game Commissioner, Nova Scotia) : Not very many changes were necessary in our law in order to make it conform to the Migratory Birds Treaty. We have protected our shore birds, the black duck, for instance; for many years, we have had a close season for the wood duck and the eider duck. Non-migrating ^^^ position with regard to svild geese and sea ducks Geese in is a peculiar one, somewhat similar to that of New ova CO la Brunswick. Our fishermen have been in the habit of shooting these sea ducks as they pass the islands along the coast, and I am afraid it would be difficult to enforce the law with regard to these particular birds unless we had a number of wardens there. Perhaps we are the only part of Canada where the wild geese winter — I refer to the south shore of Nova Scotia, where there is a district frequented by the wild geese in the winter season. As I said yesterday, these v\-ild geese are larger than those which come from the south and different from them, perhaps, in other respects. There was a certain amount of opposition to the regulations passed by the Government last year, because special provision was not made for that section of the country, as could have been done without violating the treaty. Some people took the ground that, as these birds never visit?d the United States, the treaty should not cover them — the United States was not interested in them. It was pointed out to them that we are bound by the definition of migratory birds as given in the treaty, and that is certainly wide enough to cover these wild geese. However, when the question came up of making our law conform to the treaty, not many changes were necessary, but the close of the session of the Provincial Legislature was near at hand, and there was so much difference of opinion on some points, particularly with regard to the season for wild geese and sea ducks, that the matter was left over. I took the responsibility of advising the committee that, if they could not make the provincial conform exactly with the Dominion regulations regarding these particular birds, they should omit them from our Act. I urged that no season be enacted that will conflict 108 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION with the treaty or with the Federal regulations. That was done, and I hope that the matter will be completely adjusted this year. We have never found it necessary to protect the wild geese that winter on our south shore. They have not been decreasing; they are pretty well able to take care of themselves. We have a small sanctu- ary for them there, covering part of their feeding ground ; that is the only measure of protection we have ever found it necessary to extend to the wild goose. As to the regulations regarding these birds, a special season could be specially established for that section only, where the geese winter, giving the people the winter open season up to the 10th March instead of the autumn open season. That would be quite in line with the provisions of the treaty. Dr. Murray: Perhaps Mr. Nelson would give us some informa- tion as to how the difficulties in the United States have been met. Mr. E. W. Nelson (Chief, Bureau of Biological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture) : One of the pleasures I antici- pated at this meeting was to have the opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the helpful courtesy which I have experienced in my dealings with the provincial game wardens of Canada. As a result it has been a pleasure to do business with the gentlemen connected with the game-protection service throughout Canada. The Biological Survey, as you all know, is entrusted International with the enforcement of the Federal game laws. In Co-operation ... . . . . addition, it has a scientific stafif which is engaged in collecting specimens of game and other birds and animals for the purpose of studying and monographing the little-known groups. In many instances it has been necessary to apply for special privileges to secure specimens of various game birds and animals in different parts of Canada, and in this we have been most generously treated. We have also had the privilege of securing from Alberta a considerable number of antelope for stocking some of our Federal game preserves. I am glad of this opportunity to put on record my high appreciation of the courtesies the Biological Survey has received in all such matters. In handling the Migratory Bird Treaty Act we have Damage to found that Section 7 of the Treaty, which grants Agriculture • r , , • i r , • i j • permits tor the destruction or control ot birds doing damage to agricultural crops or other interests, is one of the most important sections of the treaty. This was illustrated in the autumn of 1918, when the ducks in large numbers came down from the north and entered the rice fields of California. Rice growing is becoming a large industry there and loud complaints were made oi the damage by these waterfowl. The rice growers estimated that in the year CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 109 1917 wild fowl did damage amounting to about $1,000,000. This was undoubtedly an exaggeration, but there is no question that serious damage was done. A part of the outcry against the birds was due to the desire of sportsmen, market hunters, and other to break down the Migrator^' Bird law. In August and September last newspapers in California inaugurated a vicious campaign against the Migratory Bird law. This outcry was taken up by the papers of San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, attacking the Migratory Bird law and migratory birds, stating that these birds were a pest and should be exterminated. As the Game Commission of California was protecting the birds it was also attacked. Under the terms of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Rice Fields ^|^g Biological Survey sent one of its most competent Threshed out • , • \- , , , , • , experts mto the nee nelds, where he spent six weeks studying the habits of the birds, and then reported the results to Washington, with certain recommendations. As a result, the Secre- tary of Agriculture, under the terms of the treaty, issued a permit to the rice growers in certain counties to shoot these birds in the rice fields. The permit specified that the birds should be shot by the owners of the rice fields, members of their families, or bona fide em- ployees. Birds so shot could not be sold, but could be used by the men who shot them or contributed to hospitals or other public insti- tutions. The issuance of that permit had an extraordinary effect. It pricked the bubble of the newspaper campaign, which stopped immediately. One prominent rice grower, who had been particularly bitter in his attacks on the protection of wild fowl, wrote the Biological Survey expressing his appreciation of the consideration which had been shown the rice growers and for the satisfactory way in which the difficulty had been solved. Since then we have not had a word of complaint, and the result of the issuance of the permit was that very few birds were killed in protecting the rice fields. This is an excellent example of the manner in which local dissatisfaction with the game law may be satisfactorily handled with but slight effect on the wild fowl, while at the same time gaining friends for the law. Formerly, during their fall migration, the bobolinks Bobohnks ^[^ enormous damage to the rice fields in the Carolinas. Destructive . • • i t- i i For many years nee growing in those States had practically ceased, but during the last two years the industry has been renewed and the bobolinks have returned to their old habits. Com- plaints concerning this came to us last fall and it was found after care- ful investigation that the bobolinks were actually doing so much damage that if their activities were not checked they would seriously 110 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION handicap, or possibly prevent, successful rice growing. Steps were at once taken to have a permit issued which would permit the bobo- links to be killed in order to reduce their numbers to a point which would restrict their destructiveness. On the few thousand acres of rice grown there during the last few years our experts reported a loss of about $150,000 annually. These rice birds proved to be most exasperating pests. If a flock of them in the rice was shot into it would simply rise and drop back again into the rice fields only a short distance away. The birds were so persistent that repeated shots in the flock would not drive them from the fields. As a consequence, in this case, it became necessary to make the permit broad enough to permit their being killed not only in the fields but elsewhere during their autumn migration. We have had complaints of the destructiveness of fish ducks, or mergansers, to fish, particularly in the trout streams of Michigan. We are now in correspondence with the Game Commissioner of Michigan and plan to have competent ornithological experts study the habits of these birds on the ground to ascertain the facts. Wherever these birds are doing really serious injury to the fish supply it will be necessary to withdraw protection from them. I do not believe that we are justified in protecting a bird where it is so destructive that it becomes a public nuisance. W^e have found that treating cases of this kind in a fair and open-minded way gains friends for the general protection of birds. Another question has arisen in connection with the Migratory administration of the migratory bird law, a part of which is that of handling species which breed both in the United States and in Canada. The Canada goose, which winters in Nova Scotia, and the mourning dove of the United States are good illustrations of these. The mourning dove breeds in many States and in some of the Southern States they are present throughout the year. At the same time large numbers of these birds pass the summer in Canada. In order to efTectively administer the law it is necessary to consider the species as a whole migratory in character, no matter what might be the distribution of any individual bird. This method of handling the question has been generally accepted and appears to be the only practicable way. Organization for ^^^ organization in the Biological Survey for admin- Enforcing istering the present Migratory Bird Treaty Act is ^^^ ^ practically the same as that under the old migrator^' bird law before the treaty. For the administration of that law we had an appropriation of $50,000 a year, a comparatively insignificant C O N P^ E R E N C E ON WILD LIFE 111 sum to provide for enforcing the law over the entire United States. After the Treaty Act was passed by Congress the $50,000 appropria- tion was renewed. At the same time we have had an appropriation of $22,000 to enforce the Lacey Act, prohibiting the illegal interstate shipment of game — that is, the shipment of game that has been illegally killed or illegally transported in interstate commerce. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act took over a part of the activities of the Lacey Act, inasmuch as it also deals with interstate and international shipment of migratory game birds. For the purposes of more effective administration the Lacey Act appropriation has been transferred to be administered with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, thus practically giving us $72,000, most of which is available for this work. The Secretary'- of Agriculture has recommended to Congress that the appropriation for enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act be in- creased by $125,000 for the fiscal year 1920. The House of Repre- sentatives has cut this down to $75,000, and it is now before the Senate. Senator McLean, whose work in connection with the passage of the original migratory bird law and in securing the Migra- tory Bird Treaty Act is so well known, is looking after this item. This would give us $147,000 for the coming year. While the sum is small for the work which is called for, yet it will enable us to accom.- plish much good, and we shall hope for considerable additions in future years. The organization in the Biological Survey for the administration of the migratory bird law consists of a Chief United States Game Warden, working directly under the Chief of the Bureau in Washington, with United States Game Wardens in charge of field operations in the districts, which are made up of one or more States. We hope eventu- ally to have at least one game warden for each State, and, in the larger and more important States, two or more. These wardens re- ceive salaries of from SI, 500 to $1,800 a year, with travelling expenses when away from headquarters. In addition, in each of the States we make Deputy United States Game Wardens of a certain number of the deputy State game wardens, paying them $1 a month to give them official standing, and $3.50 per day and expenses when actually employed in the work. These men are not to receive a total salary exceeding $300 a year. In this manner we have direct co-operation between the State game wardens and the Federal service. In addi- tion, a certain number of men who are interested in game conservation and desire to do volunteer service may be appointed at a nominal salary of from $1 a month to SI a year to give them official standing. By this method we expect to cover the States much more thoroughly 112 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION than would be possible with limited funds under any other plan. With the exception of the Deputy United States Wardens who receive not to exceed $300 a year, our wardens are under the civil service and are appointed through competitive examination. The men who show exceptional ability as deputy wardens will be in position to take examinations to fill vacancies and be appointed on the full-pay service. I am pleased to say that we have the most hearty co-operation of the game commissioners of practically all of the States, and it is generally acknowledged that the Federal and State control of game will unquestionably work out much more satisfactorily than any other system which has hitherto been in existence. There will be a co-operation in control and action that has hitherto been impossible and which naturally will result in increasing and conserving the supply of game. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service and the Biological Survey are now trying to work out a system of joint control over large game in the national forests. The idea is to have the game in the national forests administered through joint control by the State game commis- sions, the Forest Service, and the Biological Survey. The forest rangers in many cases now act as deputy State game wardens. They will be available to give an effective warden service for policing the national forests. It is planned that the amount of game to be killed in any forest during the coming hunting season will be decided by a joint agreement between representatives of the State game com- mission, of the Forest Service, and of the Biological Survey, after an investigation concerning the abundance and condition of the game in each area. The number of hunting licenses to be issued will then be issued for the number of game animals of each kind it has been decided may be killed within the area without detriment to the future of the game supply. The fees for hunting licenses will continue to go to the States. The States will thus secure the co-operation of the Government in helping build up their game supply without cost to them, while they will receive all of the benefits derived from the game in the way of license money and other advantages. One of the main objects of this plan will be to secure control over the number of game animals to be killed in each forest to prevent overkilling. Examples of the situation which it is hoped the plan Licenses to take mentioned above may remedy are shown in the country south of the Yellowstone park. In some areas there the elk are plentiful; in others they have been killed off until they have become very scarce. By a survey each year before the hunting season opens by representatives of the State and the CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 113 Government, the number of elk that should be killed and the number of licenses that should be issued for the purpose in each forest or in certain specified parts of a forest can be agreed upon and the licenses issued in limited numbers and effective in specified areas. Fifty licenses may be issued for a certain watershed, and perhaps five hundred for another. In places where the game has become reduced so to endanger its future no licenses should be issued until the game has had opportunity to renew its numbers. Through this or a closely similar system I believe that the game can be increased and brought back to a satisfactory level in all suitable country. The result would be somewhat similar to that which obtains on a well-managed cattle ranch. The owner of such a ranch does not go on killing his cattle when for any reason the stock is seriously reduced, but he gives them a chance to come back, and this is what we hope to do by this joint control. In the State Legislature of Washington a bill to carry out this plan was introduced during the present session, but whether it will become law or not at this session is not known. This idea is a new one and will require considerable educational work until it is understood and its effect appreciated by the States, which will be the principal gainers through its operation. Dr. Hewitt: During the discussion this morning some one brought up the question of permits, which was one of the matters, apparently, that needed further discussion. I refer to permits under the Migratory Birds Convention Act for the taking of birds for scientific purposes and for the killing of birds under article VII of the treaty, which are injurious to agriculture or other interests. Last autumn, I discussed this matter with various Issue°Licenses game officials in the West, with a view to coming to some general understanding as to the procedure in such cases. When I returned to Ottawa this matter was reported to our Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection, and I will read you a minute from our proceedings showing the procedure that the Advisory Board suggested and which is being followed : " The Secretary reported the results of his conference with the provincial game officers of the western provinces respecting the policy to be adopted in the issuing of permits under sections 8 and 11 of the regulations. So far as scientific permits are concerned, the provincial departments are agreeable to our proposal that such permits shall be signed at Ottawa first, and then sent to the proper provincial officer for his counter-signature, such provincial officer reserving the right to cancel a permit if he considers it desirable." 63267—8 114 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION That means, of course, that the right of issuing or cancelling is really vested in the provincial officer, finally. "... the permit is then to be forwarded to the applicant by the provincial officer." Which means that the provincial officer is to be kept in touch with the applicant for the permit. " The issuing of permits for the killing of unprotected birds, when injurious to agricultural or other interests, was discussed in the light of the views expressed by the provincial departments, which feel that, in view of the necessity for immediate action in such cases, and of the length of time required in communicating with Ottawa, it was desirable that such permits should be issued by the Provincial officers, subject to subsequent ratification by the Dominion officers. As applications for these permits have not been numerous in the past, it was decided that the best policy would be that emergency cases should be dealt with immediately by the Provincial officers after a thorough investigation and that such permits should be forwarded to Ottawa for ratification with a report covering the particular case." Scientific Permits ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ "^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ policy to adopt; it Issued by was the policy to which all the provincial officers had "^' agreed in discussion with me. It gives equal rights both to the Dominion and to the provincial officers and still keeps to the letter of the law. You will see that scientific permits shall be signed first in Ottawa and ratified by the province, and that emergency permits, under Article VII, for birds destructive to agricul- tural and other interests, shall be issued by the Provincial Govern- ments and ratified by the Dominion Government subsequently. We felt that that was perfectly permissible, in view of the fact that the number of applications for such permits was very small. Mr. Lawton tells me that, in Alberta, he has had only one application in twelve years for a permit under Article VII of the treaty for the killing of birds injurious to agricultural interests. In Saskatchewan, the only permits asked for were in one or two cases for the killing of sand-hill cranes; also a case where ducks were injuring wheat- fields close to waters. Mr. Lawton: I suggest that you deal with the matter of pro- vincial legislation under this treaty from the constitutional aspect — as to what standing the provincial law would have under this treaty as against the Federal. Dominion ^^ Hewitt : The Dominion is responsible for carry- Responsible for ing out the legislation putting the treaty into effect; ^^^ ^ in that respect the Federal power is supreme to any provincial power. In so far as the actual carrying out of the legisla- CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 115 tion is concerned, we wish to do that co-opcrativcly, and we felt that the best method of securing such co-operation would be for the Provincial Governments to pass concurrent legislation, putting into effect the provisions of the treaty, and to administer such enactment as part of their provincial game law, so that there should be no conflict of jurisdiction In such a case, the two laws would be indentical; we have other legislation of the same kind. The province enforces it where it is able; where it is not completely able its efforts are supplemented by Federal action. Mr. Lawton: The point I was coming at was this: The provin cial legislation being exactly the same as the Federal legislation, if a charge were preferred under the Provincial Act and a conviction secured would it not be possible to upset that conviction on an appeal? Dr. Hewitt: I am not a law officer. If you raise that point when Hon. Mr. Daniels, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, comes in, I think he will be able to settle it. Mr. Williamson: If officers of the Provincial Government took action in a case of violation of the Migratory Birds Act, and went to the expense and trouble of prosecuting, and the fine went to the credit of the province, would that not indicate that the province could take action under the Migratory Birds Act without any provincial legislation? Mr. James White: I do not think that quite meets the point raised by Mr. Lawton ; the point at issue is simply whether provincial legislation under such circumstances would be declared ultra vires. There is no question that provincial legislation of that nature is wholly within their province as determined by the British North America Act; any conviction had under such provincial legislation would, unquestionably, be intra vires. Mr. Lawton: Under the Alberta Act we make provision for the issuing of permits for the killing of birds for scientific purposes. Usually, such permits are asked for to cover not only the migratory birds, but the non-migratory birds as well. That would necessitate, under the present arrangement, the issuing of a provincial permit for non -migratory birds and a Dominion permit, endorsed by the provin- cial authorities, for the migratory birds. Dr. Hewitt: We discussed that matter at the meeting of the Advisory Board, and the permits are framed to deal with such a situation. Mr. Lloyd, who is in immediate charge of this legislation under Mr. Harkin, can explain that to you. Mr. Lloyd: The permits issued for scientific purposes on ths recommendation of the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection are worded exactly to cover the clauses in the treaty: " Migratory 63267—81 116 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION insectivorous, migratory game and migratory non-game birds and their nests or eggs." Dr. Hewitt: We also put in a specific clause in regard to that matter. Mr. Lloyd: For the final form on that I have not yet received the approval of the Wild Life Board. As to the birds not covered by the treaty, I would think that they would have to be covered by special provincial permit, because they are certainly not covered by the other permit. Dr. Hewitt: It was our intention that the permit should distinctly state that it covered only migratory birds. For other birds a special provincial permit would be required. Mr. R. E. Hose (Chief Clerk, Provincial Game Conservation Board, British Columbia): I understand that, if a permit is requested to collect for scientific purposes, it requires to be supported by two well-known ornithologists. It does not necessarily provide that these ornithologists shall be resident in the province in which the permit is to be made use of. For instance, two ornithologists might attest to a man from this province who wished to collect in British Columbia, or a man might come in to collect in British Columbia on the recom- mendation of two ornithologists who had never been in the province. Dr. Hewitt: That is not so much a recommendation of the man's ability to collect locally as a recommendation of his qualifica- tions as an ornithologist. Mr. Hose: A man writing from Queen Charlotte islands wishes to keep wild geese in captivity. He has to apply to Ottawa to get the endorsation of two well-known ornithologists, which it is practic- ally impossible for him to obtain in British Columbia. Dr. Hewitt: Would that not be a propagation permit? Mr. Lloyd: It might be well to tell that applicant that the Canada goose propagated with the domestic goose produces a sterile progeny. Mr. Hose: But, if he does not receive an answer, he thinks that the administration of the law in British Columbia is poor. Co-operation ^^- ^AKER: The position I take is this: If a person in Issuing applies to the Wild Life Board, at Ottawa, for a permit in respect of migratory birds in British Colum- bia, let the Board submit that application to us for our ratification, and, if we refuse to ratify it, let them refuse to issue it, and vice versa. If that is done, we will avoid all difficulties; if it is not, we are likely to have quite a lot of difficulty. In British Columbia, the Provincial police have been, since July last, the guardians of the game; we have CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 117 no more game wardens. Thus, a man coming into our province from another province to take migratory birds or insectivorous birds or any other game under a permit from Ottawa is Hable to come in contact with our Provincial poHce. We must be in communication with Ottawa so that we can notify our Provincial police that John Jones or John Smith has obtained a permit to take birds or animals in a certain section of the province; otherwise, difficulties may arise. Our implicit instructions to the Provincial police are to arrest anybody who is found to be violating the laws of British Columbia, and, if the collector of specimens for scientific purposes, or for any other purpose, has not notified me or notified Mr. Hose, the secretary of the Board, that he is in a certain locality or in a certain section of British Columbia taking game or birds for scientific purposes under Dominion permit, he is liable to arrest, notwithstanding the fact that he may produce a Dominion permit. So that we must come to some understanding with the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection in the matter of our being notified in such cases. Dr. Hewitt: I think that point is covered by the resolution passed by the Advisory Board with regard to this question of permits. It says: " So far as scientific permits are concerned, the Provincial Departments are agreeable to our proposal that such permits shall be signed at Ottawa first and then sent to the proper provincial officer for his counter-signature, such provincial officer reserving the right to cancel a permit if he considers it desirable." Dr. Baker: That is absolutely satisfactory to us. Merganser is ^'^^- J' ^- Bellisle: I am perfectly in accord with Destructive the remarks made by Hon. Mr. Smith this morning to amon in connection with the mergan. v. rs. The merganser is one of the most destructive birds we have, especially of our salmon. We have a clause in our game law permitting the killing of that bird, and, in some of our salmon rivers boimtics are paid on it. I would suggest that, if possible. Article VH of the Convention be made to read in this way: " Permits to kill any of the above-named birds, which, under extraordinary conditions, may become seriously injurious to the agricultural, fishing, or other interests in any particular community, may be issued. . . ."• It would be well, too, if it could be provided that the Provincial Minister might issue permits for the killing of such birds. 118 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION Thorough Inquiry ^^- Hewitt: You could not very well put that in Precedes Issuing this Federal Act carrying out the treaty. As I read Permit ^j^^^ resolution, we are endeavouring to carry this out in co-operation with the Provincial Ministers; we have decided that these permits shall require the joint action of the Dominion and the Provincial Governments. That is necessary, because the Dominion could not leave it entirely to the Provincial Governments; otherwise, they would not be carrying out the provisions of the treaty. I am speaking, of course, for Mr. Harkin, who, unfortunately, is not here. So far as the Dominion is concerned, they are willing to consider applications in co-operation with the Provincial depart- ments. Each case will have to be thoroughly investigated on its merits; no permit will be issued without a thorough inquiry. We are following the same policy as that described by Mr. Nelson this morning in connection with similar permits in United States. As to the case to which Mr. Bellisle refers, if the fishermen in any of the salmon rivers in Quebec feel that the mergansers are injurious to their interests, an investigation should be made to show that they actually are, and no permit should be issued until such an investigation has been conducted. Under the Dominion law it is illegal for any fisher- man to encourage the destruction of or to destroy mergansers at any time on any fishing river in Quebec. Dr. Murray: At our morning session, expressions of opinion were heard from representatives of all the provinces except Prince Edward Island with regard to the working out of the Act. It was found that, notwithstanding any opposition that might have been offered to the treaty in the beginning, it was working out in the various provinces with very little friction. Perhaps Premier Arsenault, of Prince Edward Island, who was not present this morning, would favour us with an expression of opinion as to how the Act is working out in the island. Hon. a. E. Arsenault (Premier of Prince Edward Island) : I am sorry that I was called away during the meeting this morning. I have very little to say with regard to this matter. The treaty came before us only last spring, and I have not heard of any infractions of the law. As to how it is going to work out in the future, I have no idea. Dr. Murray: Any expression of dissatisfaction? Spring Shooting ^^- Arsenault : A great deal. I have had several in Prince delegations from those interested expressing their Edward Island yig^g q^ the subject. We have passed no legislation, and just at present, to be candid, it would be impossible to get such CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 119 legislation through the House; it would not be considered for a minute by either side. The only shooting of geese and brant in Prince Edward Island is the spring shooting. There is no autumn shooting; there is no very considerable destruction of birds; the shooting is insignificant. The expressions that I have heard have been to the effect that the legislation was designed for the benefit of the southern portions of North America. The feeling is very strong among those interested. However, possibly with a little education something might be accomplished. It needs to be explained; some pioneer work must be done. As I say, there is no autumn shooting in our province, and, if the spring shooting is done away with, it means that the people are cut out from any shooting whatever. Dr. Murray: May I suggest that Premier Arsenault and Dr. Baker of British Columbia hold a conference some time before the close of the day. Dr. Baker had a good deal of difficulty in his province, but he succeeded in getting it very nicely straightened out. Mr. Arsenault: I think we will have to bring him to Prince Edward Island. Col. Alfred Thompson (Member of Parliament for Serious Effects Yukon) : I listened with great interest to the remarks in Yukon . r t-. • t- of the Premier of Pnnce Edward Island. The question of migratory birds concerns us in the Yukon perhaps even more directly than it concerns any other section of Canada. We are very far removed from the markets of the world, and we produce no meats or fowl of our own; we have to import all our beef, mutton and fowl, and the result is that the wild game in the Yukon is rather an important factor in our menu, which we have supplemented by taking feathered game in the spring and autumn. This Migratory Birds Treaty hits us very hard. Premier Arsenault has said that, in his province, it is construed as being dratted so as to favour the southern people; I sympathize with him. We are in the peculiar position in the Yukon of breeding these birds, and, because of the Migratory Birds Treaty, seeing them fly gracefully along the valley of the Yukon over our heads to our southern neigh- bours, who take them when they arrive in those districts. We cannot take them without breaking the law. I suppose that this phase of the question was considered by the gentlemen who drafted that treaty, before it was finally put upon the statute books of the United States and Canada. The Administrator of the Yukon and myself had a Special Season conference with Dr. Hewitt and some other members ouggested of the Board of which he is a member, and we pro- 120 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION posed to the Board that the season be made later for the Yukon. In the past we have indulged in spring shooting, and have taken quite a number of geese and ducks, particularly ducks. So far as the spring shooting is concerned, I have no criticism whatever to offer; I am not in favour of spring shooting in the Yukon or anywhere else. I believe that the birds should be given an opportunity to breed; I do not raise my voice to object to that. But I do submit to this meeting, with all the force that I am capable of, that we would like to have a little leniency shown in the Yukon with respect to these autumn birds. I do not care to labour the point or to deal further with the question; the facts are easily substantiated; they are as I submit them. Climatic May I say one word as to the topographical character Conditions of of the country drained by the Yukon river, which Yukon Territory ^— ^j^s and yet unites Yukon and Alaska? That great river runs through a plateau which is east of the Coast moun- tains, and that range of mountains has a direct influence on the climatic conditions which obtain in Yukon and in Alaska. By the way, I am prompted to say this because of the paper which was read yesterday by Dr. Hornaday, and in which I was very greatly inter- ested. I wish to point out to the gentlemen who are within the sound of my voice to-day that, when you are considering the Yukon and Alaska, you are considering a region which has two distinct climates. The Yukon river runs towards the Bering sea, and between that valley and the gulf of Alaska there are huge ranges of moun- tains. The result is that the Pacific current comes across the North Pacific ocean and strikes the mountain ranges, which parallel the coast from Portland canal to the Aleutian islands. This Pacific current, sweeping through the gulf of Alaska, is laden with the moist, warm winds of Japan, and when it strikes the Coast mountains there is a tremendous precipitation; all the way from Portland canal to Valdez there is a very heavy rainfall in summer and a very large snowfall in winter. The greater the altitude, of course, the greater the snow- fall. That air is dehydrated by that mountain range; hence, you have the dry belt of the interior of British Columbia and the very small precipitation in the valley of the Yukon and in northern British Columbia. In the winter months, therefore, on the coast of Alaska, around Sitka, Valdez, and other places in that district, there is hardly any frost, but a great deal of snow or a great deal of rain, depending on the season; but, inside the mountains, you have a dry, cold, crisp atmosphere, where the temperature drops to 65 and 70 degrees below zero. Nearly always during the winter there is a very cold CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 121 spell; sometimes, several cold spells. So that, in drafting a treaty which deals with this vast territory, perhaps these factors have not been taken into consideration. At any rate, the net result is that we do not get our autumn shooting, and a few of us in the Yukon are very fond of it. Mr. Arsenault : It might be well for Col. Thompson and myself to get together. Dr. Murray: You had better make a trio of it — yourself. Col. Thompson and Dr. Baker. We were looking forward to the pleasure of having with us this afternoon Hon. Honore Mercier, Minister of Colonization, Mines, and Fisheries, province of Quebec, to give us an address on the subject of Co-operation in the Regulation of the Fur Trade. Few Cabinet ministers have taken a greater personal interest in the work of their departments than Mr. Mercier, to whose personal efforts the encouraging progress that has been made in the province of Quebec in wild life conservation is due. As Quebec has adopted special measures to conserve and regulate the fur resources of the province, it is peculiarly fitting that the discussion on this subject should be opened by Mr. Mercier. In the regrettable absence, however, of Hon. Mr. Mercier, we are to have the pleasure of a paper on the same subject by Mr. Bellisle, Inspector General of Fisheries and Game for the province of Quebec. Co-operation in the Regulation of the Fur Trade BY J. A. Bellisle Inspector General of Fisheries and Game for the Province of Quebec THE province of Quebec possesses two great means of seconding the efforts of the Commission of Conservation — the creation of a number of fish and game reserves and the control of shipments of game and furs. Nearly 25 years ago, the Department of Crown Lands created certain hunting reserves, which were leased both to individuals and to fish and game clubs incorporated in our province. The object, and the aims for which these clubs were incorporated are, as provided for by law, to aid in the enforcement of the laws and regulations concerning the protection of fish and game in this province. These clubs may acquire and possess both movables and immovables necessary for their enjoyment of the privileges and the performances of the duties entrusted to them. They lease, for sporting purposes alone, certain fish and game reserves, which have been set apart for that purpose, by the Lieutenant Governor in Coun- cil, and the first condition of such leases is an efficient surveillance of the territory at the expense of the lessee. Any neglect of this essential condition of the lease, or any utilization of the reserve for other purposes, involves the cancellation of the lease, as well as prosecution of the lessee at the hands of the Department. Outside of the clubs, a certain number of individual Fishing and sportsmen are lessees of fishing and hunting terri- Hunting Leases . , , 1,1 1 i- • tones; these are bound by the same obligations as clubs, in regard to the protection of their reserves and to the limita- tions within which they may utilize the privileges granted them by their lease. The number of reserves thus leased to clubs or individ- uals is 425, and they include an approximate area of 8,000 square miles for hunting purposes. In addition to the 469 rivers, or portions of rivers, which are under lease for fishing purposes, 1,444 lakes are also leased, but I must add that several clubs lease all the fishing rights within the limits of their hunting territory; and, a large portion of these being unsurveyed, it is impossible to state precisely 122 CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 123 the number of lakes which we actually have under lease. However, it may be affirmed, without any fear of exaggeration, that the number of our leased lakes is at least 2,500. All these reserves are, in effect, special parks, where the protection is most efficient and in which game may freely multiply. Moreover, all these lessees are required to employ one or more guardians named by the Minister, and to pay them during the twelve months of the year. Many of them, in order to fully comply with their obligations, employ additional guardians during certain months of the year. For instance, during the two or three months of the winter, in which the great depth of the snow most favours poaching operations, the clubs usually furnish additional help to their guardians. The same remark applies to lessees of fishing reserves during the summer and autumn months, and especially in the spawning season. Some of the lessees of salmon rivers employ as many as eight or ten guardians during the months of September and October. If we add the number of special guardians of clubs to the fish and game wardens employed by the department, we have a total of 600 officers scattered throughout the province. When it is considered that the reserves are chiefly in the most accessible sporting localities of the province, and are consequently the most exposed to poaching operations, it will be seen that this system is a very great aid to the protection of the fish and game wealth of the province. Control of ^^^ second of our great means of protection is the Shipment of control of the shipments of game. Up to two years ^^"^^ ago, we limited ourselves to the control of big game shipments. At the commencement of 1917, the Department of Colonization, Mines and Fisheries inaugurated the control of the fur trade. A law was passed obliging fur traders to take out a license and to report monthly all furs or skins bought by them. In order to render this control more efficient, the Government imposed a royalty on each skin, which must be paid before it is stamped. From that date, no skin could be put upon the market without being stamped and the royalty paid, and no skin could be shipped outside of the province without having been first stamped and the royalty paid thereon, and this under the penalty of a fine and confiscation. The same regulations prevail for furs or skins which are shipped from one portion of the province to another, when they are sent from localities where the province has officers to mark them. The shipment of either game or skins, of any kind whatever, is prohibited, unless the contents are plainly marked on the outside of the packet, box, valise, or other receptacle containing them ; and this is also under the penalty 124 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION of confiscation and a fine. This measure permits us not only to con- trol the shipments, but also to prevent the purchase and shipment of furs taken out of season. One of the principal results of this policy of control Less Furs Qf ^H shipments is a very great diminution in the Illegally Taken -. -n n number of furs taken illegally ; for it is now useless to buy them from the trappers, seeing that they could not be disposed of; none of our officers will stamp furs which have evidently been taken out of season. The fur dealers are most anxious to second our efforts in this direction, because the purchase of furs taken out of season is a detriment to the fur trade. Furthermore, these changes in the law permit dealers to conduct the trade openly and to sell their furs like all other traders without fearing the surveillance of the government officers. They have only to buy their license, have their furs stamped, pay the royalty, and their trade is as free as that of any other branch of commerce. The passing of this law, in the winter of 1917, gave us control last year of the shipments of 617 dealers in furs. This year, with the perfecting of our system, we have been able to control the operations of 793 licensed dealers, who report to us each month and tK s enable us to trace and to follow every skin in the trade. In the first year of the operation of this new system, the Government stamped and col- lected royalty on the skins of 192,241 muskrat, 38,576 beaver, 9,846 marten, 33,396 ermine, 5,964 mink, and 7,350 deer, besides a large number of other furs or skins, but forming a grand total of 317,060 skins, representing a value of $1,500,000. When we consider that this system is new, and that the result just mentioned is that of its first year in operation, we believe that we are justified in considering it most satisfactory. The law imposing a royalty, and the obligation to ^}\ ^^^ ^^^ , have all furs and skins coming from the province of Skins Stamped ^ , , i , r , ■ yuebec stamped, enables us further to ascertain very approximately the different species and quantities of the furs taken, particularly in certain portions of the province. Thus, the Lake St. John region has furnished considerable quantities, also the Saguenay, more generally known as the North Shore. When the system has, been longer in operation we shall be in a position to say what species are most sought after; whether there are abuses in certain localities; whether it is necessary to regulate the taking of any species, because of its growing scarcity; to ascertain whether it is necessary to modify our hunting seasons, or to prohibit completely the hunting of some particular species of fur-bearing animals, in order to permit their CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 125 greater increase. I do not pretend, however, that we have succeeded in preventing all poaching; ill-disposed shippers are still able to send packages through the mails, or may succeed in evading the vigilance of our officers in certain localities near our boundaries and ship furs outside of the province in a surreptitious manner. Assistance of Once on the other side of our frontier, we are at the Neighbouring mercy of neighbouring provinces and states, and, as rovinces none of our neighbours has a similar law to ours, the control of these shipments is difficult. In this connection, however, I am able to testify to the good will towards us, of which the authorities of the neighbouring provinces, and especially those of Ontario and New Brunswick, have given proof. For some months past, whenever authorities of our sister provinces have ascertained that furs shipped from Quebec did not bear the stamp required by our laws, they have seized them and returned them to us. We also benefit in the same way at the hands of certain officers of the state of New York. I am glad to say also that the postal authorities have given us their assistance in a certain measure to enable us to control the sending of furs by parcel post. This improved system only operates, however, in the cities of Quebec and Montreal, but I anticipate with pleasure the possibility of such control being extended, not only to the large centres, but also to the country post offices. The postal authorities have shown them- selves disposed to second our efforts, and I have no doubt that, before long, there will be complete control of the shipments of furs through the mails. We have not yet discussed the question with the Department of Customs. This department, through its officers along the frontier between Quebec and the United States, is in a position to know everything which crosses the border. I have no doubt that, when we have obtained from the customs authorities the assurance that no furs shall be shipped from Quebec to the United States, without being properly stamped, the different dealers who, at present, fail to observe the law, will abandon their clandestine trade. I have already said that a certain number still succeed Uniform Laws [j^ evading the law in shipping their furs to the other side of the interprovincial boundary. These furs are then reshipped to the large fur houses of Montreal or Quebec, as if they originated in New Brunswick, Ontario or Manitoba, and, with the exception of beaver and otter, the sale of which is controlled in Ontario by the Government, it is impossible for us to verify the point of shipment of these skins. The Government of Ontario, in order to avoid abuses, very properly compels merchants who receive beaver 126 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION or otter skins with the Government tag, to return these tags immedi- ately to the proper department; thus, we are unable to establish in a satisfactory manner whether or not these beaver or otter skins really come from Ontario. This inconvenience will be overcome when the other provinces adopt a fur marking system identical with ours. Such action will also control the shipments of skins taken within the limits of their respective provinces. I do not despair of seeing this system of control universally adopted some day, and, when this is done, we shall have an almost perfect protection of the wild life, which is, after our forests, one of the our greatest sources of revenue. With this object in view, and for the securing of greater co-opera- tion in the regulation of the fur trade, I beg to move the following resolution : Co-operation in the Regulation of the Fur Trade That, in view of the increased impetus given to trapping operations by the high price of furs, and by more active competition in the trade, there is now much greater danger than hitherto of a very serious decrease in the supply of some of our most valuable fur- bearers, and even, in some cases, of their entire disappearance. That experience proves that valuable statistics of much of the wild life of the country, so desirable for ensuring by timely action the perpetuation of declining species, may be best secured by a departmental control of the trade in raw furs. That this desirable control, instead of being a burden upon the public, may be made a source of income by the imposition of a small royalty upon raw skins; and that nothing is more reasonable than that such small royalty should be contributed to the state from the vast fur industry, based mainly upon the wild life of the public domain. That one of the chief difificulties encountered in controlling the trade in raw pelts, the royalties paid thereon, and the statistics thereof — as in the enforcement of all regulations for the protection of wild life — is to be found in the efforts to evade the law by the lawlessly inclined, who take advantage of the differing provisions of law in contiguous provinces and states, to ship the products of the chase through territory imposing less rigorous conditions than those of the province or state whence they originally come. Therefore, be it Resolved: That, while fully recognizing the complete control belonging to each province of the Dominion over the entire wild life of its own territory, it is the sense of this Convention that, so far as possible, uniformity of laws and regulations regarding such wild life, and especially with reference to the control of the trade in raw furs, is extremely desirable, as well as the utmost measure of reciprocity in the enforcement thereof; and, further, that, even in the absence of CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 127 a complete uniformity of such laws and regulations, most desirable results have been proven possible by a neighbourly reciprocity in enforcing them, as illustrated in the reciprocal return to their place of origin of raw furs and game, which, when seized for illegal killing or shipment, are declared to have been shipped from another province. Mr. Harkin: Has the province of Quebec, in con- Definition of nection with its fur trade, adopted a clear-cut Unpnme Skin ,_.. ^ ( . ,,--^t ,• •. dennition ol unpnme skm.'' In connection with our Northwest Game Act that question of unprime skins has arisen, and we have been told that it arose also in connection with the adminis- tration of the new law in Quebec. People interested in the fur trade have represented to me that, at times, there is the utmost difficulty in deciding whether a skin in unprime or not, unprime being such a wide term; the classification being usually based on the colour of the hide. That is represented as not a safe basis to go on, and it occurred to me that, at a meeting like this, we might get suggestions as to a clear-cut definition of unprime skin. From what fur dealers have told me, it would be of very great advantage to them, and I think also that it would be of great advantage to those who are administering the law. Mr. Bellisle: It is very hard to give an exact definition of prime or unprime. Our law provides that fur-bearing animals shall not be killed before November 1st, and all furs taken before that date are considered unprime. Of course, some furs taken after the first of November, at first sight, look like unprime skins, but if the owner can prove that the skin comes from an animal killed after November 1st, even if it does not look like a prime one, we will con- sider it as a prime one. It is a question of dates; we cannot give an exact definition. Mr. E. Mellon: You could not expect the hunter to know whether or not a skin is prime before he skins the animal; he cannot tell simply from the outside appearance. Naturally, 'unprime' must apply to skins taken from animals killed in the close season. If a fur-bearing animal is caught after the opening of the season, then it is caught legally, though it may not be prime, especially in an open season like this year. You cannot define what is unprime skin and what is prime skin. Mr. Harkin: From what some fur dealers have said Troubles of j-q j^g^ J ^ras inclined to think that they would prefer Fur Dealers , ,...,. . , that a concrete definition be given of what constitutes an unprime skin, so that a dealer need not buy a skin that had an appearance of unprimeness. The difficulty is that he buys the skin 128 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION believing that it was killed in the proper season; after it is shipped he is liable to have difficulty with the various officers because, in their opinion, judging from the appearance of the skin, it is not prime. It seems to me that we might get better results if we had an exact definition. If the colour of the skin indicates unprimeness, why not say so, that there may be no room for doubt. Mr. Mellon: That is the point; you cannot do so. In Quebec, the fur traffic is legal after November 1st. There has been very little trouble with the fur dealers in that province. Any fur taken after the opening of the season we are at liberty to buy and to have in possession, so long as we are certain that it has been taken in the open season. Suppose we take muskrat skins after November 1st, which are not prime, though they might be fit for dressing and manufacturing purposes; are we to destroy all these skins? We must leave ' unprime ' to mean skins taken in the close season. Dr. Hewitt: I think that what Mr. Harkin is aiming at is this: Could not we, as a conference, agree on the distinction, so that every- body could follow the same idea? If ' prime ' is to mean skins taken in the open season, then let us have that definition, and everybody will take it as a definition, fur companies as well as game officers. Mr. Mellon: My point is that you cannot make a definition applying to the skin itself. You cannot define a prime skin. Mr. Bellisle: We have to depend on the dates; that is the only way. Mr. James White: Why not define an 'unprime' skin as one taken during the close season? Mr. Knight: In our Nova Scotia law we do not use the word ' unprime,' because it is so hard to define. We make it illegal for anyone to have in his possession skins of animals that are taken out of season. Dr. Murray: If there is some agreement with regard to that, we will pass on to the consideration of the resolution proposed by Mr. Bellisle. Mr. Rapsey: I beg to second the resolution. The suggestions which it contains are in keeping with present-day conditions. Dr. Hewitt: The sense of the resolution, as I understand it, is this: It emphasizes the desirabilty of uniformity in laws and the desirability of uniformity in regard to the control of the trade in furs— that is, the regulating of the fur trade — and that the regulations of the different provinces should be as nearly the same as possible. The address which Mr. Bellisle gave this afternoon is an exposition of a most successful experiment in the regulation of the fur trade, GRAIN-FED THREE-YEAR-OLD BUFFALO. AT BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT ,ALTA. I'holi), Courtesy Doniiiiiuii Parks Branch pjffr BULL MOOSE, BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT. ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Parks Branch '\: 0. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 129 which could well form the basis of action to secure uniformity of hiws in the different provinces. It is that reciprocity or co-operation among the different provinces that this resolution wishes to bring about. Mr. Hose: How many provinces have provision for fur traders' licenses or the pa^nment of royalties? Dr. Hewitt: I could not tell you. Mr. Hose: The Game Conservation Board of British Columbia has recommended a fur-trader's license. Dr. Hewitt: The Northwest Game Act requires a license, too. Mr. Arsenault: It may be difficult at times to distinguish between the furs of wild and of domesticated animals. How is that managed in Quebec in connection with the skins of domesticated foxes, or foxes kept in captivity? Mr. Bellisle: We do not impose a royalty, unless it is proved that the fox is bought and put in a ranch for ultimate sale. As a matter of fact, it is only on foxes raised in the ranch that we do not impose royalties. Mr. Arsenault: You must have some difficulty at times. Mr. Bellisle: It does not work out too badly. As a general rule we stamp the furs, but we do not exact any royalty. Dr. Baker: What is your royalty and how do you collect it? Mr. Bellisle: On black fox we exact $15 on each skin; on silver fox, $10; on cross fox, $1.50; on beaver, 35 cents; on otter, 75 cents; on red fox, 60 cents; on muskrat, 2 cents; on ermine, 2 cents. It varies, according to the value. Dr. Baker: You do not pay a bounty on muskrats in this part of the country? Mr. Bellisle: Oh, no; quite the contrary. Dr. Baker: We pay a bounty on them. Mr. Bellisle: We have collected quite an amount of money on skins during the last year. The resolution was agreed to. 63267—9 The Use of Pump and Automatic Shotguns Dr. a. R. Baker: Mr. Chairman: I wish to move the following resolution : Be it resolved, that the Provincial Legislatures of the provinces of Canada be urged to amend their game laws with respect to the use of the pump and automatic shotguns, and that some such pro- vision be made as provided for by Section 15 of the Game Act of British Columbia, which reads as follows: — " It shall be unlawful for any person to use or have in his possession a pump or repeating shotgun of any kind with a magazine capable of holding more than one cartridge, or an automatic shotgun of any kind. Any such automatic, pump or repeating shotgun unlawfully found in the possession of any person may be seized by any Game Warden or constable, and the same may be disposed of as in this Act provided." . , ,. ^ I am a firm believer in the elimination of the auto- Automatic Gun Destructive matic gun from Canada. The automatic shotgun is to Game ^^^ ^j ^^^ great menaces to our bird life; more harm has been done by it than by almost any other weapon that we have. Some of the best authorities claim that the pump gun is worse than the automatic gun, but the only good that I can see resulting from the manufacture and use of either is the benefit that results to the manu- facturers of the guns and to the manufacturers of ammunition. As a member of a Conservation Board, and as one who believes in the conservation of our game, I do not believe in catering to the financial needs of ammunition concerns or of gun manufacturers. The pump gun and the automatic shotgun have done more to cripple and to hurt our migratory birds than any other arms that we have in use throughout the country. I was glad to learn last night, at the lecture given by Dr. Hornaday, that the states of New Jersey and Pennsyl- vania had passed legislation prohibiting the use of the automatic gun. I am proud to say that British Columbia has also taken action in this matter, and has not only made it unlawful for any resident of the province to have an automatic gun in his possession, but has also gone so far as to say that a pump gun shall not contain more than one cartridge in its magazine, making it equal to a double-barrelled shot-gun. The enactment of that law has done a great deal for the conservation of our game in British Columbia; it has prevented the CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 131 crippling of a large number of our birds. I should like to see the rest of the provinces bring into force the same kind of law. Mr. Bellisle: For the information of this conference I may say that there is a clause in the Quebec game laws prohibiting the use of the automatic gun. That clause has been in our Act for ten or fifteen years. Dr. Baker: How about the pump guns? Mr. Bellisle: We do not prohibit them. Pump Gun ^^* Arsenault : We have had on our statute books Prohibited in for over ten years a similar law to that of British ■ ■ ^ ^" Columbia, prohibiting the use of the pump or auto- matic gun. But it is very annoying to our sportsmen, when they see the pictures in the magazines of the large bags of game secured else- where by such means, while they themselves are entirely excluded from such shooting; and, to a certain extent, we can sympathise with them. One of the things that tends to cause dissatisfaction is the way the game is slaughtered in other places, as compared with the few hundred birds that are taken in the districts farther north. The use of pump and automatic guns is permitted in other places, to the great destruction of game and bird life, and it is a matter of complaint on the part of some that, considering the few hundred birds that would be secured in our province, the people should be prohibited from shooting. Dr. Murray: Certainly this seems to be a matter in which uniformity of legislation in the different provinces would be desirable. Mr. Lawton: When they were simply territories. Alberta and Saskatchewan enacted legislation, in 1902, I think, prohibiting the use of the automatic shotgun. I believe the pump gun is the more deadly of the two. I have much pleasure in seconding the motion. Mr. Lloyd: I would suggest that the resolution be amended to include the automatic rifle. Mr. Harris: I had hoped that the motion would Automatic Rifle include the automatic rifle, but I do not desire to suggest it as an amendment if it would prevent the passage of this resolution. There is no question about the automatic rifle being unsportsmanlike. Only two years ago, I saw a number of deer, most of which had been shot with the automatic rifle. A small doc had three bullets in it; I would say that not ten pounds of meat in that doe was fit to eat. That is a shame. I remember that a buck had five shots within the space of my two hands; it was simply torn to pieces. Of course, they were explosive bullets. That was unsportsmanlike, and was not economical ; they would not get enough 63267—91 132 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION out of it, after paying their expenses, to make it worth while carrying the animals from the bush to the camp. There would certainly be much more opposition to the prohibition of the automatic rifle than there would be to the prohibition of the automatic and pump gun; but certainly the automatic rifle is an arm that should not be carried by sportsmen. Dr. Baker: I think that my friend Mr. Harris is straying from the point. This Conference is being held, of course, for the good of all game of the country, but more especially the migratory birds. To eliminate the use of the automatic rifle in a big game country would cause hardship. I know that from personal experience. I have hunted the grizzly bear for a number of years, and I would hate to go out in the grizzly bear country without an automatic rifle. Mr. Harris : That is all right, but the grizzly bear is a predatory animal; I do not think he is what we call big game — I mean, deer, and that kind of thing. If you want to go out for lions, tigers and elephants, like Theodore Roosevelt did, take your automatic rifle. Dr. Baker: First, last and always, I am in favour of game conservation, and, if excluding the automatic rifle would help conser- vation, I would be in favour of it. But I cannot see that the auto- matic rifle does very much harm in northern Manitoba and Saskat- chewan, in Alberta or in British Columbia. In our province — and I believe the same applies in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba ; if not, my friends will correct me — ^we have very small bag limits for the big game, and I believe that the automatic rifle does not do any particular harm in these districts. It is immaterial whether the hunter gets the bag limit with an automatic rifle or with a trench mortar. The great harm that is done with the automatic guns and the pump guns is to the migratory birds, not to big game, so that I would not be in favour of amending the resolution to include the automatic rifle. Automatic Mr. CHAMBERS: If the suggestion which has recently Theodore^ been made with regard to the automatic rifle had Roosevelt been in force two or three years ago in the province of Quebec we might have had to deplore at that time something which we have all been deploring during the last few months, the death of Theodore Roosevelt, but at the hands of an infuriated moose instead of by natural means If he had not had an automatic rifle in his hand he would certainly have been gored to death by that moose. We have the evidence in our department that he was obliged to shoot a moose that charged him several times immediately after he had killed one. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 133 Mr. Harris: There are only a few here who go after grizzlies; personally, I take the Scotch method, and leave the grizzly alone. I am anxious that what is done here shall be done harmoniously and unanimously so that when we go away we shall be enthusiastic missionaries, and something will be achieved. The resolution was agreed to. Dr. Murray: Mr. R. H. Coats, Dominion Statistician and Chief of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, has been invited to address the conference on the important subject of ' Fur Statistics.' The success that has been obtained in working out plans for the collection of agricultural and other statistics leads us to believe that Mr. Coats will be able to indicate methods whereby statistics of this important resource may be secured. Fur Statistics BY R. H. Coats Dominion Statistician and Chief of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics I AM grateful for this opportunity of saying a few words to your Conference on the subject of Statistics, because I hope you may be able to help us in a difficulty that confronts us at the Bureau of Statistics. The difficulty is in connection with fur statistics. We have organized, during the last eighteen months, a census of production for Canada, which we call the Census of Industries. It is to be on an annual basis, and is to be as comprehensive as we can make it, including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining, and the various branches of manufacture. It has been a rather large under- taking to organize, because we hoped to work in close co-operation with the various governments, Dominion and Provincial, which have regulative functions in different sections of the field. For example, in dairy statistics, until the last two or three years, we had no less than eleven departments collecting statistics, the Bureau of Statistics, the Dominion Dairy Branch, and the nine provincial dairy branches. We could not collate the statistics of the several branches, because they were all compiled by different methods and covered different aspects. Today, we are doing this work as follows: First, we have united upon a form. The Bureau of Statistics prints it; a sufficient number are then sent to each provincial department, which collects the data through its field officers, who are, of course, excellently qualified for that function. The resulting schedules are sent to my office for compilation, for we have about $100,000 worth of machinery and a large compiling stafT, which can handle such work expeditiously. We immediately send back the result to the provinces for use in any way they may wish. We publish a report for the whole of Canada; it is edited by the Dairy Branch, though finally sent out by the Bureau. In that way we think we have the maximum efihciency that can be obtained in dairy statistics, because we unite the statistical effici- CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 135 ency that ought to be ours with the technical knowledge of the several departments. I merely mention that as an illustration; we have eight or ten such working arrangements with twenty-five or thirty Dominion and Provincial departments. Planning to ^^^^ section devoted to fur statistics is one that we Secure Fur have hoped to cover in similar fashion. We consider it a very important section, because it represents the economic return we get from perhaps half of the area of Canada. We have not, however, made final arrangements in the matter, though we have made arrangements of a sort. But we have drawn up our plans, and I will read the memorandum that was prepared in my office over a year ago; perhaps that is the most expeditious way in which the practical problem can be placed before you. MEMORANDUM ON STATISTICS OF THE PRODUCTION OF RAW FURS IN CANADA Raw furs are the chief commercial product of the wild life of Canada, and as such represent the only economic return from hundreds of thousands of square miles, constituting perhaps half the area of the Dominion. The existing Canadian statistics of raw furs are in five areas namely, (1) those of the decennial census; (2) those shown in certain sections of the annual industrial census; (3) those of the Indian Depart- ment; (4) exports and imports; (5) those of certain provincial departments. (1) The Decennial Census — This return shows the number and value of the diff'erent kinds of furs taken in the several provinces during the year preceding the census. The statistics are obtained as follows: In the settled districts, a return is obtained by the census enumerator from every farmer, showing the number, kind and value of forest animals taken on the farm. For the unorganized districts, a return is obtained from the several fur-Wading companies, showing the number, kind and value of raw furs (also fish) purchased from individual Indians; at the same time, the number and kinds of furs captured by individual Indians living on reserves are obtained through the Indian Department, these being checked against the fur-traders' returns to prevent duplication. The total capture in 1910 showed a value of approximately $2,000,000, divided among 41 kinds of furs, and representing about 1,200,000 animals.. The rise in prices would perhaps double the above values today. 136 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION The most obvious defect of this inquiry is its infrequency, which renders the results of secondary value as a commercial guide, and also limits their usefulness in the study of problems connected with the increase or decrease of wild life. (2) The Industrial Census — Two of the 450 sections of the annual industrial census throw light on the output of raw furs, namely, {a) the sections on fur-dressing establishments, and {b) establishments for the manufacture of hats, caps and fur goods. Each establish- ment is required to answer upward of 100 questions on various details. One of these groups of questions is ' Materials used ' ; a second is ' Products '. The chief raw material of fur-dressing establishments is raw furs and the product is dressed furs. Similarly, for hat, cap and fur manufacturing establishments, the items ' Furs and skins, raw,' and ' Furs and skins, dressed,' occur under the heading ' Material used,' whilst under the general heading of ' Products,' men's fur and fur-lined coats, ladies' fur and fur-lined coats, fur caps, fur hats, muffs, stoles and other neckwear, fur or fur-lined gloves or gauntlets, are included. There is also an item requiring a return of receipts for custom work on the remodelling and the repairing of furs. The statistics for 1917 show that an insignificant quantity of raw furs was consumed in the 12 establishments engaged in the dyeing and dressing of furs in Canada, most of these concerns doing custom work only, though the dressed product was valued at over $1,000,000. In hat, cap and fur establishments (numbering 253) $2,596,332 worth of raw furs and $2,482,027 worth of dressed furs were used, the product of fur goods being valued at $9,767,872. The above record of furs consumed in manufactures, of course, does not show the different kinds of furs or the number of fur-skins. As it includes, also, a considerable quantity of imported furs, it throws little or no light in itself on the total value of the native raw fur product from year to year. (J) Indian Department Statistics — The Indian Department main- tains a record of the amounts earned by Indians on reserves in hunting and trapping. In 1917, this was over $900,000. This, however, does not include the product of the ' Treaty No. 8 ' Indians nor Yukon Indians. It is thought, in fact, that it represents only about 20 or 25 per cent of the product of all Indians. {4) Exports and Imports — The Canadian import classification shows the following items under the heading of furs, for the calendar year 1917: CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 13 7 1. Astrakhan or Russian hare skins and China goat skins, plates, rugs, wholly or partially dressed but not dyed $118,666 2. Fur skins, undressed, the produce of marine animals 2,928 3. Fur tails in the raw state 144 4. Fur skins of all kinds, not dressed in any manner 2,810,171 5. Fur skins wholly or partially dressed. . 638,858 6. Hats, caps, muffs, tippets, capes, coats and cloaks of fur and other manu- factures of fur 475,479 The export classification has four items: 1. Furs dressed $97,627 2. Furs undressed 6,721,141 3. Furs or skins, the produce of fish or marine animals 46,353 4. Fur, manufactures of 33,635 No quantities are recorded of either imports or exports, and, as will have been seen, only limited distinction is made between the different kinds of furs. Ordinarily, if one knows the imports and exports of an article and also the consumption in manufactures, one can deduce domestic production by adding exports and consumption and subtracting imports. In 1917, if one adds the exports and home consumption of raw furs, and deducts imports, one obtains a result of $6,500,000, about, as the value of the production of raw furs in Canada. There are elements of vagueness in this that render it an unsatisfactory statistic; as a reflection of the product of wild life it would require discounting by the value of the product of our fur farms, which, in some years, runs between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000. This would bring it somewhere in the neighbourhood of the 1911 Census returns reckoned at present prices. (5) Provincial Statistics — Certain of the provinces publish stat- istics, but methods differ and it is impossible to collate a Dominion total. Those of Nova Scotia and Quebec seem to be the best as specific statements of furs taken from year to year. The Remedy The remedy lies in instituting a direct annual record of fur skins taken. This could probably be best achieved by Do/ninion 138 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION and Provincial co-operation, according to some such plan as the following: It is understood that raw furs are dealt in under license of the Provincial authorities. If the Provincial authorities would supply annually to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics a list of the names and addresses of those to whom licenses have been issued for the purchase of raw furs within their respective provinces, the Bureau would undertake to circularize each licensee and obtain from him full details of furs purchased. The large trading companies, who operate outside of provincial boundaries, would, of course, be included, such as the Hudson's Bay Company; Revillon Freres; the Northern Trading Company, Edmonton; the Bryan Company, Edmonton; W. Gordon, Fort McMurray; and Colin Eraser, Fort Chipewyan. Confirmatory information might be obtained from the Boards of Trade at Edmonton and Vancouver. The Indian Department figures could be collated, and so also could the figures derived from the enforcement of royalties by Provincial departments. The operations of fur farms could be obtained as a separate inquiry, necessary if we are to thoroughly distinguish the products of our wild life. This would not enable an exact return by provinces to be given, as there may be instances of skins being purchased by dealers from individuals in another province, but it would be approximately correct, provided care were taken to eliminate resales and all other trading between dealers. The export and import figures and the statistics of the consumption of raw furs in fur-dressing and fur-manufacturing establishments would be useful as a check. I hesitate to lay this memorandum upon the table, Recmested^ because it does not represent our final thought in the matter. But I should like to have the opinion of the Conference on the general idea, together with any concrete suggestions, expecially from our provincial confreres. I need not say that it is the supreme wish of the Bureau of Statistics to be of service in this matter, and that we should be only too happy to take any action, either independently or in collaboration with provincial departments, that you think would be advantageous. I am inclined to think that the solution of the matter lies in the rest of the provinces coming up to the standard that Mr. Bellisle has laid down. Mr. Chambers: I move: That this National Conference of officials, representatives of fur companies, and others interested in the conservation of our fur- be'aring animals, is of the opinion that there is a very serious need of an adequate and reliable system for the collection of statistics of CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 139 the fur resources of Canada and the annual production of furs; and that, as accurate statistics are essential to the proper consideration of measures for the conservation of our fur resources, the Dominion Statistician be requested to prepare and submit, for consideration by the different governments, a scheme for the collection of fur statistics, by the co-operation of Dominion and Provincial officers, adopting a similar policy to that now established with respect to agricultural and other statistics; and that the adoption of a uniform scheme by the governments concerned be respectfully urged. Mr. Knight: I wish to second that motion. Mr. Coats referred to the Nova Scotia returns as among the best, but I fear they are far from complete. The difficulty referred to by Mr. Bellisle seems to be that of inability to get an opportunity to count the skins before they leave the country. That is a matter in which the co-operation of the Dominion government might be very helpful. Mr. Bellisle referred to skins being sent out by mail. by^MS"^ We all know that the railways and the express com- panies issue instructions to their agents setting forth the provisions of the different provincial laws with regard to the shipment and exportation of furs, and these are very helpful in preventing the furs being sent out unless checked by the game officials. But we do not know whether it is only a few zealous express and railway agents who stop these packages before they go out; we do not know whether the carrying out of the instructions is general or not. In Nova Scotia some packages have been stopped by the railway agents, and we have learned of the shipments only through their being stopped because they were not accompanied by the required permit. We might urge the railway companies to require their agents to be very strict in that regard; but there is another means of exporting furs without checking, and that is, through the mail. The Post Office Department must, at one time, have issued instructions to postmasters informing them of the provincial regulations, because I know of several cases in which parcels were stopped by the postmasters, and the parties who were sending them out came to us for permits. But there are a great many postmasters in the province and a great leakage takes place in that way. No efforts we may make to obtain statistics will be completely effective unless that leakage can be stopped. The Dominion Government could assist us very much by issuing instructions to postmasters not to accept parcels of skins for mailing unless the senders have complied with provincial regulations. Dr. Hewitt: The matter of shipping furs through Posroffice°" °^ the mails was discussed by Hon. Mr. Mercier and myself some time ago, when we were discussing the 140 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION question of the regulation of the fur trade. I said to him then — I repeat the suggestion now, feeling that the regulations of the various Provincial governments can be strengthened by securing the co-oper- ation of the Post Office Department — that our Advisory Board will be very glad to take this matter up for you. The Advisory Board desires to serve as an intermediary between the various provincial departments of game and fisheries and any of the government departments here. We have taken up a number of matters of that kind, and, if we could receive from the various Provincial govern- ments a request that on their behalf, we discuss with the Post Office Department the question of prohibiting the shipment of furs through the mails, we would be very glad. I merely suggest this as a method in which this matter could be dealt with, I think, successfully. Mr. Rapsey: I think you will find a provision already in the postal regulations covering that point. Mr. Hose: I am glad to hear that resolution. Since be^(ieneral°" *^^ introduction of the resident firearms license in British Columbia, which covers trappers' licenses, we have had returns from the trappers of the fur taken, the license providing that they shall, within two months after the date of expira- tion, return same, duly filled in, showing what fur they trapped. That is inventorying the fur-bearing animals. Our difficulty in obtaining statistics is that Indians are not required to take out a license, and they therefore, do not make any returns respecting their catch. But if we could enforce the licensing of the fur-trader, both resident and non-resident — as has been suggested by the Game Conservation Board — and he had to report the number of furs pur- chased and exported, we should be able to arrive at a closer estimate of the fur obtained in British Columbia. At present, we have a great many itinerant and non-resident dealers. The Deputy Inspector of Provincial Police at Prince George, says: " I would again point out the value of fur, with its high trading profits, which induces many men to embark in the business. No revenue accrues to the Government, and established buyers are faced with unfair competition from transients. No opposition need be anticipated to a fur-buyer's license if introduced. In fact, the better class dealers feel that such an impost would offer some pro- tection against the swarms of amateurs now travelling the country." That is the position at present in British Columbia. The resolution was agreed to. The Need and Value of Local Organizations BY S. Harris Essex County Wild Life Conservation Association 1 WILL endeavour to extend the remarks which I had intended to make to include the necessity and desirability of local organiza- tions. I believe that the best results for conservation will come through local organizations. As we heard Jack Miner say this morning, the only way he had of obtaining results was through the boys — local organizations — right around his own place. Therefore, while this is about the end of the conference, you have probably kept the best for the last. The Essex County Wild Life Conservation Association of Game^aws ^^^ been very active; therefore their findings should, I think, receive careful attention. I hope to be able to report that its findings were endorsed in loto by this convention, because they come from experience. But, before reading this paper, I desire to say a few words respecting conditions as I have found them in Ontario with regard to the administration of the game law. A lot has been said about the birds. But I want to say a little about the deer, particularly as we have here to-day a representative of the Ontario Government — a man who has shown during this conference that he is careful, cautious and conscientious. I hope that he will note carefully what is said, and that he will place before his Department in such a way that they will give it care- ful consideration, the statements which have been made at this con- ference. As a matter of fact, the Ontario Government is fore most among the Provincial governments in the matter of sanctuaries. IndiBcriminate ^°^ instance, take the fees. I contend that the Issue of Books fees are low, and that the method of collecting them o icenses j^ ^^^ — ^^ much SO that they lose at least fifty per cent. Last year the fee was $3 for taking two deer. I hope that will not occur again, so far as the taking of two deer is concerned. They issue indiscriminately books of licenses, which get into the hands 142 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION of various parties, so that a hunt club may go out to hunt with one member in possession of one of these books, and, if they are successful in obtaining game, they attach a license or tag to it and pay for it on their return, but, if they are unsuccessful, they return the book. I have long suspected that. I have taken little parties out — as a rule about six. We always paid our fee before we got on the train, so that the Government were sure of their $12 or $18 or whatever it was. That is good business. Last year, I decided to ascertain the facts. Revenue ' When I purchased my railway tickets the man said, "Do you want a book of licenses?" I said that I did and received the book of licenses. On account of the depredation in the district where we went we got only two deer, so we tagged on one set of licenses and paid $3 to the Government instead of $18. I broke the law, so I am liable to prosecution, but I do not mind pay- ing the difference or a little more to have the thing threshed out. That practice I consider bad. I have found in the north that there is a class of people who seem to have adopted the joint policies of the Bolshevik and the Sinn Feiner. They say, "Take all there is" — that is the policy of the Bolshevik; and "For ourselves alone" — that is the policy of the Sinn Feiner. So that the destruction which has been spoken of goes on, and is going on, in Ontario to-day. I would like to see the running of dogs prohibited in Ontario, I also desire the checking of the pot hunter, who, for a few dollars, will kill anything and send it in to the butcher. I would also suggest to the representative of Ontario the idea of protecting the partridge for another two years. Depredations Furthermore, I do hope that something will be done by Wolves with reference to the wolves. If I am correctly informed, a trapper in our province has the right in the winter time to take wolves, bear and foxes, but he has no right to carry a rifle or to poison. If you can tell me how he can take the wolves without using a rifle or without poisoning them, I would like to know it. Now, I come to the recommendations of the Essex County W'ild Life Association, and from them, I shall try to show why more organi- zations of this kind should be brought into existence throughout Canada. I have brought with me a few copies of the Report of our Third Annual Meeting, and any one who is interested may have a copy. Migratory Birds Convention — We believe the purpose of a Migratory Birds Convention fully representative of Canada and CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 143 United States interests would establish adequate international laws governing and regulating the killing and utilization of migratory wild fowl and insectivorous birds, and big game. Regulation of the Fur Trade — We believe the regulation of the fur trade can best be served by provincial and national control, development and marketing, and through the sanctuary plan. Indians and Natives — We believe there prevails a warm sympathy for the Indians but feel that leg^islation in their interests should be controlled and regulated. For the purpose of establishing concrete evidence upon, which to base convictions for violations of the game laws by natives at all periods of the year, we recommend periodical employment in lumber- ing industries, of members of the government secret service with a view to ultimate prosecution of offences against, and stricter enforce- ment of, existing game laws. The collection or compilation, at the present time, of evidence of past infractions of game laws by natives, and negligence of duty by game wardens, through interviews with sportsmen who have domiciles erected on provincial and national forest lands would be based, influenced or restricted by fear of des- truction by fire of their respective properties by natives of the district in which they are domiciled. Game Sanctuaries — (1) For the purpose of greater privacy for breeding and rearing of insectivorous and game birds and valuable game animals we recommend the establishment on provincial and national forest lands of numerous 5,000 to 10,000-acre game sanctuaries sufficiently far apart to provide adequate open area for the purpose of hunting, shooting and killing a limited number of game birds and animals under license, during a prescribed open season, and at a favourable period each year. (2) For the purpose of creating a chain of refuges as temporary resting places for game birds and animals and, particularly, in the interests of the caribou which is a wandering and roaming animal of importance and value, we recommend the establishment in each county of one or more game sanctuaries sufficiently far apart to provide adequate open hunting area where a limited number of game birds and animals may be hunted, and killed each year under license. (3) For the purpose of assisting nature to perform its functions on game sanctuaries free from the menace of fear, panic or disturb- ance, we recommend that running of hounds or other dogs on provincial and national forest lands be prohibited at all periods of the year. (4) For the purpose of affording game sanctuaries adequate protection from the menace of predatory birds and animals we 144 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION recommend provteion for adequate payment of intelligent and reliable game wardens and permanent place of residence in each game sanc- tuary, and for adequate equipment, such as horse, fire-arms, traps, and other contrivances necessary to prevention of, and protection from, fires. (5) For the purpose of protecting private lands adjoining sanc- tuaries from the depredations of the tur-bearing animals on the sanctuaries, we recommend the establishment by wardens of permanent trap-lines on the borders, thus preventing the overflow from game sanctuaries to private lands of valuable fur-bearing animals, and that the proceeds from the meat and skins be utilized to provide financial assistance for the establishment, development, maintenance and administration of game sanctuaries. (6) For the purpose of adequate enforcement of game laws and protection from the menace to game sanctuaries of friendly interest and sympathy for natives domiciled in close proximity of game sanctuaries established on provincial and national forest lands, we recommend the appointment as sanctuary wardens of qualified men now non-resident of the respective districts in which game sanctuaries are established. (7) For the purpose of defining the boundaries of game sanc- tuaries we recommend the erection of posts at intervals, to which would be attached a heavy gauge wire, breast high, around the entire sanctuary area. Signs notifying and warning hunters that the wire represents the boundaries of a game sanctuary, to be not violated, should be posted at intervals of 300 yards. (8) For the purpose of recovery by hunters on open hunting areas of game birds and animals wounded on open hunting areas which have flown or run and fallen or dropped within the boundaries of game sanctuaries, the hunter should seek and notify the sanctuary ■ warden who would locate the game bird or animal and, if wounded seriously, would despatch it and deliver it to the owner but, if not seriously wounded, the sanctuary warden should provide all necessary aid and assistance to its recovery. Organization of Assistance to Sanctuary Wardens — We believe an encouraging word from the Commission of Conservation, through the public press of Canada, to the sportsmen of Canada would stimulate to action, and result in, the organization of County Game Protective Associations as localized protective units. Enforcement of Game Laws Respecting Hunting and Shooting on Open Areas — For the purpose of enforcing adequate respect for HERD OF ELK IN BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT ,ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Parks Branch ELK IN BUFFALO PARK, WAINWRIGHT, ALTA. Photo, Courtesy Dominion Parks Branch « > CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 145 the game laws governing and regulating the hunting, shooting and killing of a limited number of game birds and animals on the pre- scribed open areas, we believe hunting licenses should contain the following oath clause: — I having familiarized myself with the laws and regulations pertaining to hunting, shooting and killing of game birds and animals, do hereby solemnly declare that I will observe the laws and will inform as to any violations that come to my notice. Procure game hunting licenses direct from Government — For the purpose of preventing shelter to violators of game laws by hotel- keepers or summer resort keepers, we recommend that all game hunting and fishing licenses be procured by licensee direct from the proper department of the respective governments. I move that the report of the Essex County Wild Life Conserva-. tion Association be received and referred to the Advisory Board, and that the recommendations in which this conference is especially interested be considered as sympathetically as possible. The motion, which was seconded by Dr. Bryce, was carried. Mr. Harris: I wish to move the following resolution with regard to the encouragement of local organizations: "That this National Conference of officials, sportsmen, and others concerned in the conservation of game animals and other wild life, is of the opinion that, as one of the best means of promoting the conservation of these animals is by the promotion of local game and wild life protective associations, the organization of such associations be encouraged by every means possible and that the Provincial governments be recommended to make special efforts to promote the organization and to assist in the maintenance of such associations." The motion was seconded by Rev. T. J. Crowley, and carried. 63267—10 Committee on Indians Dr. Baker: The Committee appointed to consider the question of destruction of wild life by Indians begs to submit the following resolutions: " Be it resolved that, in view of the destruction of game illegally by Indians of the various western provinces, the Dominion Govern- ment be urged to co-operate in the enforcement of the game laws in this particular respect, and more especially in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, by means of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police or other special officers in districts where damage to game by Indians most frequently occurs." In moving this resolution on behalf of the Committee, I may say that, recently, the Dominion Government has established various districts in which are stationed Northwest Mounted Police. If the Commission of Conservation will recommend that these Northwest Mounted Police help us in the enforcement of our laws throughout the west, I think we can handle this Indian question very effectually. Dr. Bryce: Any one who has known the Mounted Police, and is familiar with the great service they have rendered in the years gone by, would be glad to see that done. I have much pleasure in seconding the resolution ; it is a very appropriate one. The resolution was agreed to. Recommendation of Grant to Mr. Miner Dr. Baker: I have another resolution which was recommended by the Committee on Resolutions. It is as follows: " Resolved, that this convention recommend for the consideration of the Provincial Legislature of Ontario the granting of a sum to Mr. Jack Miner for the purpose of defraying his expenses in connection with the feeding of migratory wild fowl on his bird sanctuary." The sum, of course, to be fixed by the Legislature of Ontario. Mr. Harris: I have much pleasure in seconding Bear* the Cost ^'^^^ motion, knowing, as I do, the work that Jack Miner has done out of love for wild life. I know that he does not want any recompense, but he should not be per- mitted to bear the expense when the whole country is getting the benefit of what he is doing. Mr. James White: I do not wish in any way to oppose the passing of this motion. The only question that arises in my mind is whether, in view of the statement made to me by Hon. Mr. McDiarmid, we might not slightly modify it. Mr. McDiarmid did not give an actual promise, but he gave the next thing to it. Dr. Baker: We all know, as game conservers and sportsmen, that Mr. Miner has done a great deal for Ontario in the preservation and conservation of the Canada goose. To my mind this conference should pass a resolution asking the Government of Ontario to recom- pense him for his expenditure in this connection. The only change that I would consent to without putting the matter to a vote would be that of making it a recommendation of the Commission of Con- servation to the Government of Ontario that they take care of the feeding of these birds that Mr. Miner has harboured and fed for years; and that, if the Legislature of Ontario does not see fit to help Mr. Miner in this respect, the Commission of Conservation take it up with the Dominion authorities and see that he is provided for. It is without doubt a crime and a disgrace that a man who has to work hard for his living is allowed to do so much for the province without receiving any aid from the game departments of this great Dominion. Mr. James White: I hope that nothing I have said Make'or^t would in any way indicate that I was not as much in favour of the resolution as Dr. Baker, or as any one 63267— lOi 148 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION else in this room, for I acknowledge myself to be second to no one in that respect. No one in this room has a greater respect and admira- tion for the work that Mr. Miner has done than I have. My sole idea in making the remarks which I did — and which I regret were misunderstood — was with a view to making the recommendation stronger. I wanted to have the resolution slightly modified in its wording, so that its chance of obtaining effective action would be greater. Any one who has anything to do with Governments knows that, if you put a thing forward as an accomplished fact, your status is better than if you put it forward only as a recommendation. I do not wish to have the wording altered unless it will increase the chances of the province of Ontario taking favourable action on it. I asked Hon. Mr. McDiarmid, on behalf of the Commission of Conser- vation and the Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection, to put the sum of $700 in the estimates for the coming year for this purpose. I suggest that the resolution be worded so as to come from the Com- mission of Conservation and the National Conference on the Conservation of Game, Fur-bearing Animals and other Wild Life, held in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 1919. Mr. Miner: Now, gentlemen, I have thirty acres; I am building it up. I have only just started. I am fixing up another pond in order to get the swans to light. These birds that I am taking care of belong to the people of America. I have made a success of raising English pheasants, and, while I am not figuring on that thirty acres so far as dollars and cents are concerned, I can raise $3,000 worth of English pheasants a year by putting in my time and can get $5 a pair for them. I have shipped a good many. Professor Olds, of the United States Department of Agriculture, told me that he had issued more permits to me for the shipment of English pheasants to the United States than any other breeder we have in Canada. If the Canadian Government does not help me — you cannot blame me — I am going to ask Uncle Sam to help me; but I don't want to. Mr. Lawton: Does that resolution also include a recommenda- tion to the Dominion Government? Dr. Baker : Yes. I shall be glad to accept Mr. White's suggested addition to the resolution. The resolution was carried as amended. Mr. Miner: I have been 30 or 40 years building up my place, and the public come there in large numbers. Now I have to make my home private or else move away from there if I expect my wife to live; it just gets on her nerves. I am going to try to lease five acres of land right across the road and fence it; then the people can CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 149 sit in their automobiles on the road and sec the birds by thousands. That is my plan; but I cannot open my home and my premises there to the public the whole year. I will for a month in the year, or from 20th April to the 1st May, but I cannot do it all the time. Dr. Hewitt: An explanation is due to Mr. Miner, Popular^"" and evidently to some members of the conference, in regard to our place of meeting this morning and the congestion at that meeting. Our idea in having Mr. Miner here to address the conference was to show the representatives of the other provinces and the sportsmen what Mr. Miner was doing. It was not intended that that meeting should be open to the public, but Mr. Miner's reputation is such that he cannot go from one place to another without people knowing it, and evidently some of his friends heard that he was coming here and they filled more than half of the hall. The idea was to invite Mr. Miner here to tell us what he was doing, with the object of passing such a resolution as Dr. Baker has moved, in order that we might get strong action on the part of all the organizations in support of this movement. ■«- National Organization for the Conservation and Protection of Wild Life Dr. Hewitt: I have been asked to bring up a matter which has no doubt occurred to all who have attended this conference, and that is. whether it is desirable to have in Canada an organization of game officials, conservationists and sportsmen — in fact, of all who are inter- ested in the protection of wild life. A number of the members of this conference have intimated that they would like to see such an organization formed; therefore, before we close our proceedings, it may be desirable to discuss this matter, and, if necessary, pass a resolution covering it. V lue of ^^^ ^^^^ certainly appeals to those of us in Ottawa Permanent who are concerned in these matters and are anxious Organization ^^ secure greater co-operation between the Dominion and the provinces and among the provinces themselves. If such an organization were formed, consisting, not entirely of officials, but of all who are interested, and if we met, say, once every two years, or more frequently if thought necessary, a great deal of good could be accomplished by our coming together as we have during the last two days, discussing our problems and endeavouring to co-operate in every way in the work that we are trying to promote. I merely make these few suggestions as an introduction to a discussion on the desira- bility of a permanent national organization of this kind. Mr. Harris: That thought was in my own mind. If we are to accomplish anything there must be presistent pressure, and we can only have that through the medium of an organization. What was in my mind was a committee of three from each province, who would be known as the National Wild Life Conservation Association, and who would, on all matters of general interest, bring in a finding or call together others in order that a finding might be arrived at. I believe that it would be good to start this now and to make a beginning while we are here. It would not be difficult for a representative from each province to suggest the names of two to the conservation com- mittee of each province; then we could endeavour to get the approval of the Governments of the provinces and let them appoint a Govern- ment official. The Conservation Commission could work out the details if this organization would adopt the principle. Mr. Miner: For the last ten or fifteen years I have taken a great interest in the protection of our game. We have our Dominion CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 151 Government officials; are we interested enough in taking care of our game to meet with them at least once every two years and exchange our ideas and our plans in their presence? It is to our advantage as well as to theirs that we should do so; it is to their advantage to know what we want, so that they can work heart and hand with us. I think the suggestion is one that should be supported by everybody in the room. Dominion HoN. Mr. Daniels: If I apprehend the spirit of the Protection of suggestion I agree entirely with it. This matter of ' ' ^ game protection should be not a Provincial but a Dominion matter. If my friend can gather together an organization for the conservation and protection of game such as we have in the Commission of Conservation for other natural resources of Canada, and can induce the Dominion Government to protect the game gener- ally for us throughout Canada, it seems to me that such would be a proper plan; the Dominion Government is the body that should do the work for us. With one or two exceptions, all our provinces are suffering from small revenues. The Dominion Government, however seriously they may have to meet the present situation with regard to the war debt, has taken over the only source of revenue that the provinces ever looked forward to in order to fill their depleted treasuries — the income tax. It is only fair that this matter of game protection and the expenditure involved in it should largely fall on the Dominion treasury, and that the various provinces of Canada should be relieved of that burden. Provinces feel ^" ^^^ Maritime Provinces, by reason of our depleted the Financial treasuries, it is almost impossible for us to branch out ^^*" into any new field of endeavour, even in respect to the matter of game. We would like to see the game of our province protected and developed, but, with the resources which we have at hand, it is impossible for us to do that adequately. What I say about the Maritime Provinces applies also to nearly every pro- vince of Canada, except the two central provinces, which, of course, have tremendous resources that we have not. That is why I intro- duced a resolution this afternoon asking that, in the Maritime Provinces, at least, we should have a little reserve or park of some kind such as they have in the West. Millions of dollars have been spent in parks in the West; why should not the Maritime Provinces have something in that line. These parks might be made game sanctuaries and thus assist this great industry in the Maritime Pro- vinces. If, therefore, my friend's idea is that this whole matter of game protection should be taken over by the Dominion Government, 152 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION it is one which I am sure every one in this room will be pleased to adopt, because that is the legitimate and proper source of protection for our game. Dr. Hewitt: I am sorry that I cannot claim credit for this proposal, because nothing was further from my mind than the interpretation that Mr. Daniels has put upon my suggestion. My idea is that we should have some form of national organization to consider questions relating to the better conservation of our wild life; it has nothing to do with the question of administration. The Dominion Government has its hands only too full at the present time, and is content to leave these matters to the provinces. This explanation is necessary, lest some of our friends from the eastern provinces might go away with the idea that silence means consent. Hon. Mr. Daniels: I expected that. British Columbia ^^' Baker: We, in British Columbia, would object to Game a Source the Dominion Government taking over the admin- o evenue istration of our game. In our province it is quite a source of revenue; as a matter of fact, we have netted the British Columbia Government this year, under the Game Conservation Board, a little over $50,000 in profit. I assure you, therefore, that the Provincial Government would not like to see the Dominion Government take away that revenue. Our gross receipts up to Jan- uary 1, only eight months of the current year, were over $75,000 for gun licenses; our expenditure was not quite $23,000. So we feel that the Government of British Columbia would not be very much in favour of the suggestion made by our friend Mr. Daniels. The idea of a national convention of those interested in the protection of wild life is one of the best things that has been sug- gested here. The only objection I have is to the suggestion that we should meet only once in two years. I think that a convention such as we have held during the last two days should be held at least once a year, and called, as it has been this year, by the Commission of Conservation. Many things arise from year to year; we should meet yearly to discuss them. There is no question at all about the desirability of co-operation among the provinces, and the only way we can get co-operation is to meet annually and discuss the matters that are of vital interest to all of us. I am very much in favour of the convention being held at least once a year. Hon. a. E. Arsenault (Prince Edward Island) : In Legislation as our province we have a Provincial Fish and Game a Result of Association — in fact, we use it for the administration of the Game Act, There is no doubt that there COM^SSIOK Of CIWSfRyATIOM Photo, Courtesy Mr. Dan MfCmrun ROCKY MOUNTAIN SHEEP SHEEP AT THE SIDE OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY, NEAR BANFF, ALTA, Photo, Courtesy Mr. Dan McCowan 63267 c f < c t CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 153 should be an organization in each province, and that a central organ- ization would be most beneficial. It would bring these different organizations in the provinces together, and there would be more co-operation. I have heard a great many things at this conference, and some of the ideas which have been brought forward, especially with regard to what has been done in the province of Quebec, I pro- pose to embody into legislation this spring. No doubt we can get a good deal of information from what is being done in the provinces. I think it is an excellent idea that such an association should be formed and meet periodically, whether once a year or once every two years. Dr. a. Thompson, M.P., (Yukon) : This is a matter in which the Yukon is specially interested. First, let me say that I am heartily in favour of the suggestion made by Dr. Hewitt, that this organiza- tion shall not cease but shall have some continuity. I am not in favour of having the two years interval between the meetings. If we do, interest is liable to die down, and the work would not be nearly so effective as if we met every twelve months. As to the idea of the Federal Government taking this matter over, which was so eloquently presented by Hon. Mr. Daniels, I am not very enthusiastic. 1 have been in Parliament now for three terms, and every session I have heard this plea of poverty from the Mari- time Provinces. I, myself, came from Nova Scotia; I was down there recently, and, in my judgment, it is one of the most prosperous sections of the whole Dominion. While Mr. Daniels referred to the income tax as having been annexed by the Federal Government, he was fair enough to say that it was because of the exigencies of the times. As a matter of fact, I believe that the income tax, so far as the Federal Government is concerned, will very shortly be modified, if not com- pletely eliminated. Of course, I do not know about that, but I do know that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have ample revenues to administer this branch of the public affairs. As to the fur industry itself, the figures submitted to Fur Prc^ucer^*^ ^^^ conference this afternoon were to me very illum- inating. I had no idea that the fur industry in Canada was productive of so large a revenue. I do not know how much fur we produce in the Yukon, but, judging from the figures given with regard to Quebec this afternoon, and also the figures submitted by Mr. Coats, I am satisfied that Yukon, if we knew how much it did produce, would be found to contribute a very considerable proportion to the millions that Canada as a whole produces. We have fur-trading stations there over vast stretches of territory and, 154 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION during the last thirty years, the fur business has been carried on in that country, and an enormous number of pelts is shipped from there every year. -, , . „ , The Premier of Prince Edward Island has just said Checking Value •' of Furs Sent that he has obtained from this Conference some ideas by Mail which he intends to embody in legislation. That demonstrates the benefit of these meetings. But the idea I received this afternoon, which I intend to follow out for the purpose of checking up these vast natural resources of ours, particularly so far as the Yukon territory is concerned, is this: I know that, every year, thousands of dollars worth of fur is shipped out of Yukon by mail to London and St. Louis. We should keep track of these things, and that is a field in which an organization of this kind can operate with great succefes, with a view to finding out how to develop the trade and protect these vast natural resources which we find in every part of Canada from Prince Edward Island to Yukon. If we meet regu- larly, and, if the people who are interested in this great industry know that here in the Capital we have a body that includes within its membership men capable of considering and dealing with the various phases of this question, we should be able to do a great deal of good. Yukon 'is on the map' so far as this is concerned. Those who ^^- BENJAMIN Lawton: The idea is an excellent Benefit should one, and the meeting should be an annual affair. I Pay the Cost suggest that those provinces which have not adopted the licensing system lose no time in doing so. It is only proper that those who benefit by the hunting of game and fur-bearing animals should at least bear a proportion of the cost of protecting them. Only a small proportion of the population of any country enjoys the sport of hunting. A few years ago the statistics of the United States showed that only about ten per cent of the population at most came under this class; why should ninety per cent of the population pay the entire cost of protecting the game of any country? I think a proper move would be to enact legislation requiring those who benefit by one of the natural resources of the country to contribute at least a large proportion of the cost of protecting it. As I stated yesterday, since the organization of the Game Protection Branch in Alberta in 1906, we have had a surplus of some $40,000 over and above the cost of protection. The provinces which have not adopted legislation of this kind should lose no time in following the example set by the United States and followed by many of the provinces of Canada. Mr. F. Bradshaw: I am heartily in accord with the suggestion made by Dr. Hewitt. I have attended the International Conference CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 155 in the United States, and I can say that I have received more informa- tion and more inspiration at this assembly than I have at the Inter- national Conference. I suggest that it is advisable that the Conference be not always held at Ottawa, because some of the western members, especially those from Yukon and British Columbia, have to go to considerable trouble and expense to make the trip east. If we could centralize the place of meeting it would perhaps be better for all concerned. However, that is a matter that can be given consideration when we have finally decided to organize as suggested. Mr. E. T. D. Chambers: I feel that it would be an excellent thing if we could have an annual convention of this kind. Perhaps it might be desirable to create a new society, but I do not know that we can improve on a convention of this kind, called under the aegis of the Commission of Conservation. It appears to me that an annual convention of this kind just about meets the situation. Mr. Harris: It seems to be generally agreed that it is a good thing to have a national organization which will meet annually. I move that this matter be referred to the Commission of Conservation to take action. The motion, which was seconded by Mr. Chambers, was carried. Mr. James White: We have had with us during our delibera- tions a lady delegate — it is the first time that we have had a member of the fair sex with us — in the person of Mrs. Dwyer, Secretary- treasurer of the Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds. I know that I am voicing the sentiments of every member of the conference who is present and of those who have attended the other sessions when I say that we highly appreciate the honour which has been conferred upon us by Mrs. Dwyer. Death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier Sir James Grant: Since we have assembled here within the last few days one of the greatest intellectual lights of the century has suddenly passed away. Sir Wilfrid Laurier took a deep and abiding interest in the conservation of the resources of Canada, as did the late Theodore Roosevelt in his own country. Both these men are gone, but they have left an imperishable record. I wish to move the following resolution: " That this Conference on Wild Life Protection, meeting with the Commission of Conservation, has learned with the most profound regret of the sudden death of the Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ex-Premier of the Dominion, and desires to convey to Lady Laurier its warmest sympathies in the midst of this trying affliction." Sir Wilfrid for years was the pride and hope of our people, loved and respected by all classes for his warmth of heart, gaiiality of disposition, nobility of character, and marked intellectual ability, with a power and eloquence of expression, the gift of few and the admiration of many. His name will go down to posterity as the Gladstone of Canada, cherished far and near for ages to come, the pride and admiration of a wide circle of friends and admirers at home and abroad, where it has been a household word during the present century. Dr. Bryce: I beg to second the motion, in the absence of Senator Edwards, who, I understand, was to have been the seconder. A great sadness has come over us since we met here; the death of this great man has come to us as a shock. It was my pleasure to know Sir Wilfrid for twenty years. My educational position in Manitoba brought me in touch with some of our difficulties there, and no one was so thoughtful, so careful and so anxious to make things smooth and to bring them out right as Sir Wilfrid was. During the twenty years that I have known him I have never come to Ottawa without expecting to see him, and I had hoped to see him when I came here to attend this meeting. I did not always agree with Sir Wilfrid. The last time I talked to him with regard to the unusual conditions result- ing from the war, I said to him: " The West, Sir Wilfrid, is going for conscription; you can depend on that " — and it did. But he was a man of broad sympathies. He did a great work; he did all he could to smooth down our difficulties in Canada. He was a just and kindly CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 157 man, a man whom you could admire in every way. We may not have many more like him, but let us hope that we shall have men in public life who will stand out for truth and righteousness. One thing that impressed me with regard to Sir Wilfrid Laurier was that, when I was in the Old Country, the people in Edinburgh, Birmingham, Sheffield and London seemed to know Sir Wilfrid as well as we did. Therefore, it gives me a kind of sad pleasure to second this resolution. We have lost a great Canadian, whom we all loved, whether we agreed with him politically or not. He was every inch a man, and he did great good for Canada. Dr. Murray: It is universally acknowledged that one of the greatest of Canadians and one of the greatest of the world's statesmen has passed away. I would ask those present to signify their approval of this resolution by a standing silent vote. The resolution was unanimously adopted by a standing vote. Dr. Murray: This brings the business of our meeting to a close. I think it will be agreed that the meetings have been very interesting and that they will prove useful. Indeed, we have had evidence that some of the suggestions made by various speakers are to be put into effect immediately. I hope that this will be only the first of a series of these conventions, each of which will be more interesting and more useful than the one which preceded it. APPENDIX I The Migratory Birds Convention Act {7-8 George V, chap. 18; assented to Aug. 29, 1917) WHEREAS on the sixteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, a Convention was signed at Washington respecting the protection of certain migratory birds in Canada and the United States, and ratifications were exchanged at Washing- ton on the seventh day of December, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen; and whereas it is expedient that the said Convention should receive the sanction of the Parliament of Canada and that legislation be passed for insuring the execution of the said Convention: There- fore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: 1. This Act may be cited as The Migratory Birds Convention Act. 2. The said Convention of the sixteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, which is set forth in the Schedule to this Act, is hereby sanctioned, ratified, and confirmed. 3. In this Act and in any regulation made thereunder, unless the context otherwise requires— (a) " Close season " means the period during which any species of migratory game, migratory insectivorous or migratory nongame bird is protected by this Act or any regulation made under this Act; (6) " Migratory game birds " means — Anatidae or waterfowl, including brant, wild ducks, geese, and swans; Gruidse or cranes, including little brown, sandhill, and whooping cranes; Rallidae or rails, including coots, gallinules, and sora and other rails; Limicolse or shorebirds, including avocets, curlew, dowit- chers, godwits, knots, oyster catchers, phalaropes, plovers, sandpipers, snipe, stilts, surf birds, turnstones, vvillet, woodcock, and yellowlegs; Columbidae or pigeons, including doves and wild pigeons; (c) " Migratory insectivorous birds " means — Bobolinks, catbirds, chickadees, cuckoos, flickers, fly- catchers, grosbeaks, humming birds, kinglets, martins, meadowlarks, nighthawks, or bull bats, nuthatches, orioles, robins, shrikes, swallows, swifts, tanagers, titmice, thrushes, vireos, warblers, waxwings, whip- poorwills, woodpeckers, and wrens, and all other perching birds which feed entirely or chiefly on insects; CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 159 (d) " Migrator^'- nongame birds " means — Auks, auklets, bitterns, fulmars, gannets, grebes, guillemots, gulls, herons, jaegers, loons, murres, petrels, puffins, shearwaters, and terns; (e) " Minister " means the Minister of the Interior; (/) " Regulation " means any regulation made under the pro- visions of section four of this Act. 4. (1) The Governor in Council may make such regulations as are deemed expedient to protect the migratory game, migratory insectivorous and migratory nongame birds which inhabit Canada during the whole or any part of the year. (2) Subject to the provisions of the said Convention, such regulations may provide — (a) The periods in each year or the number of years during which any such migratory game, migratory insectivorous, or migratory nongame birds shall not be killed, captured, injured, taken, molested, or sold, or their nests or eggs injured, destroyed, taken, or molested; (b) For the granting of permits to kill or take migratory game, migratory insectivorous and migratory nongame birds, or their nests or eggs; (c) For the prohibition of the shipment or export of migratory game, migratory insectivorous or migratory nongame birds or their eggs from any province during the close season in such province, and the conditions upon which international traffic in such birds shall be carried on; (d) For the prohibition of the killing, capturing, taking, injuring, or molesting of migratory game, migratory, insectivorous or migratory nongame birds, or the taking, injuring, destruction or molestation of their nests or eggs, within any prescribed area; (e) For any other purpose which may be deemed expedient for carr\'ing out the intentions of this Act and the said Con- vention, whether such other regulations are of the kind enumerated in this section or not. (3) A regulation shall take effect from the date of the publica- tion thereof in the Canada Gazette, or from the date specified for such purpose in any regulation, and such regulation shall have the same force and effect as if enacted herein, and shall be printed in the prefix, in the next succeeding issue of the Dominion Statutes, and shall also be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fifteen days after the publication thereof if Parliament is then sitting, and if Parliament is not then sitting, within fifteen days after the opening of the next session thereof. 5. (1) The Minister may appoint game officers for carrying out this Act and the regulations, and may authorize such game officers to exercise the powers of Justice of the Peace or the powers of a Police Constable. Such persons shall hold office during pleasure, and shall have, for the purpose of this Act and the said Convention, 160 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION such other powers and duties as may be defined by this Act and the regulations. (2) Every game officer who is authorized by the Minister to exercise the powers of a Justice of the Peace or of a Police Constable shall, for all the purposes of this Act, and the regulations, be ex officio a Justice of the Peace or a Police Constable, as the case may be, within the district within which he is authorized to act. (3) Every such game officer shall take and subscribe an oath in the following form, that is to say: " I, A.B., a of do solemnly swear that to the best of my judgment I will faithfully, honestly, and impartially fulfil, execute, and perform the office and duties of such according to the true intent and meaning of The Migratory Birds Convention Act and the regulations made thereunder. So help me God." 6. No one without lawful excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, shall buy, sell, or have in his possession, any bird, nest, or egg or portion thereof, during the time when the capturing, killing, or taking of such bird, nest, or egg is prohibited by law. 7. All guns, ammunition, boats, skiffs, canoes, punts, and vessels of every description, teams, wagons, and other outfits, decoys and appliances of every kind, used in violation of or for the purpose of violating this Act or any regulation, and any bird, nest, or egg taken, caught, killed, or had in possession, in violation of this Act or any regulation, may be seized and confiscated upon view by any game officer appointed under this Act, or taken and removed by any person for delivery to any game officer or justice of the peace. 8. Any game officer appointed under this Act who violates this Act or any regulation, or who aids, abets, or connives at any violation of this Act or of any regulation, shall be liable, upon summary con- viction before any recorder, commissioner of police, judge of the sessions of the peace, police stipendiary or district magistrate, or any two justices of the peace, to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and costs or six months' imprisonment and not less than one hundred dollars and costs or three months' imprisonment. 9. Any person who assaults, obstructs, or interferes with any game officer or peace officer in the discharge of any duty under the provisions of this Act, or of any regulation, shall be guilty of a viola- tion of this Act. 10. Any person who wilfully refuses to furnish information or wilfully furnishes false information to a game officer or peace officer respecting a violation of this Act or of any regulation, the existence of or the place of concealment of any bird, nest, or egg, or any portion thereof captured, killed, or taken in violation of this Act or of any regulation, shall be guilty of a violation of this Act. 11. Any game officer or peace officer may enter any place or premises in which he has reason to believe there exists migratory game, or migratory insectivorous, or migratory nongame birds, nests or eggs, or any parts thereof, in respect of which a breach of this CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 161 Act or of the regulaiions may have been committed, and may open and examine any trunk, box, bag, parcel, or receptacle which he has reason to suspect and does suspect contains any such bird, nest, or egg, or any part thereof. 12, Every person who violates any provision of this Act or any regulation shall, for each offence, be liable upon summary conviction to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars and not less than ten dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment. SCHEDULE Convention Whereas many species of birds in the course of their annual migrations traverse certain parts of the Dominion of Canada and the United States; and Whereas many of these species are of great value as a source of food or in destroying insects which are injurious to forests and forage plants on the public domain, as well as to agricultural crops, in both Canada and the United States, but are nevertheless in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection during the nesting season or while on their way to and from their breeding grounds ; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, and the United States of America, being desirous of saving from indiscriminate slaughter and of insuring the preservation of such migratory birds as are either useful to man or are harmless, have resolved to adopt some uniform system of protection which shall effectively accomplish such objects, and to the end of concluding a convention for this purpose have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries : His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honourable Sir Cecil Arthur Spring-Rice, G.C.V.O., K.C.M G., etc.. His Majesty's ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at Washington; and The President of the United States of America, Robert Lansing, Secretary of State of the United States; Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and adopted the following articles: Article I — The High Contracting Powers declare that the migratory birds included in the terms of this Convention shall be as follows: 1. Migratory Game Birds — (a) Anatidse or waterfowl, including brant, wild ducks, geese, and swans. (6) Gruidffi or cranes, including little brown, sandhill, and whooping cranes. 63267—11 162 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION (c) Rallidae or rails, including coots, gallinules, and sora and other rails. . (d) Limicola? or shorebirds, including avocets, curlew, dowit- chers, godwits, knots, oyster catchers, phalaropes, plovers, sand- pipers, snipe, stilts, surf birds, turnstones, willet, woodcock, and yellowlegs. (e) Columbidae or pigeons, including doves, and wild pigeons. 2. Migratory Insectivorous Birds — Bobolinks, catbirds, chickadees, cuckoos, flickers, flycatchers, grosbeaks, humming birds, kinglets, martins, meadowlarks, night- hawks or bull bats, nuthatches, orioles, robins, shrikes, swallows, swifts, tanagers, titmice, thrushes, vireos, warblers, waxwings, whip- poorwills, woodpeckers, and wrens, and all other perching birds which feed entirely or chiefly on insects. 3. Other Migratory Nongame Birds — Auks, auklets, bitterns, fulmars, gannets, grebes, guillemots, gulls, herons, jaegers, loons, murres, petrels, pufiins, shearwaters, and terns. Article II — The High Contracting Powers agree that, as an effective means of preserving migratory birds there shall be estab- lished the following close seasons during which no hunting shall be done except for scientific or propagating purposes under permits issued by proper authorities. 1. The close season on migratory game birds shall be between 10th March and 1st September, except that the close of the season on the limicolee or shorebirds in the Maritime Provinces of Canada and in those states of the United States bordering on the Atlantic ocean which are situated wholly or in part north of Chesapeake bay, shall be between 1st February and 15th August, and that Indians may take at any time scoters for food but not for sale. The season for hunting shall be further restricted to such period not exceeding three and one-half months as the High Contracting Powers may severally deem appropriate and define by law or regulation. 2. The close season on migratory insectivorous birds shall con- tinue throughout the year. 3. The close season on other migratory non-game birds shall continue throughout the year, except that Eskimos and Indians may take at any season auks, auklets, guillemots, murres, and- puffins, and their eggs for food and their skins for clothing, but the birds and eggs so taken shall not be sold or offered for sale. Article III — The High Contracting Powers agree that during the period of ten years next following the going into effect of this Convention there shall be a continuous close season on the following migratory game birds, to wit: Band-tailed pigeons, little brown, sandhill, and whooping cranes, swans, curlew, and all shorebirds (except the black-breasted and golden plover, Wilson or jack snipe, woodcock, and the greater and lesser yellowlegs); provided that during such ten years the close seasons on cranes, swans, and curlew in the province of British Columbia shall be made by the proper authorities of that province CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 163 within the general dates and limitations elsewhere prescribed in this Convention for the respective groups to which these birds belong. Article IV — The High Contracting Powers agree that special protection shall be given the wood duck and the eider duck either (1) by a close season extending over a period of at least five years, or (2) by the establishment of refuges, or (3) by such other regula- tions as may be deemed appropriate. Article V — The taking of nests or eggs of migratory game or insectivorous or nongame birds shall be prohibited, except for scientific or propagating purposes under such laws or regulations as the High Contracting Powers may severally deem appropriate. Article VI — The High Contracting Powers agree that the shipment or export of migratory birds or their eggs from any state or province, during the continuance of the close eason in such state or province, shall be prohibited except for scientific or prop- agating purposes, and the international traffic in any birds or eggs at such time captured, killed, taken, or shipped at any time contrary to the laws of the state or province in which the same were captured, killed, taken, or shipped shall be likewise prohibited. Every package containing migratory birds or any parts thereof or any eggs of migratory birds transported, or offered for transportation from the Dominion of Canada into the United States, or from the United States into the Dominion of Canada, shall have the name and address of the shipper and an accurate statement of the contents clearly marked on the outside of such package. Article VII — Permits to kill any of the above-named birds which, under extraordinary conditions, may become seriously in- jurious to the agricultural or other interests in any particular com- munity, may be issued by the proper authorities of the High Contract- ing Powers under suitable regulations prescribed therefor by them respectively, but such permits shall lapse or may be cancelled, at any time when, in the opinion of said authorities, the particular exigency has passed, and no birds killed under this article shall be shipped, sold, or offered for sale. Article VIII — ^The High Contracting Powers agree themselves to take, or propose to their respective appropriate law-making bodies, the necessary measures for insuring the execution of the present Convention. Article IX — The present Convention shall be ratified by His Britannic Majesty and by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible and the Convention shall take effect on the date of the exchange of the ratifications. It shall remain in force for fifteen years, and in the event of neither of the High Contracting Powers having given noti- fication, twelve months before the expiration of said period of fifteen years, of its intention of terminating its operation, the Convention shall continue to remain in force for one year and so on from year to year. 164 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION In faith whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals. Done at Washington this sixteenth day of August, 1916. (L.S.) Cecil Spring-Rice (L.S.) Robert Lansing H APPENDIX II The Northwest Game Act {7-8 George V, chapter 36; assented to September 20, 1917) IS Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: 1. This Act may be cited as The Northwest Game Act. 2. In this Act and in the regulations, unless the context other- wise requires, — (a) " Minister " means the Minister of the Interior; (6) " Game Ofificer " means a game officer appointed as such under or by the provisions of this Act or the regulations; (c) " Game Warden " means a game warden appointed as such under the provisions of this Act or the regulations; {d) " Game " means and includes all wild mammals and wild birds protected by this Act or by any regulation, and the heads, skins, and every part of such mammals and birds; (e) " Close season " with respect to any kind of game means the period during which the hunting, killing, destroying, injuring, trapping, taking, capturing, selling, trading in or molesting of such kind of game is prohibited or restricted by this Act or by any regulation; (/) " Open season " with respect to any kind of game means the period during which such kind of game may be hunted, killed, destroyed, trapped, taken, captured, sold, traded in, or possessed; (g) " Regulation " means any regulation made by the Governor General in Council under the authority of this Act; {h) " Northwest Territories " means the Northwest Territories formerly known as Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory (except such portions thereof as are included in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and Yukon) together with all British territories and possessions in North America and all islands adjacent thereto not included within any province except the colony of Newfoundland and its dependencies. 3. This Act shall apply to the Northwest Territories. 4. (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the following shall not be hunted, trapped, taken, killed, shot at, wounded, injured, or molested in any way during the following times of year respectively: (a) Moose, deer, and mountain goat, between the first day of April and the first day of September; (b) Caribou and mountain sheep, between the first day of April and the first day of August, and between the first day of October and the first day of December; 166 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION (c) Mink, fisher, and marten, between the fifteenth day of March and the first day of November; (d) Otter and beaver, between the fifteenth day of May and the first day of October; (e) Muskrat, between the fifteenth day of May and the first day of October; (/) White fox, between the first day of April and the fifteenth day of November; (g) Partridge, prairie chicken, ptarmigan, and other species of grouse, between the first day of January and the first day of September; {h) Wild geese and wild duck, with the exception of eider duck, between the fifteenth day of December and the first day of September. (2) Except as hereinafter provided, no eggs in the nest of any of the said birds or in the nest of any other species of wild fowl, shall be taken, destroyed, injured, or molested at any time of the year. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections one and two, the game therein mentioned may be lawfully hunted, taken or killed, and the eggs of birds therein mentioned may be lawfully taken by Indians or Eskimos who are bona fide inhabitants of the Northwest Territories, or by other bona fids inhabitants of the said territories, and by explorers or surveyors who are engaged in any exploration, survey or other examination of the country, but only when such persons are actually in need of such game or eggs to prevent starvation. (4) Except as hereinafter provided, buffalo, or bison shall not be hunted, trapped, taken, killed, shot at, wounded, injured, or molested at any time of the year. (5) Except as hereinafter provided, musk-ox and wapiti or elk shall not be hunted, trapped, taken, killed, shot at, wounded, injured or molested at any time of the year, except in vsuch zones and during such period as the Governor in Council may prescribe. (6) Except as hereinafter provided, white pelicans shall not be hunted, trapped, taken, killed, shot at, wounded, injured, or molested at any time of the year. (7) Except as hereinafter provided, the following shall not be hunted, trapped, taken, killed, shot at, wounded, injured, or molested in any way: (a) Wild swan, until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight. (6) Eider duck, until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three. (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections one, two, four, five, and six, the Minister or any ofificer or person authorized by him, may issue a permit to any person to take or kill at any time such mammals and birds, or take the eggs or nests of birds, for scien- tific or propagation purposes. (9) Excepting a native-born Indian, Eskimo, or halfbrccd, who is a bona fide resident of the Northwest Territories, no person shall CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 167 engage in hunting, trapping, or trading or trafficking in game, without first securing a license so to do. (a) The fees for such licenses when issued to a bona fide resident of the Northwest Territories shall be: — For hunting and trapping, two dollars. For trading or trafficking, five dollars. (b) The fees for such licenses, when issued to non-residents of the Northwest Territories, shall be fixed by the Governor in Council. (10) The Governor in Council may make regulations — (a) Regulating or prohibiting the use or possession of poison, ammunition, explosives, traps, snares, spring-guns, firearms, and other implements, appliances, and contrivances for hunting, killing, taking, trapping, destroying, or capturing game: Provided that such prohibition shall not apply to such types of guns, rifles, traps, and ammunition as are now in common use; (b) Permitting the hunting, killing, taking, capturing, or trap- ping of specimens of game for scientific or propagation purposes ; (c) Governing the issue of licenses and permits, and prescribing the terms and conditions thereof: (d) Authorizing the appointment by the Minister of game officers and game wardens, and prescribing their duties; (e) Regulating the possession of and transportation of game; (/") Governing the number of mammals and birds that may be killed or taken by any person in one season; (g) For any other purpose which may be deemed expedient for carrying out the provisions and intentions of this Act^ whether such regulations are of the kind enumerated or not. (11) Any regulation made under the provisions of this section may be made to apply to the whole or any part of the Northwest Territories. 5. No one shall enter into any contract or agreement with or employ any Indian, Eskimo, or other person, whether such Indian, Eskimo, or other person is an inhabitant of the country to which this Act applies or not, to hunt, trap, kill, or take game contrary to the provisions of this Act or a regulation; or to take, contrary to the provisions of this Act or a regulation, any egg, nest, or part thereof. 6. All members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and the sub-collector of Customs at Herschel island, shall be ex-officio game officers. 7. (1) Any game officer, when he considers it necessary so to do, may appoint a constable or constables to apprehend any person who has done, or who he has reason to believe has done, anything in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations. (2) Such constable shall, upon appreheliding such person, arrest him and bring him for trial before the nearest justice of the peace, together with any game, eggs, or nests, or parts thereof, protected 168 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION by this Act or a regulation, found in the possession of such person at the time of his apprehension. 8. No person without lawful excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, shall buy, sell, or have in his possession any game, or the nests or eggs of any wild bird, or any part thereof, during the close season. 9. (1) All guns, ammunition, traps, boats, skiffs, canoes, punts, and vessels of every description, horses, dogs, wagons, sleighs, and other outfits, decoys, and appliances, and materials of every kind, used in violation of or for the purpose of violating this Act or any regulation, may be seized upon view by any game officer or game warden, or taken and removed by any person appointed for such purpose by a game officer or game warden, for delivery to a justice of the peace, who may order such chattels to be held pending the payment of any penalty for any offence committed. (2) {a) Any game taken, caught, killed, or had in possession, or any nest or egg or parts thereof taken or had in possession, in violation of this Act, or any regulation; and, (b) Any poison, ammunition, explosives, traps, snares, spring- guns, fire-arms, and other implements, appliances, and contrivances, the use of which is prohibited under the pro- visions of this Act; may be seized on view by any peace officer, game officer, or game warden, and shall be forfeited to the Crown. 10. Any game officer, game warden, or peace officer who violates this Act or any regulation, or who aids, abets or connives at any violation of this Act or of any regulation, shall be liable upor summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and not less than one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment. 11. Any person who assaults, obstructs, or interferes with any game officer, game warden, constable, or other peace officer, in the discharge of any duty under the provisions of this Act or of any regulation, shall be guilty of a violation of this Act. 12. Any person who wilfully furnishes false information to a game officer, game warden, or peace officer respecting a violation of this Act or of any regulation, the existence of or the place of con- cealment of any game, nest, or egg, or portion thereof, captured, killed, or taken in violation of this Act or of any regulation, shall be guilty of a violation of this Act. 13. Any game officer, game warden, constable, or other peace officer may enter any place, building, or premises, or any ship, vessel, or boat in which he has reason to believe there exist game, nests, or eggs, or any parts thereof in respect to which a breach of this Act or of the regulations has been committed, and may open and examine any trunk, box, bag, parcel, or other receptacle which he has reason to suspect and does suspect contains any such game, nest or egg or any part thereof. 14. Any person found committing an offence against this Act may be arrested on view by any game officer, game warden, or peace officer. CONFERENCE ON WILD LIFE 169 15. Every justice of the peace may upon his own view convict for a'ny offence against this Act or a regulation. 16. The killing, taking, trapping, or capturing of each mammal or bird contrary to the provisions of this Act or a regulation, shall constitute a separate offence. 17. Every game officer and every game warden shall, before acting, take and subscribe to the following oath: — A. B. , game officer (or game warden), appointed under the provisions of The Northwest Game Act and the regulations, do swear that to the best of my judgment I will faithfully, honestly, and impartially execute and perform the office and duty of such game officer (or game warden) according to the true intent and meaning of The Northwest Game Act and the regulations. So help me God. 18. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act for which no other penalty is provided, or of any regulation, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to, — (a) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or less than one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment, for any offence against subsections four and five of section four; {h) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or less than fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment, for any offence under subsection nine of section four, or under section eleven; (c) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or less than five dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months, or to both fine and imprisonment, for any other offence against this Act or a regulation. 19. When because of the distance, or for want of conveyance or communication, or for any other cause, it is not convenient to confine any convicted person in the nearest gaol, or other place of confinement, the convicting authority shall have power to confine such person in any suitable building which is more convenient to the place of trial, and to take all necessary precautions to prevent his escape therefrom. 20. (1) Whenever by this Act it is made an offence to do any act without holding a license therefor, the onus in any prosecution shall be upon the person charged, to prove that he was the holder of the license required by this Act. (2) In any prosecution under this Act the onus of proof as to his bona fide residence in the Northwest Territories shall be upon the defendant. 21. Chapter one hundred and fifty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, is hereby repealed. 63267—12 Index PAGE ABITIBI district, depredations by Indians in 30 Advisory Board on Wild Life Protection 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 58, 113, 115, 116, 117, 140, 145, 148 Adirondack mountains 61 African game killed during war 95 Agriculture, Department of 2, 11 Aigrettes, traffic in 79 Alabama, migration of ducks to 86 Alaska 60, 120 sale of game in 64 Alaska Central railway 63 Alaska, gulf of 120 Alaska Game Act 67 Alberta 108, 131, 132, 146, 165 game protection in 52 migration of ducks to 86 spring shooting in 102 Alberta Game Act 115 Alberta Game Protection Branch 154 Aleutian islands 120 Algonquin park, beaver in 31 Allen, W. H 70, 71 Alpine Club of Canada 47 American Game Protective Association 2 , 94 , 95 Anatidae 158, 161 Anderson, Dr. R. M 2 Antelope 52 , 53 , 97 , 108 Arsenault, Hon. A. E 1, 118, 119, 121, 129, 131, 152 Atlantic ocean 162 Atlin district, B.C 70 slaughter of moose in 30 Auk 159, 162 Auklet... 159, 162 Automatic rifle 131, 132 Automatic shotgun 52, 130, 131 Autumn shooting 119, 121 Avocet 158 , 162 BAG limits 77 Baker, Dr. A. R 2, 16, 30, 39, 41, 69, 100, 101, 102, 116, 119, 121, 129, 130, 131, 132, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152 Baker, U. S. Secretary of War 95 Banff, Alta 46, 51 'Barren lands' 4 Barrow, point 64 Battle river 55 Bears 142 black 47 Beaver 55, 124, 125, 129, 166 in Algonquin park 31 in Laurentides National park 50 in New Brunswick 33 in Nova Scotia 34 slaughter of 29 traffic in 97 Bellisle, J. A..1, 39, 105, 117, 118, 121, 122, 127, 128, 129, 131, 138, 139 Bering sea 120 Bighorn sheep, killing of 31 63267— 12§ 171 172 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION PAGE Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. .. .2, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 Birmingham, England 157 Birds, insectivorous 4, 76, 92, 158, 162 migration of 76 migratory 158, 159, 161 nest boxes for 93 Bird rocks, gulf of St. Lawrence 7 Bison 166 Bittern 92, 159, 162 Black, Robson 2 Blackbird 94 Bluebirds .■ 93 Blue Mountain district 92 Bobolinks 158, 162 damage to rice by 109 Boers 96 Bonaventure island, Que 7 Bow river 53 Bradshaw, F 2, 21, 28, 41, 69, 103, 154 Brant 119, 158, 161 British Columbia 120, 130, 132, 146, 152, 155, 162 administration of game law in 116, 117 attitude of sportsmen of 100, 102 depredations by Indians in 30 firearm regulations of 52 fur-traders' licenses in 140 Game Conservation Board 2 , 16 , 116 no sale of game in 69 open season in 101 British North America Act 115 Bryan Company 138 Bryce, Dr. George 1, 38, 103, 145, 156 Buffalo 53, 166 Buffalo, N. Y 90 Buffalo park, Alta 13, 47, 51, 53 Bull bat 158, 162 Bunting, indigo 92 Burnham, J. B 2, 90, 94, 95 Burrell, Hon. Martin 1 CALGARY, Alta 53 California 108, 109 Canada 8, 11, 14, 15, 44, 45, 55, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 74, 77, 83, 96, 98, 108, 110, 119, 135, 142, 150, 151, 154, 156, 163, 165 fur production of 17, 153 game preserves in 57 northern 6 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 protection of migratory birds in 158 , 161 southern 78 western 54 'Canada Gazette 159 Canada goose 44, 110, 116, 147 character of 89, 90 Canadian Forestry Association 2 Canadian Northern railway 36 , 51 Canadian Pacific railway 38 , 53 Camp Fires in the Canadian Rockies 59 Canvasback duck 76 , 80 Cape Breton island, caribou in 35 , 40 Cariboo district, B. C 70 Caribou 4, 52, 67, 143, 165 in Nova Scotia 35 sale of 63 INDEX 173 PAGE Cassiar, B.C., slaughter of moose in 30 Catbird 158, 162 Cats, dangerous to birds 94 Census, decennial 135 Census of industries 134 Chambers, E. T. D 1, 29, 105, 132, 138, 155 Chapala, lake 78 Chesapeake bay 76 , 86 , 162 Chickadee 158, 162 Chilcotin district, Indians of 30, 31 Chipewyan, Alta 138 Choquette, Mgr. C. P 1 Churchill, fort 64 Cleveland, Ohio 70 Close season 158 , 165 Clubs, fish and game 122 Coast mountains 120 Coats, R. H 133, 134, 139, 153 Colonization, Mines and Fisheries (Quebec), Dept. of 123 Columbidae 158 , 162 Commission of Conservation 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, 15, 122, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155 Cooking Lake reserve 53 Coot 106, 107, 158, 162 Coyotes, damage to sheep by 38 Cranes 103, 158, 161, 162 protection of 104 whooping 77 wintering of 78 Criddle, N 2 , 104 Crow, Prof. J. W 93, 94 Crowley, Rev. T. J 2, 43, 145 Cross fox 129 Cuckoo 92, 158, 162 Curlew 158, 162 Customs, Dept. of 125 Cutworm 83 Cypress hills, Alta 53 DAIRY Branch, Dominion Dept. of Agriculture 134 Dakota, North and South 76 Daniels, Hon. O. T 1, 39, 41, 45, 59, 73, 115, 151, 152, 153 Deer 52, 124, 165 black-tailed 52 Ontario fees for 141 plentiful near Banff 46 slaughter of 31 'Delilah,' life history of 84, 85, 90 Depletion of wild life, threatened 9 Detroit, Mich 86 Deuteronomy, reference to 82 Does, killing of 61 Dogs, running of 143 Dominion Govt., protection of wild life by 11 Dominion jurisdiction, over game 114-118, 151, 152 over Indians 146 over migratory birds 99, 101, 103, 105 Dominion parks, protection of game in 11 Dominion Parks Act 13 Dominion Parks Branch 3, 46, 51 Dove 158, 162, mourning 110 Dowitcher 158, 162 174 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION PAGE Ducks, canvasback 76, 80 destruction of salmon by 107 fish 110 harassing of 76 migration of 104 sea ... 107 wintering of 78 wild 107, 120, 158, 161, 166 wild, damage by 103 , 108 Dwyer, Mrs. W. F. L 2, 155 EDINBURGH, Scotland 157 Edmonton, Alta 53 , 138 Edwards, Hon. Senator 2, 6, 31, 45, 81, 156 Eggs, protection of birds' 163 , 166 Eider duck 166 Elk 52, 53, 112, 166 increasing near Lamont, Alta 51 slaughter of 23 Elk Island park, Alta 13, 51, 53 Ely, Mr 93 English Game Guild 95 Erie, lake 86 Ermine 124, 129 Eskimos 5 , 60 privileges of 162, 166 Essex County Wild Life Conservation Association 2, 44, 45, 141, 142, 145 FAIRBANKS, Alaska. 63, 67 Federal (U. S.) jurisdiction over migratory birds (see also 'Dominion jurisdiction') 75, 111, 112 Female hoofed game 66 Finlanders, slaughter of game by 43 Firearms 49 , 52 Fish and Game Association, Prince Edward Island 152 Fish and Game Dept., Quebec 105 Fisher 166 Fishermen, dependence of, on game 106, 107 Fishing leases 122 Flicker 93, 158, 162 Flies, destroyed by swallows 83 Flycatcher 158, 162 Fox, black 129 white 166 Foxes 142 stamping of skins of 129 Foremost Antelope reserve 13 Fort a-la-Corne 26 Fort George, Que 89 Fort Yukon, Alaska 97 France, game killed in 95 Eraser, Colin 138 Frontier regions 66 Frontiersmen 60 Fulmar 159, 162 Fur-dealers, co-operation by 124 Fur-farming in New York state 98 Furs, exports and imports of 137 Government sale of 56 mail shipments of 154 manufactures from 136 stamping of 123 , 1 24 Fur shipments, checking of 139 INDEX 175 PAGE Fur statistics 124, 133, 134 collating of 138 in British Columbia 17 memorandum on 135 Fur trade, regulation of 10, 34, 37, 121, 122, 126, 128, 143 Fur traders' licenses 129, 167 GAGNON, L. A 1, 33 Gallinule 158, 162 Game, cold storage of 66, 72 definition of 165 destruction of, due to white men 38 food value of 63, 96, 119 heavy slaughter of 95 hunting of, by proxy 67 importance of conservation of 4 killing of, for food 55 market-hunting of 96 principles for conservation of 65 protection of 123 sale of 18, 64, 66, 69 shipment of 123 supply of 66 utilization of 60 Game Act, British Columbia 130 Game Act, Prince Edward Island 152 Game Commission, Nova Scotia 59 Game Commission of California 109 Game Conservation Board, British Columbia.. 2, 100, 101, 102, 116, 129, 140,152 Game laws, enforcement of 144 Game Protection Branch, Alta 52 , 154 Game sanctuaries 13, 46, 50, 57, 78, 143, 144 Game wardens 66 qualifications of 49 United States Ill, 112 Gannet 159, 162 Geese, wild 120, 158, 161, 166 at Kingsville, Ont 88 harassing of 76 in Prince Edward Island 119 migration of 104 permit to keep, in captivity 116 protection of, in Nova Scotia 108 shooting of 87 snow 67 , 104 spring shooting of 102 wintering of 78, 107 Genesis, reference to 82 Geological Survey 2, 11 Georgia, strait of 36 Georgian bay 92 Goat, mountain 47 , 165 Godwit 158 , 162 Goose, Canada 44, 89, 90, 110, 116, 147 Goose, domestic 116 Gordon, W 138 Gouin, Sir Lomer 7 Grand Trunk Pacific Ry 53 Grant, Sir James 2, 156 Grebe 159, 162 Greenland, fur trade of 13 Grenfell, Dr. W. T 6 Grey county, Ont 92 176 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION PAGE Grizzly bear 132 Grosbeak 158, 162 Grouse 92 , 166 Gruidae 158, 161 Guillemot 159 , 162 Gull 159, 162 Gun licenses, resolution re 40 HALL, W. C. J 2, 39, 50 Harkin, J. B 2, 45, 46, 51, 99, 115, 118, 127 Harris, Samuel 2, 44, 72, 132, 133, 141, 145, 147, 150, 155 Hawk 94 Hay river, Alta 47 Hebrews, reference to 86 'Helen,' life history of 84 Heron 79, 159, 162 Herschel island, Yukon 167 Hewitt, Dr. C. Gordon 2, 6, 8, 16, 31, 39, 41, 70, 92, 99, 102, 105, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 128, 129, 139, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154 Hill, Dr. E. A 2 Hornaday, Dr. W. T 2, 5, 59, 60, 120, 130 Hose, R. E 2, 17, 116, 117, 129, 140 Hudson bay 4 migration of geese to 86 Hudson's Bay Company 86, 138 Humming bird 158 , 162 Hunting, fees for 167 Hunting leases 122 INDIAN Act 20 Indian Affairs, Dept. of 2, 11, 14, 32, 54, 135, 136 fur statistics of 138 Indian river, Grey county, Ont 92 Indians 60, 143 alleged wanton slaughter by 22 application of provincial laws to 20 food supplies of 21, 27 illegal hunting by 146 of Alberta 54 of New Brunswick 33 privileges of 162, 166 relation of, to wild life conservation 5, 19 respect game sanctuaries 48 return tags on wild geese 86 slaughter of beaver by 29 , 34 slaughter of moose by 24 treaties with 20 Industrial census 136 Insectivorous birds 76 Interior, Dept. of the 2, 3, 4, 11 Interior, Minister of the 5 , 11, 159 , 165 JAEGER. 159, 162 James bay, migration of geese to 86 James river, Alta 47 Japan 120 Jasper park 48 , 50 Job, reference to 83 Juneau (Alaska) Fish and Game Club 68 KENTUCKY, migration of ducks to 86 Kinglet 158 , 162 INDEX 177 PAGE Kingsville, Ont 83, 84, 86 Knight, J. A 1, 34, 40, 59, 107, 128, 139 Knot 158, 162 LACEY Act Ill Lake St. John region, Quebec 124 Lands and Forests Dept., Quebec 122 Lansing, Hon. Robert 161 , 164 Lamont, Alta 51 Last Mountain lake, Sask 103 La Tuque, Que., moose meat consumed at 36 Laurentides National park, Que 50 Lawton, Benjamin 2, 51, 59, 72, 102, 114, 115, 131, 148, 154 Laurier, Lady 156 Laurier, Sir Wilfrid 3 , 6 , 156 Leases, fishing and hunting 122 Lemieux, E. E 2, 37, 72 Licenses, authority to issue 173 books of 141 , 142 family the unit for 67 for taking deer, Ontario 141 , 142 fur traders' 123 , 129 , 140 gun 40 hunting 66, 98, 112 procuring of 145 proposed issue by proxy 67 Lillooet district, B. C, hunting in 31, 36 Limicolae 158 , 162 Little Rock, Arkansas 79 Lloyd, H 115,116 London, Eng 154, 157 Long Island, N. Y 86 Loon 159, 162 Los Angeles, Cal 109 Louise, lake, Alta 47 Louisiana 86 , 104 bird refuges in 78 MACKAY, J. F Mackenzie basin 4 McMurray, Alta Macoun, J. M 2, 36, 41 Mallards, hatched by hen 84 Manitoba.. 125, 132, 156, 165 migration of ducks to 86 protection of migratory birds in 103 , 104 Maritime Provinces 151, 162 resolution re game preserves in 57 Marsh, Edith L 92 Marten 124, 166 Martin 83, 158, 162 Maryland, migration of geese to 86 McCool, C. A 1 McDiarmid, Hon. F. G 91, 147, 148 McLean, Senator HI Meadow lark 158, 162 Medicine Hat, Alta 53 , 55 Meeting lake, Alta 25 Mellon, E 2, 127, 128 Meighen, Hon. Arthur 1, 2, 3, 6, 105 Mercier, Hon. Honore 121 , 139 Merganser..... 106, 110, 117, 118 Mexican bandits, killing of game by 95 1 71 138 178 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION PAGE Mexico 98 wintering of wild fowl in 78 Michigan 110 Migratory Bird Act, original United States 81 Migratory birds 64 in Nova Scotia 35 prohibition of sale of 77 protection of 11 Migratory Birds Convention 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 74, 99, 100, 101, 103, 117, 119, 142 text of 161 Migratory Birds Convention Act, The 99, 101, 102, 113, 115 text of 158 Migratory Bird Treaty (See "Migratory Birds Convention"). Migratory Bird Treaty Act (U. S.) 75, 80, 98, 108, 109, 110, 111 attitude of State governments to 74 constitutionality of 79 Milliners, prosecution of 79 Miner, Jack 2, 28, 37, 44, 45, 58, 81, 82, 90, 141, 147, 148, 149 government grant to 91 Miner, Jasper 84 Mines, Dept. of 11 Mink 124, 166 Minnesota 76 Mississippi river 86 Mississippi valley 78 Mitchell bay, lake St. Clair 84 Mitchell, R. S 2 Montreal, Que 125 Moose 52, 67, 97, 165 increasing in New Brunswick 31 infuriated 132 in Laurentides National park 50 in Nova Scotia 35 sale of 63 slaughter of 22 , 30 Mountain goat 52 Mountain sheep 52 , 67 , 97 sale of 63 Mule deer 52 Murray, Dr. Howard 1, 40, 58, 59, 81, 90, 94, 99, 108, 118, 119, 121, 128, 131, 133, 157 Murre 159, 162 Musk-ox 166 Muskrat 124, 129, 166 NATIONAL conference on the Conservation of Game 101 , 148 National Wild Life Conservation Association 150 Nelson, E. W 2, 5, 73, 74, 98, 108, 118 Nevada, nesting of geese in 76 New Brunswick 125, 153 beaver in 33 game preserve in 57 , 58 moose in 31, 40 protection of migratory birds in 106, 107 resolution re Dominion park in 59 sale of game prohibited in 10 , 70 New Brunswick Forest Act 17 New Brunswick Guides Association 70, 71 Newfoundland 165 New Jersey 130 migration of geese to 86 New York, N. Y 70. 79 INDEX 179 PAGE New York state 125 fur-farming in 98 New York State Conservation Commission 61 New York Zoological park 2 , 59 , 60 Nighthawk.. 158, 162 North America, game situation in 96 North Carolina, migration of geese to 86 North Dakota 76 North End park 47 Northern Trading Co 138 North Pacific ocean 120 North Shore, Que 124 Northwest Game Act 2,4, 12, 14,41, 127, 129 text of 165 Northwest Territories 165 fur trade in 13 game protection in the 11, 12 Nova Scotia 110, 115 deer in 40 fur statistics of 137 , 139 game law of 67 increase of game in 35 proposed game preserve in 58 prosperity of 153 protection of migratory birds in , 107 resolutions re game preserve in 57 , 59 wild geese in 59 Nova Scotia Inland Game and Fishery Protection Association. 34 Nuthatch 158, 162 OHIO. 84 migration of ducks to 86 Olds, Prof 148 Omineca district, B. C 70 Ontario 125, 126, 165 game protection in 142 protection of migratory birds in 104 Ontario Agricultural College 93 Ontario Government grant to Mr. Miner 91 , 147 Oriole 158, 162 Ornithologists 116 Otter 125, 129, 166 Ottawa, Ont 101, 113, 116, 117, 148, 155 Our Vanishing Wild Life 59 Owl 94 Oyster catcher 158, 162 PACIFIC current 120 Panther river, Alta 47 Parent, Hon. Mr 105 Partridge 166 Paterson, N.J 70 Peace River district 38 Peasemarsh farm, Grey county, Ont 92 , 93 Pelee island, Ont 86 Pelee, point, Ont 44 Pelicans, white 166 Pennsylvania 130 Penniac, N. B 70 Permits, emergency 130, 114, 163 propagation 116, 163 scientific 114, 115, 117, 163, 166 Petawawa Camp Fish and Game Club 2 , 37 180 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION PAGE Petrel 159, 162 Phalarope 158 , 162 Pheasants, English 148 Pigeon 158 , 162 band-tailed 162 passenger 95 Plover 158, 162 Poaching 125 Poison, prohibition of 142 , 167 'Polly,' life history of 84, 85 Porcupines, damage by 57 Portland canal, B. C. and U. S 120 Post Office Dept 139, 140 Prairie chicken 166 Pratt, George D 61 Predatory animals 10 Preley, Carl A 95 Prince, Dr. G. H 1 Prince Albert, Sask., slaughter of elk near 23 Prince George, B.C 140 district, B. C 70 Prince Edward Island.. ... 118, 119, 131, 152, 154 Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds 2 Provincial co-operation re migratory birds 99 Provincial fur statistics 137 Provincial jurisdiction over game 99, 100, 101, 105, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 151, 152 Ptarmigan 166 Puffin 159 , 162 Pump shotguns 52, 130, 131 QUAIL, conservation of 45 Quebec, province of 118, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 132, 165 depredations by Indians in 30 fur production of 137 , 153 protection of migratory birds in 105 Quebec city 125 Queen Charlotte islands, B. C 116 Quill lakes, Sask 103 RAIL 158 . 162 Rallidae 158 , 162 Rapsey, Geo. H 2, 32, 104, 128, 140 Red fox 129 Red River district, Man 104 Reindeer, importation of 6 Reserves, hunting 122 Resolution, fort, N. W. T 64 Resolutions, re automatic guns 130 re cold storage of game 72 re control of fur trade 126 re death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier 156 re Dominion parks in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia 59 re fur statistics 138 re game preserves in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia 57 re grant to Jack Miner 147 re gun licenses 40 re Indians 146 re local game associations 145 re report of Essex County Wild Life Conservation Association 145 re sale of game 69 Revillon F"reres, Montreal 2 , 138 Riggs, Thomas 63 INDEX 181 PAGE Robin, American 83, 93, 158, 162 Rocky Mountains park 46, 50, 51 Rocky Mountain sheep, slaughter of 30 Rod and Gun in Canada 2 Roosevelt, Col. Theodore 3 , 132 , 156 Rotary Club, London, Ont 88 Royal' Northwest Mounted Police 146, 167 Royalties on furs 123, 126, 129 Rundle, mount, Alta 47 Rupert's Land ■.•■••. ^65 Russia, game preserves ruined in 95 Rutherford, Dr., of Chatham, Ont 84 SACRAMENTO, Cal 109 Saguenay region 124 St. Clair, lake 84 St. Louis, Mo 154 St. Michaels, Alaska 62 Salmon, injured by wild fowl 107, 117, 118 Sanctuaries, wild life 13 , 46 , 57 , 78 , 143 boundaries of 144 suggested increase of 50 Sandpiper 158 , 162 San Francisco, Cal 109 Saskatchewan 131, 132, 146, 165 difficulties with Indians in 21 migration of ducks to 86 migratory birds of 103 prohibition of sale of game in 10 Sauk Ste. Marie, Ont 86 Sawback district, Alta 47 Scoter 162 Scott, Duncan C 2, 19, 28, 32 Seton, Thompson 4 Seymour, A. O 2 Shearwater 159 , 162 Sheep, mountain 47 , 165 Sheep, domestic 53 Sheffield, Eng 157 Sheldon, Charles 2 Sheldrake 106, 107 Shrike 158 , 162 Silver fox. 129 Sioux Indians 38 'Sir John Moore,' story of 89 Sitka, Alaska 120 Skins, stamping of 123, 124 Skins, unprime 127 , 128 Smith, Hon. E. A 1, 17, 32, 39, 57, 59, 117 Smith, Corp. John R 85, 106 Snipe 158, 162 Society for the Protection of Birds (Que.) 155 Sora 158 , 162 South Dakota 76 Sparrow, European 83 , 94 Sportsmen, part played in war by 52, 96 Spring-Rice, Sir Cecil A 161 , 164 Spring shooting 119, 120 Squirrel, red 94 Statistics, Bureau of 134 , 138 State control of game 112 Statistics, fur 134 Stewart, Mack 85 182 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION PAGE Stilt 158, 162 Sudbury, Ont 28 , 43 Sudbury District Game and Fish Protective Association 2 Sulzer bill 63 Supreme Court of the United States 80 Surf bird 158, 162 'Susan,' life history of 84, 85 Swallow 83 , 158 , 162 Swan, wild 103, 148, 158, 161, 162, 166 trumpeter 77 Swift 158 , 162 Syracuse, N. Y 70 TANAGER 158, 162 Taverner, P. A 2 Taylor, W. J 2 Temiscouata district, Que., depredations by Indians in 30 Tennessee 85 migration of ducks to 86 Tern 159, 162 Texas 78 Thompson, Lieut.-Col. A 2, 121, 119, 153 Thornbury, Ont 92 Thrush 158 , 162 Titmice 158, 162 Trap-lines 144 Trapping, fees for 167 Turnstone 158, 162 Tye. W. F.... 1, 38, 39, 58 Typhoid, carried by flies 83 Tyrrell, J. B 4 UNGAVA, depletion of game in 5 United States 2, 3, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 73, 74, 77, 79, 96, 97, 98, 107, 108, 110, 111, 118, 119, 125, 143, 154, 155, 162, 163 delegates from the 2 , 3 Dept. of Agriculture 148 protection of migratory birds in the 74, 158, 161 United States Forest Service 112 Unity, Sask., complaint from 24 Unprime skins 127, 128 VALDEZ, Alaska 120 Vancouver, B. C 101 , 138 Vancouver Angling and Game Assn 2, 100, 101 Vancouver Game Club 2 Vancouver Gun Club, Ltd 102 Vermin, killing of 97 , 98 Victoria, B. C 100 Vireo 158, 162 WAINWRIGHT, Alta 13 , 47 , 51 Wapiti 166 War, death casualties of the 95 Warbler 158, 162 Wardens, game 99, 106, 144, 165 Wardens, sanctuary 144 Washington, p. C 76, 109, 158, 161, 163, 164 prosecution of game-sellers in 80 Washington, game protection in state of 113 Waterton Lakes park, Alta 50 Waxwing 158, 162 Weasel 94 INDEX 183 PAGE Whippoorwill 158, 162 White, James 2, 70, 91, 104, 115, 128, 147, 148, 155 White river 97 White-tailed deer 52 Wilson, Dr. C. W 2, 71 W'innipcg, lake 104 Witchekan lake 25 Witchekan Lake Indians 28 Willet 158, 162 Williamson, F. H 2, 45, 58, 115 Wolves, depredation by 37 , 142 Woodcock 158, 162 Woodpecker 93, 158, 162 Wren 158, 162 YELLOWLEG 158, 162 Yellowstone park 112 Yukon territory 119, 120, 121, 153, 155, 165 climate of 120 fur production of 153 protection of game in 11 shipment of furs from 154 Yukon river 62 , 120 ^^.k^m^ THIS BOOK IS DITE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. ■■■'^y IS 1946 APR? 1977 7 17 KWli Uli '^ m 1 LD 21-100m-12, '43 (8796s) YD 04334 9484r? SK4ni A3 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY