Commission of Conservation
Canada

SUPPLEMENT TO

ANIMAL SANCTUARIES

IN

LABRADOR

SUPPLEMENT TO
AN ADDRESS PRESENTED

BY

LT.-COLONEL WILLIAM WOOD, F.R.S.C.

Before the Second Annual Meeting of the
Commission of Conservation in
January, 1911

OTTAWA, JUNE 1912

Animal Sanctuaries
in
Labrador

SUPPLEMENT TO
AN ADDRESS
BY

LT.-COLONEL WILLIAM WOOD

OTTAWA, CANADA
1912

Supplement To An Address

ON

Animal Sanctuaries in Labrador

BY

Lieut.-Colonel William Wood, F.R.S.C.

The appeal prefixed to the original Address in 1911 announced the
issue of the present supplement in 1912, and asked experts and other
leaders of public opinion to set the subject on firm foundations by
contributing advice and criticism.

The response was most gratifying. The twelve hundred review copies
sent out to the Canadian press, and the hundreds more sent out to
general and specialist periodicals in every part of the
English-speaking world, all met with a sympathetic welcome, and were
often given long and careful notices. Many scientific journals, like
the Bulletin of the Zoological Society of America, sporting
magazines, like the Canadian Rod and Gun, and zoophil organs, like
the English Animals’ Guardian, examined the Address thoroughly
from their respective standpoints. The Empire Review has already
reprinted it verbatim in London, and an association of outing men
are now preparing to do the same in New York.

But though the press has been of the greatest service in the matter of
publicity the principal additions to a knowledge of the question have
come from individuals. Naturalists, sportsmen and leaders in public
life have all helped both by advice and encouragement. Quotations from
a number of letters are published at the end of this supplement. The
most remarkable characteristic of all this private correspondence and
public notice, as well as the spoken opinions of many experts, is
their perfect agreement on the cardinal point that we are wantonly
living like spendthrifts on the capital of our wild life, and that the
general argument of the Address is, therefore, incontrovertibly
true.

The gist of some of the most valuable advice is, that while the
Address is true so far as it goes, its application ought to be
extended to completion by including the leasehold system, side by side
with the establishment of sanctuaries and the improvement and
enforcement of laws.

Such an extension takes me beyond my original limits. Yet, both for
the sake of completeness and because this system is a most valuable
means toward the end desired by all conservers of wild life, I
willingly insert leaseholds as the connecting link between laws and
sanctuaries.

But before trying to give a few working suggestions on laws,
leaseholds and sanctuaries, and, more particularly still, before
giving any quotations from letters, I feel bound to point out again,
as I did in the Address itself, that my own personality is really of
no special consequence, either in giving the suggestions or receiving
the letters. I have freely picked the brains of other men and simply
put together the scattered parts of what ought to be a consistent
whole.

LAWS

It is a truism and a counsel of perfection to say so, but, to be
effective, wild-life protection laws, like other laws, must be
scientific, comprehensive, accepted by the public, understood by all
concerned, and impartially enforced.

To be scientifically comprehensive they must define man’s whole
attitude towards wild life, whether for business, sport or study. One
general code would suffice. A preamble could explain that the object
was to use the interest, not abuse the capital of wild life. Then the
noxious and beneficial kinds could be enumerated, close seasons
mentioned, regulations laid down, etc. From this one code it would be
easy to pick out for separate publication whatever applied only to one
place or one form of human activity. But even this general code would
not be enough unless the relations between animal and plant life were
carefully adjusted, so that each might benefit the other, whenever
possible, and neither might suffer because the other was under a
different department. If, in both the Dominion and Provincial
governments there are unified departments of agriculture to aid and
control man’s own domestic harvest, why should there not also be
unified departments to aid and control his harvest of the wilds? A
Minister of Fauna and Flora sounds startling, and perhaps a little
absurd. But fisheries, forests and game have more to do with each
other than any one of them with mines. And, whatever his designation,
such a minister would have no lack of work, especially in Labrador.
But here we come again to the complex human factors of three
Governments and more Departments. Yet, if this bio-geographic area
cannot be brought into one administrative entity, then the next best
thing is concerted action on the part of all the Governments and all
their Departments.

There is no time to lose. Even now, when laws themselves stop short at
the Atlantic, new and adjacent areas are about to be exploited without
the slightest check being put on the exploiters. An expedition is
leaving New York for the Arctic. It is well found in all the
implements of destruction. It will soon be followed by others. And the
musk-ox, polar bears and walrus will shrink into narrower and narrower
limits, when, under protection, far wider ones might easily support
abundance of this big game, together with geese, duck and curlews. It
is wrong to say that such people can safely have their fling for a few
years more. None of the nobler forms of wild life have any chance
against modern facilities of uncontrolled destruction. What happened
to the great auk and the Labrador duck in the Gulf? What happened to
the musk-ox in Greenland? What is happening everywhere to every form
of beneficial and preservable wild life that is not being actively
protected to-day? Then, there is the disappearing whale and persecuted
seal to think of also in those latitudes. The laissez-faire argument
is no better here than elsewhere. For if wild life is worth exploiting
it must be worth conserving.

There is need, and urgent need, for extending protective laws all
along the Atlantic Labrador and over the whole of the Canadian Arctic,
where the barren-ground caribou may soon share the fate of the
barren-ground bear in Ungava, especially if mineral exploitation sets
in. Ungava and the Arctic are Dominion grounds, the Atlantic Labrador
belongs to Newfoundland, Greenland to Denmark, and the open sea to
all comers, among whom are many Americans. Under these circumstances
the new international conference on whaling should deal effectively
with the protection of all the marine carnivora, and be followed by an
inter-dominion-and-provincial conference at which a joint system of
conservation can be agreed upon for all the wild life of Labrador,
including the cognate lands of Arctic Canada to the north and
Newfoundland to the south.

This occasion should be taken to place the whole of the fauna under
law; not only game, but noxious and beneficial species of every
kind. And here both local experts and trained zoologists ought to be
consulted. Probably everyone would agree that flies, wolves and
English sparrows are noxious. But the indiscriminate destruction of
all mammals and birds of prey is not a good thing, as a general rule,
any more than any other complete upsetting of the balance of nature. A
great deal could be learnt from the excellent work already done all
over the continent with regard to the farmer’s and forester’s wild
friends and foes. A migrating flight of curlew, snipe, plover or
sandpipers is worth much more to the farmer alive than dead. But by no
means every farmer knows the value of the difference.

This is only one of the many reasons why a special effort should be
made to bring a knowledge of the laws home to everyone in the areas
affected, including the areas crossed by the lines of migration.

The language should be unmistakeably plain. Every form of wild life
should be included, as wholly, seasonally, locally or otherwise
protected, or as not protected, or as exterminable, with penalties and
rewards mentioned in each case. All animals should be called by their
scientific, English, French, and special local names, to prevent the
possibility of mistake or excuse. Every man, resident or not, who uses
rod, gun, rifle, net or snare, afloat or ashore, should be obliged to
take out a license, even in cases where it might be given gratis; and
his receipt for it should contain his own acknowledgment that he has a
copy of the laws, which he thoroughly understands. Particular clauses
should be devoted to rapacious dealers who get collecting permits as
scientific men, to poison, to shooting from power boats or with swivel
guns, to that most diabolical engine of all murderers—the Maxim
silencer,—to hounding and crusting, to egging and nefarious pluming,
to illegal netting and cod-trapping, and last, but emphatically not
least, to any and every form of wanton cruelty. The next step may be
to provide against the misuse of aeroplanes.

I believe it would be well worth while, from every point of view, to
publish the laws, or at all events a digest of them, in all the
principal papers. Even educated people know little enough; and no one,
even down the coast, at the trading posts, or in Newfoundland, should
have the chance of pleading ignorance. “We don’t know no law here”
ought to be an impossible saying two years hence. And we might
remember that the Newfoundlanders who chiefly use it are really no
worse than others, and quite as amenable to good laws impartially
enforced. They have seen the necessity of laws at home, after
depleting their salmon rivers, deer runs and seal floes to the danger
point. And there is no reason to suppose that an excellent population
in so many ways would be any harder to deal with in this one than the
hordes of poachers and sham sportsmen much nearer home.

Of course, everything ultimately turns on the enforcement of the laws.
And I still think that two naturalists and twenty men afloat and the
same number ashore, with double these numbers when Hudson bay and the
Arctic are included, would be enough to patrol Labrador
satisfactorily, if they were in touch with local and leasehold wardens
and with foresters, if the telegraph was used only on their side, if
they and the general inspector were all of the right kind, and if the
whole service was vigorously backed up at headquarters. Two fast motor
cruisers and suitable means of making the land force also as mobile as
possible are sine qua non.

The Ungava peninsula, Hudson bay and Arctic together would mean a
million square miles for barely a hundred men. But, with close
co-operation between sea and land, they could guard the sanctuaries as
efficiently as private wardens guard leased limits, watch the outlets
of the trade, and harry law-breakers in the intervening spaces. Of
course, the system will never be complete till the law is enforced
against both buyers and sellers in the market. But it is worth
enforcing, worth it in every way. And the interest of the wild life
growing on a million miles will soon pay the keep of the hundred men
who guard its capital.

LEASEHOLDS

An article by Mr. W.H. Blake, K.C., of Toronto, on “The Laurentides
National Park” appeared in the February number of the University
Magazine. The following extracts have been taken from Mr. Blake’s
manuscript:

“It was in the year 1895, that the idea took substance of setting
apart some two thousand five hundred square miles of the wild and
mountainous country north of Quebec and south of Lake St. John as ‘a
forest reservation, fish and game preserve, public park and pleasure
ground’. At a later date, the area was increased, until now some three
thousand seven hundred square miles are removed from sale or
settlement. An important though indirect object was the maintenance of
water-level in the dozen or more rivers which take their rise in the
high-lying plateau forming the heart of the Park.

“When the ice takes in early November the caribou make it their great
rallying ground. These animals, so wary in summer and early autumn,
appear to gain confidence by their numbers, and are easily stalked and
all too easily shot. It is to be feared that too great an annual toll
is taken, and that the herd is being diminished by more than the
amount of its natural increase. Slightly more stringent regulations,
the allowance of one caribou instead of two, the forbidding of
shooting in December and January, when the bulls have lost their
horns, would effect the result, and would ensure excellent sport in
the region so long as the Park exists and is administered as it is
to-day. There is, however, very serious menace to the caribou in the
unfortunate fact that the great timber wolf has at last discovered
this happy hunting ground. Already it would seem that there are fewer
caribou, but the marked increase in the number of moose may be one
cause of this. Before the days of the Park the moose were almost
exterminated throughout this region; but a few must have escaped
slaughter in some inaccessible fastness, and under a careful and
intelligent system of protection they have multiplied exceedingly. Man
may not shoot them, and probably only unprotected calves have anything
to dread from the wolves.

“In the administration of this Reserve the government adopts a policy
which has shown admirable results; and as this policy is in direct
contrast to the one pursued in the Algonquin Park it may be
interesting to explain and discuss it. It can be admitted, as a matter
of theory, that a ‘public park and pleasure ground’ should be
maintained by the people for the people, and that no individuals
should have exclusive rights conferred upon them to fish or shoot
within it. This ideal conception takes no account of human nature, and
a scheme that has to do with the control and conduct of men should not
disregard their weaknesses, or the powerful motive of self-interest.
The greater part of the Laurentide Park is free to anyone who takes
out a license and complies with certain regulations. But, at the
points most threatened by poachers, the practice is followed of
granting five-year leases of moderate areas to individuals and to
clubs. The first requirement of these grants is that the lessee shall
appoint a guardian, approved by the Department, and shall cause the
conceded territories to be protected in an adequate manner. The
guardian, for his part, is immediately answerable to an individual who
pays his salary. He contrasts his former precarious living as a
trapper or poacher with the assured competence which he now earns more
easily, and makes his election in favor of virtue. Thus he becomes a
faithful servant both of the Government and his employer, and a
really effective unit in the protection of the Park. The lessee, in
turn, will neither practice nor tolerate any infringement of the laws
which would imperil his lease, nor deplete of fish and game a country
which he intends to revisit. He would not necessarily be actuated by
these motives if he entered the Park casually and considered nothing
but his own sport or pleasure. It may be added that the lessee has
reasonable assurance of the extension of his privileges if they are
not abused and knows that he will be compensated for moneys properly
expended if the Government sees fit not to renew his term. The
guardians co-operate with one another under the general guidance of a
most competent inspector, and the striking increase in fish, fur and
feather is apparent not only in the region immediately protected but
also ouside its boundaries. Trappers who fought bitterly against being
excluded from this part of the public domain now find that the
overflow of wild life into the surrounding country enables them to
bring more pelts to market than they did in the old days, and have
become reconciled. Guardians, gillies, carters, porters and canoemen
live in whole or in part, on providing fishing and shooting. Under no
other arrangement could the conceded territory afford sport and a
living to so many people, and in no other way could the balance
between resources and their exhaustion be so nicely maintained.”

On page 47, Mr. Blake corroborates the statement of the shameful act I
mentioned at the bottom of page 18 of my Address. “On sighting a
band of six caribou he bade his man sit down to give him a rest for
his rifle. He then fired and continued firing till all were killed.
When his companion made to walk towards the animals, Sir —— said to
him roughly:

“‘Where are you going?’

“‘To cut up the caribou.’

“‘… I don’t want them.'”

This game murderer killed three times as many as the prescribed limit
on this one occasion. Yet nothing was done to him!

SANCTUARIES

However desirable they are from any point of view leaseholds are not
likely to cover much of Labrador for some time to come. They should be
encouraged only on condition that every lessee of every
kind—sportsman, professional on land or water, lumberman or
other—accepts the obligation to keep and enforce the wild-life
protection laws in co-operation with the public wardens who guard the
sanctuaries, watch the open areas and patrol the trade outlets.

I have very little to add to what I said about sanctuaries in the
Address. Most of the information received since it was published has
only emphasized the points it made. And as no one has opposed and many
have supported the establishment of the Harrington sanctuary I again
recommend it strongly. The 64 miles in a straight line between cape
Whittle and cape Mekattina should be made into an absolute sanctuary
for all birds and mammals. If some more ground can be taken in on
either side, so much the better. But the 64 miles must be kept in any
case. The Bird rocks and Bonaventure island, one of the Mingans, the
Perroquets, Egg island and The Pilgrims, are all desirable in every
way. There are plenty of islands to choose from along the Atlantic
Labrador and round Hudson and James bays. It is most important to keep
the migratory birds free from molestation during the first fortnight
after their arrival; and the same applies to migratory mammals, though
not quite in the same way. Inland sanctuaries should be made near
Hamilton inlet, in the Mingan and Mistassini districts and up the
Eastmain river. Ultimately an Arctic sanctuary might be made on
either Baffin or Melville islands. A meteorological station in the
Arctic, linked up with Labrador by wireless, would be of great benefit
to the weather forecasts, as we now have no reports from where so much
of our cold or mild winters are affected by the different drift of
enormous ice-fields; and whenever one is established, a wild-life
protection station should accompany it.

Sanctuaries should never be too big; not one tenth of the whole area
will ever be required for them. But they should be placed where they
will best serve the double purpose of being natural wild “zoos” and
over-flowing reservoirs of wild-life. The exact situations of most,
especially inland, will require a good deal of co-operative study
between zoologists and other experts. But there is no doubt whatever,
that they ought to be established, no matter how well the laws are
enforced over both leaseholds and open areas. Civilised man is
appreciating them more and more every day; and every day he is
becoming better able to reach them. By giving absolute security to all
desirable species in at least two different localities we can keep
objects of Nature study in the best possible way both for ourselves
and our posterity.

Only twelve years ago forty mills were debasing the immemorial and
gigantic sequoia into mere timber in its last refuge in California.
But even the general public sees now that this was a barbarous and
idiotic perversion of relative values. What is a little perishable
timber, for which substitutes can be found elsewhere, compared with a
grove of trees that will be the wonder and delight of generations?
What is the fleeting but abominable gratification of destroying the
harmless lizard-like Tuatera of New Zealand compared with the deep
interest of preserving it as the last living vertebrate that takes us
back to Primary times? What is the momentary gratification of wearing
egret feathers compared with the certainty of soon destroying the
herons that produce them altogether; or what can compensate for the
vile cruelty done to mutilated parent birds and starving young, or the
murder of Bradley, the bird warden when trying to protect them?

LETTERS

The following quotations from a few of the many and wholly unsolicited
letters received are arranged in alphabetical order. They are strictly
verbatim:

Australia. The Animals’ Protection Society. F. Montagu Rothery,
Esq., Secretary, 82 Pitt Street, Sydney, New South Wales.

Here in this State our fauna and flora are both rapidly
disappearing, there being so many agencies at work for their
destruction. It will soon be too late to save many of our
beautiful birds and animals, and I am anxious to bring
under notice your words for the preservation of animals by
a system of sanctuaries.

Dr. Robert Bell, late Chief Geologist, Geological Survey of Canada,
who has made many explorations in Labrador and adjacent lands and
waters, and who has always given special attention to the mammals,
writes:

I approve very heartily of the plan. It will be a humane
thing to try to protect the animals and will be very
advantageous in every way. It will no doubt receive the
sympathy of all classes. There will, however, be some
difficulties to overcome and much work to be done before the
plan gets into successful operation…. As to the location
and dimensions of the sanctuary, the north side of the lower
St. Lawrence is the most suitable or only region left,
except where it is too far north to benefit the most of the
mammals and birds which we should try to preserve. It will
be desirable to reserve and protect as great a length of the
shore as possible, but perhaps enough will be found between
Bradore bay on the east and Great Mekattina island on the
west, or this might be extended to Natashkwan. To carry it
up to Mingan, it would become more and more difficult to
protect the coast the further up you come. Between Mekattina
island and Natashkwan, there are no attractive rivers to
tempt trespassers to go inland, those which exist being
difficult for canoe navigation….

The animals soon find out where they are safe and come to
live in even a small area. The Algonquin park is a case in
point. There the bears have increased immensely in a few
years and the less noticeable mammals and birds have also
increased very much. I know of a more conspicuous case of a
small area, on the Nelson river, where, owing to an
old-standing superstition of the Indians, the animals have
not been molested for a long period and they have become
much more numerous than elsewhere…. Everything that can be
killed is called Game. Most of it should be called animal
murder and should be discouraged.

The Sanctuary should be placed in charge of a committee of
naturalists. But zoologists are scarce in Canada and those
who have taken an interest in the animals might be included.
Faithful men to carry out their instructions I think can be
found.

The President of the Boone and Crockett Club, Major W. Austin
Wadsworth, Geneseo, N.Y., wrote:

I wish to express officially the admiration of our Club for
your paper on Animal Sanctuaries in Labrador, because the
whole question of Game Refuges has been one of especial
interest to us and we have been identified with all
movements in that direction in this country.

Captain R.G. Boulton, R.N., retired, was engaged for many years on the
Hydrographic Survey of the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gulf and
Newfoundland. He says:

There is no doubt, as regards the conservation of birds,
that sea-birds, such as gulls, &c., &c., are useful “aids to
navigation,” by warning the mariner of the proximity of
land, on making the coast. On foggy shores, like those of
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, they are especially
useful, and it is to the advantage of the voyaging public to
conserve what we have left. While carrying on the Survey of
Georgian bay, and North channel of lake Huron, 1883-1893,
the Bayfield, my surveying vessel, was more than once kept
off the rocks in the foggy weather which prevails in May and
June, by the chirping and warbling of land birds.

His Excellency the Right Hon. James Bryce, British Ambassador at
Washington, who is a keen botanist and lover of the wilds, writes:

It is painfully interesting. One finds it hard to realize
that such wicked waste of the gifts of Providence, and such
horrible cruelty, should be going on in our time. You are
doing a great service in calling attention to them and I
heartily wish you success in your endeavours.

At a special meeting of the Board of Governors of the Camp-Fire Club
of America, held on December 12th last, the following resolution was
unanimously passed:

“Whereas, the Camp-Fire Club of America desires to express
its interest in and endorsement of the plan for the
establishment of Bird and Animal Sanctuaries in Labrador,
outlined by Lieut.-Colonel William Wood in his address
before the Commission of Conservation delivered at Quebec,
in January, 1911;

“We believe that the establishment of adequate sanctuaries
is one of the most potent factors in the conservation of our
rapidly disappearing wild life. The Camp-Fire Club of
America has taken, and is taking, an active part in the
movement for the establishment of such sanctuaries in
various places. We believe that such sanctuaries should be
established in Labrador in the near future, while an
abundance of undeveloped land is available and before the
wild life has been decimated to such an extent as to make
its preservation difficult;

“Be it therefore Resolved, that the Secretary convey to
Colonel Wood the assurance of our hearty interest in and
approval of the plan to establish adequate animal
sanctuaries in Labrador, and our hope that such sanctuaries
will be established in the near future.”

Dr. John M. Clarke, Director, Science Division, New York State
Education Department, and a gentleman acquainted with the wild life of
the gulf of St. Lawrence, writes:

I have taken much interest in reading your paper. It seems
to be based on an extraordinary acquaintance with the
situation.

Canada is blessed with many unique natural resorts of animal
life and I have been particularly impressed with the
invasions that have been made on the wonderful nesting
places of the waterfowl. In my repeated stays on the coast
of Gaspe and the islands of the Gulf, now running over a
dozen years, I have had my attention forced to the hideous
sacrifices of bird life that are constantly going on; for
example in the Magdalen islands with their extraordinary
array of shore birds. The great lagoons within the islands
afford ideal breeding conditions, and an extraordinary
attraction for the hunter as well.

My observation leads me to the conviction that the shooting
law is not in the least respected on these islands, except
perhaps by the residents themselves. In some cases the
outsider is obliged to wait for the fall migration of the
ducks and geese and so comes within the law, but there are
plenty of early migrants that arrive during the close
season, only to be quickly picked up by the summer hunter,
who realizes that he is too far away to incur the law’s
force.

As far as the shore birds are concerned, it is not the
occasional hunter that does the real damage. The islands are
becoming widely known to students of birds, and it is the
bird student, the member of the Audubon Society, (in most
instances, I regret to say, men of my own country) who are
guilty of ruthless slaughter of the shore birds for their
skins, and particularly for their eggs; all this in the
protected season.

The situation is even worse on the Bird rocks. That is a
protected area and yet is subject to fearful attacks from
the egg hunters. I do not mean the commercial “eggers,” but
the member of the Audubon Society who has a collection of
birds’ eggs and skins and wants duplicates in order to enter
into exchange with his colleagues. I met there on one of my
visits an American “student” who had taken 369 clutches of
eggs of each of the seven or more species of waterfowl there
breeding, thus destroying at one swoop upwards of two
thousand potential birds. It is no wonder that, with such a
hideous desecration of the rights of the birds, the
population of the Rocks is rapidly decreasing.

I believe the light-keeper is supposed to be a conservator
of the birds and to prevent such uncontrolled destruction;
but what can he do, a man who is practically exiled from the
rest of his race for the entire year, frozen in for six
months of the year? He is naturally so overjoyed at the
sight of a fellow creature from the big world outside as to
indulge him, whatever his collecting proclivities may be.
The eggs that are taken by the occasional sailor seem to me
to cut no figure at all in the actual diminution of the bird
life there. That is a slender thing compared with the
destruction caused by the bird students. It is a severe
indictment of the ornithologist that such statements as the
foregoing happen to be true.

Almost as remarkable for its number of waterfowl of the same
species is the roost on the east cliffs of Bonaventure
island. These have fortunately been rendered by Nature, thus
far, inaccessible and the bird men have not yet found a way
of getting among them. Yet, even so, there is constantly a
great deal of reckless shooting at the birds simply for the
sake of “stirring them up.” This place is not protected by
law, I believe, as a special reservation, but that might
easily be brought about if the matter were placed in the
hands of some responsible citizen residing on that island.

There is a happy situation in connection with the great
Percé rock at Percé, on the top of which the gulls and
cormorants have kept house for untold generations. These
birds are a constant temptation to the men with a gun, but
the Percé people are so attached to the birds that no one
would ever think of killing one, except the occasional
French fisherman who will eat a young gull when hard
pressed. Any attempt made by outsiders to use the birds as
targets is resented so strongly that even the cormorants are
let live.

Your address seems to me timely and extremely pertinent. I
hope your proposition may receive more than passing
attention and the suggestions therein be made effective, for
they certainly aim to maintain the natural attractions and
the natural resources of the country.

Mr. Napoleon A. Comeau, author of Life and Sport on the North Shore,
and one who has had fifty years’ practical experience within the
Labrador area, writes from Godbout River, Que.:

I trust your good work will be crowned with success. A lot
of good has already been accomplished by the spreading of
literature on this subject by the Audubon Society, the
A.O.U. and others, but much remains to be accomplished. It
has always been my aim in this section to prevent wanton
destruction of all kinds and I am glad to say I have had
considerable success in educating our younger generation
here. Small birds of all kinds used to be wantonly killed by
boys, a thing I rarely see now—it was the same in the other
ways by men—but I must say that real trappers or Indians
are not the worst by any means. These men will kill at all
times and seasons but only through necessity; strangers and
so-called sportsmen are generally the offenders. I have been
a trapper myself for years, a professional, but had been
taught never to kill wantonly…. Of course, much study and
care must be exercised in preserving species of birds and
animals from destruction, or else, as you say, mistakes may
be made. There are species of such that are destructive to
others when allowed to increase beyond certain limits, and
it takes a very short time to do that in some cases….
About three years ago, ruffed grouse were so scarce
everywhere that I have travelled hundreds of miles without
seeing one. They were protected by law, which no doubt did
much near the densely populated sections, but as far as our
coast was concerned did absolutely nothing because Indians
and trappers shot them on sight for food. Last year there
were a few seen here and there and all at once, during the
present season, there are thousands. Hundreds have been shot
and they are reported abundant all over. I imagine this must
be due to particularly favourable weather conditions and the
immense number of foxes trapped last winter. There is also
this fall, an extraordinary number of muskrats—they are
swarming everywhere, even in totally, unfavourable
localities, doing much damage in some places. What is the
cause of this? Presumably it must be through some cause
decreasing the number of their enemies. This is why I think
much care must be taken before any steps are taken to
protect certain species. Some still hold their own against
all odds.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, Governor General of Canada,
acknowledged the receipt of the Address from Balmoral Castle in
September, granted an interview at Ottawa in December, and authorized
the use of his name to show his sympathy with the movement.

Dr. W.T. Grenfell has a long and most intimate knowledge of the
Atlantic Labrador. He writes:

The matters of animal preservation which interest me most
are: The rapid decline in numbers of harp seals which we
Northern people can get for our boots and clothing. This
food and clothing supply, formerly readily obtainable all
along the Labrador, helped greatly to maintain in comfort
our scattered population. It is scarcely now worth while
putting out seal nets. We attribute this to the destruction
of seals at the time of their whelping, by steamers which
are ever growing larger and more numerous. No mammal,
producing but one offspring can long survive this.

Along the Labrador coast east of the Canadian border, birds
are destroyed on sight and nests robbed wherever found. The
laws are a dead letter because there is no one to enforce
them.

There is great need also for scientific inquiry with regard
to the fisheries—the herring and mackerel are apparently
gone, the salmon are getting scarcer, and the cod fisheries
have been failing perceptibly these past years. Yet there is
no practical effort made to discover the reason and obviate
it.

On the 9th of September, 1911, Earl Grey made the following entry in
the visitors’ book at La Roche:

I desire to thank the provincial government of Quebec for
having given me the opportunity of visiting, as their guest,
the Laurentides National Park, and to acknowledge the great
pleasure which I have derived from all I have seen and
done…. I would also like to congratulate them on the
wisdom of their policy in establishing so large a reserve,
as a protection for various breeds of wild animals which
would otherwise be in danger of extinction, and as a place
of rest, refreshment, and recreation for those who love the
quiet of the wilds.

Mr. George Bird Grinnell, one of the greatest authorities in the world
on the Indian and wild life of North America, writes:

I have recently read with extraordinary interest your
address, presented last January to the Commission of
Conservation….

I wish to offer you my personal thanks for the effective way
in which you have set forth the desirability of establishing
wild-life refuges in Labrador, and I trust that what you
have said will start a movement in Canada to carry out this
good project. It has long interested me to know that your
people and their officials seem much more farseeing than
those on this side of the line, and Canada’s show of
national parks and reservations is far more creditable than
that of her neighbour to the south.

Dr. H. Mather Hare, who does on the Canadian Labrador what Dr.
Grenfell does on the Newfoundland or Atlantic Labrador, and whose
headquarters are at Harrington, where the first coast sanctuary ought
to be established at the earliest possible moment, says:

May I make a suggestion? The fishermen coming here from Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland do not believe there is really a law
against egging and shooting. They say it is a put-up job by
the people living on the coast, because they want all the
eggs and birds themselves. This being the case, would it not
be a good idea to have a notice in several of the Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland papers warning the fishermen
against breaking the law, and in this way putting the
interdiction on a legal footing; so they may understand that
it is not a mere bluff on the part of the people living on
the coast. So far there has been nothing but talk, and
nothing official; no arrest made, etc., so one can hardly
blame them for the position they take, especially as they
have been doing the same thing for many years.

The notice should be very clear and penalties set forth
plainly.

Mr. W.T. Lindsay, M.E., who has travelled thousands of miles through
Labrador, writes:

I have spent two summers in the north eastern wilderness of
Quebec and can fully appreciate your suggestions.

I take the liberty of sending you a copy of an “interview”
by the Montreal Witness upon my return in 1909, by which
you will see that I am in accord with your views, i.e.,
unless the Government takes immediate steps to protect the
wild animals in the Province of Quebec, many of them will
become extinct….

I would suggest that the Commission of Conservation make a
close investigation of the ways and means of the fur
traders along the north shore, and I believe that official,
unbiassed and independent investigation will expose a very
peculiar state of affairs in connection with the
mal-conservation of game.

Mr. Clive Phillips-Wolley, the well known authority on big-game sport,
writes from Koksilah, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada:

… of course I agree with your views: we have in this
Province been doing our best to put them in practice with
the most excellent results. Dr. W.T. Hornaday stirred us up,
and, though we did not put our sanctuaries exactly where he
suggested we took a hint from him and have been rewarded by
an extraordinary increase in big-horns, wapiti and other big
game. I, of course, have shot a great deal as a big game
hunter, but, thank God, I don’t remember one wanton kill,
and I know I have not killed one per cent. of the beasts I
might have done. No one wants to….

The Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, ex-President of the United States,
writes:

I desire to extend my most earnest good wishes and
congratulations to the Commission of Conservation of Canada.
Your address on the need of animal sanctuaries in Labrador
must appeal, it seems to me, to every civilized man. The
great naturalist, Alfred Russell Wallace, in his book, “The
World of Life,” recently published, says that all who
profess religion, or sincerely believe in the Deity, the
designer and maker of this world and of every living thing,
as well as all lovers of Nature, should treat the wanton and
brutal destruction of living things and of forests as among
the first of forbidden sins. In his own words, “All the
works of Nature, animate or inanimate, should be invested
with a certain sanctity, to be used by us but not abused,
and never to be recklessly destroyed or defaced. To pollute
a spring or a river, to exterminate a bird or a beast,
should be treated as moral offences and as social crimes.
Never before has there been such widespread ravage of the
earth’s surface by the destruction of vegetation, and with
it, animal life, and such wholesale defacement of the earth.
The nineteenth century saw the rise and development and
culmination of these crimes against God and man. Let us hope
that the twentieth century will see the rise of a truer
religion, a purer Christianity.” I have condensed what Mr.
Wallace said because it is too long to quote in full. He
shows that this wanton and brutal defacement of Nature, this
annihilation of the natural resources that should be part of
the National capital of our children and children’s
children, this destruction of so much that is beautiful and
grand, goes hand in hand with the sordid selfishness which
is responsible for so very much of the misery of our
civilization. The movement for the conservation of our
natural resources, for the protection of our forests and of
the wild life of the woods, the mountains and the coasts, is
essentially a democratic movement. Democracy, in its
essence, means that a few people shall not be allowed for
their own selfish gratification, to destroy what ought to
belong to the people as a whole. The men who destroy our
forests for their own immediate pecuniary benefit, the men
who make a lifeless desert of what were once coasts teeming
with a wonderfully varied bird life, these, whether rich or
poor, and their fellows in destruction of every type, are
robbing the whole people, are robbing the citizens of the
future of their natural rights. Over most of the United
States, over all of South Africa and large portions of
Canada, this destruction was permitted to go on to the
bitter end. It is late now, but it is not too late for us to
put a stop to the process elsewhere. What is being done in
Labrador is substantially what was done, and is still, in
places, being done in Florida. A resolute effort is now
being made by the Audubon Societies, and all kindred
organizations, to stop the waste in the United States. Great
good can be done by this effort, for there is still very
much left to save in the United States. But there is very
much more left to save in Canada. Canada has taken the lead
in many matters of far-reaching importance to the future
welfare of mankind, and has taught other nations much. She
can teach no more important lesson to other nations, and
incidentally, she can benefit herself in no more striking
way, than by resolutely setting to work to preserve her
forests, and the strange and beautiful wild creatures, both
beasts and birds, of her forests and her sea-coasts.
Labrador offers one of the best of all possible fields for
such work. The forests, the wild beasts and wild birds of
Labrador can be kept perpetually as one of the great assets
of Canada; or they can he destroyed in a spirit of brutal
and careless vandalism, with no permanent benefit to anyone,
and with the effect of ruining the country and preventing
its ever becoming what it otherwise would become. The
economic argument is by no means the only argument, and, in
my eyes, is hardly the most important argument for
preserving the forests and wild life of Labrador, as your
Commission desires to preserve them, but it is in itself so
important that, even though there were no other reason to be
adduced, it would amply warrant the taking of the action
you recommend. I extend you my warmest good wishes for the
success of your movement.

Mr. Ernest Thompson Seton writes:

… your most interesting and convincing address on Animal
Sanctuaries in Labrador. You certainly have hit the nail on
the head. It is now demonstrated by experiments in many
parts of the world that the only sure way to preserve
indefinitely a supply of wild animals is by giving them
well-placed, well-selected sanctuaries, wherein at all
seasons they are safe. I am delighted to know that you are
taking up this important matter with such vigor.

South Africa. Major Hamilton, Superintendent, Transvaal Government
Game Reserves, Koomatipoort, says:

I have been much interested in reading Col. Wood’s address.
They seem to have the same difficulties to contend with
there as we have here, i.e., ignorance and apathy of the
public, and active opposition from those with axes to grind.

Major Hamilton encloses the Regulations under Section 4 of the Game
Preservation Ordinance, 1905, (C)—Reserves. By these it appears
that “owners of private land situate in a Reserve or persons having
the permission in writing of such owners shall have free access to
every part of such land.” But routes of access in the Reserve
generally are exactly defined and must be followed. Penalties up to
£50 may be imposed for the infraction of any one of six different
clauses. Major Hamilton also says:

The Game Sanctuaries of the Transvaal stretch along the
eastern border of the Province for a length of 250 miles
with an average breadth of 50 miles.

They are in charge of a Warden under whom are six Rangers.
Five of these Rangers are in charge of each of one of the
five areas into which the Reserves are divided, four for the
Sabi Reserve and one for the Singwitsi Reserve, and each has
at his disposal a force of 12 native rangers or police. The
sixth Ranger is specially employed in the capture of live
animals for zoological purposes, the destruction of vermin
and for any emergency duty which may arise. His headquarters
are, therefore, within easy reach of the Warden.

The Warden has, further, in the districts included in the
Game Reserve, the powers of a Resident Justice of the Peace,
a Sub Native Commissioner, and a Customs Officer, while the
Rangers, white and native, have the full powers and duties
of police. The area is therefore quite self-contained, and
at the Warden’s headquarters, are police barracks, court
house and lock-up, and a post of the Transvaal police in
charge of a corporal is permanently stationed there. The
special by-laws which are enforced are set forth in the
attached slip. There are about 4,000 natives, all told,
resident within the area. Most of them have been admitted as
residents on condition of their giving assistance to the
staff, and hold their tenure conditionally on their
behaviour. This system has been found to work admirably,
for, while practically no harm is done by these residents,
very considerable assistance has been obtained from them in
detecting poachers.

All carnivorous mammals are treated as vermin and are
systematically destroyed.

No shooting or hunting of any kind is permitted in the
Reserve, and in fact members of the public except on special
permit are not allowed to carry firearms or to leave certain
main tracks.

The species of game mammals found are as follows: Elephant,
rhinoceros, hippopotamus, giraffe, buffalo, zebra, sable and
roan antelope, kudu, water buck, blue wilde-beest, impalla,
reed buck, bush-buck, steenbok, duiker, klipspringer,
mountain reed buck, red duiker.

Of game birds there are: five kinds of francolin, two kinds
of knorhaan, sand grouse, quail and crested paauw.

The most destructive of the carnivora are lions, leopards,
chitas, hunting dogs, caracals and servals.

Baboons, porcupines, &c., being destructive in various ways,
are considered to be vermin.

Vermin have perceptibly decreased during the last few years,
in spite of the fact that the game has increased at the rate
of fully 10 per cent, per annum.

About 1,500 head of vermin, on an average, are destroyed
annually. The figures for 1910 included 21 lions, 24
leopards, 31 wild dogs, &c., the balance being made up of
chetahs, caracals, servals, civets, genets, wild cats,
hyenas, jackals, otters, baboons, crocodiles, pythons and
birds of prey.

There were 133 prosecutions for infringement of the
regulations, all against natives.

Dr. Charles W. Townsend, Boston, Mass., an eminent ornithologist,
says:

I have just read with much interest your Address on Animal
Sanctuaries in Labrador, and wish to tell you how fully I
agree with you, not only as to the importance of stopping
the destruction in Labrador before it is too late, but also
in the value of animal sanctuaries in general and of
Labrador in particular. I sincerely hope you will succeed in
your good work.

In the Birds of Labrador, 1907, Boston Society of Natural
History, by Mr. Glover, Mr. Allen and myself, we called
especial attention to the great destruction of life that has
gone on and is still going on there, and we suggested the
protection of the eiders for their down, as is done in
Norway, instead of their extermination, the present course.

Commander W. Wakeham, of the Department of Marine, says:

No one can question the desirability of having certain areas
set apart, where wild animals may find asylum, and rest….

A few years ago, from some unusual cause, the woodland
caribou, in great numbers, visited that part of Labrador,
east of Forteau, and along down as far as St. Charles. A
large number were there killed by the white settlers—but
this was a solitary, and exceptional year. The Indians who
hunt in the interior of Labrador undoubtedly do kill a large
number of these caribou; but, when we consider the great
extent of country over which these deer migrate, compared
with the comparatively small number of Indians—and there is
a steadily decreasing number—I can hardly believe that
there is much fear of their ever exterminating these deer.
Then, could we possibly prevent these Indians from hunting
the deer wherever they meet them? I hardly think we could.
The barren-ground caribou are not hunted to any extent by
whites. During the month of August, the Eskimo of the Ungava
peninsula, as well as those in Baffin island, resort to
certain fords, or narrows where these caribou usually pass
at the beginning of the fall migration. They kill
considerable numbers—rather for the skins as clothing, than
for food. But the Eskimo are few in number, and I cannot
conceive that there is any fear of these caribou ever being
greatly reduced in number by these native hunters. Any one
who has ever met a herd of barren-ground caribou, and seen
the countless thousands of them, could hardly conceive of
their ever being exterminated. Nor would they be if we had
to deal only with the native hunters. But, with our
experience of what happened to the buffalo when the white
man took up the slaughter, we must take precaution in time.

Up to the present, very few white men have penetrated any
distance into the interior of the Labrador peninsula, and I
do not see that they are very likely to, in the near future.
But we never can tell. A few years ago we would have said
the same of the Yukon region, so that it would be a wise
precaution to have set apart a considerable section of the
Labrador, in the interior, as a sanctuary…. It would
perhaps be better to have two regions set apart, one near
the Saguenay country and another nearer the Atlantic coast.
We have, however, to consider the fact that sanctuaries
will be of no value unless they are well guarded.

In the case of the birds the conditions are bad; the
destruction on the Labrador is horrible to contemplate. The
outer islands were scoured by crews from foreign vessels,
and whole loads of eggs carried off. There has not been much
of this done in recent years. There can he no doubt that, if
certain of the larger and less inhabited islands were set
apart, and carefully protected, the birds would return to
them. I believe that owing to the constant way in which the
birds—eider ducks, certain of the divers, gulls, &c., were
disturbed, on their natural and original nesting places,
they have changed their habits; and, instead of nesting on
the islands and by the sea, they have moved to the shores of
the interior lakes. You see flocks of young birds in the
fall; they have come from the interior, as they were not
hatched out on the islands as they used to be.

The destruction of geese and curlew does not take place on
the Labrador. These birds are not disturbed on their nesting
grounds; but, to the south and west when they are passing to
their winter haunts. Geese are found feeding on the
hill-sides, on the most distant and northern islands—as far
north as any of our explorers have gone. The first birds
Sverdrup met as he was coming south, in the early spring,
were wild geese. These birds are not disturbed on their
breeding grounds. The Eskimo do not meddle with them. In the
same way caribou are found feeding about the shores of
Hudson bay and strait. Like the geese, they feed on berries
about the hill sides. I have shot them at the mouth of
Churchill river, and near cape Digges in August, when they
were very fat—so fat that it is said that, on falling on
hard ground, they would burst open; though this did not
actually happen in my case. I certainly think that it would
be a grand thing to have certain groups of islands—or even
certain sections of coast—set apart as bird sanctuaries.

Your paper deals entirely with conditions in Labrador. There
is, however, another part of the Gulf coast, where the need
of protection is much greater than on the Labrador. That is
the interior of the Gaspe peninsula. A certain region in the
interior has been set aside as a park, but it is quite
unprotected. Here, we have moose, woodland caribou and the
red deer, besides nearly all the fur-bearing animals that we
find on the Labrador. There is no game protection whatever.
Moose and caribou are killed mostly out of season—when they
are yarded, or when it is easy to run them down. In many
cases the meat is left in the woods, the hide only being
wanted. Lumbermen are penetrating up the rivers, further
into the interior—every lumber camp is a centre from which
the game laws are persistently violated…. the game, both
fur and feather, (particularly the ruffled grouse) is
rapidly disappearing before their pitiless onslaughts.
Lumber camps are opened much earlier in the season than they
used to be; so that the interior lakes and head waters of
the rivers are being cleaned out of fish taken while in the
act of spawning. All this may seem very strong language; but
it is really not exaggerated. It may help to show the need
of more and better conservation….

Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, the founder and exponent of the science of
zoo-geography, writes:

… your address on “Animal Sanctuaries” in Labrador, which
I have read with the greatest interest and astonishment.
Such reckless destruction I should hardly have thought
possible.

There is a considerable public opinion now against the use
of feathers as ornaments^[A] because it inevitably leads to
the extermination of some of the most beautiful of living
things; but I think the attempts to stop it by legal
enactments begin at the wrong end. They seek to punish the
actual collectors or importers of the plumes, who are really
the least guilty and the most difficult to get at. It is the
actual wearers of such ornaments who should be subject to
fines or even imprisonment, because, without the demand
they make there would be no supply. They also are,
presumably, the most educated and should know better. If it
were known that any lady with a feather in her hat (or
elsewhere) would be taken before a magistrate and fined,
and, on a second offence, imprisoned, and if this were the
case in the chief civilized countries of Europe and America,
the whole trade would at once cease and the poor birds be
left in peace.

You have, however, treated the subject very carefully and
thoroughly, and I hope your views will be soon carried
out….

I am glad to hear that Mr. Roosevelt is a reader of the
“World of Life.” My own interest is more especially in the
preservation of adequate areas of the glorious tropical and
equatorial forests, with their teeming and marvellous forms
of life.

Numerous other letters from all parts of the world expressing
appreciation of the Address have been received, the correspondents
expressing strong approval of the effort to establish Animal
Sanctuaries in Labrador. The names of some of the correspondents are
given herewith:

Sir Robert Baden-Powell, London; Prof. H.T. Barnes, Montreal; Julien
Corbett, London; Rudyard Kipling; Lord Stamfordham, London; Sir James
LeMoine, Quebec; J.M. Macoun, Ottawa; Henry F. Osborn, New York;
Madison Grant, New York.

Note.—As a postscript I might add that the owner of part of a very
desirable little archipelago, not far from the Saguenay, has already
offered to give the property outright if a suitable sanctuary can be
made out of the whole. This is all the more encouraging because such a
gift involves the refusal of an offer from a speculative purchaser.
May others be moved to do the same!

FOOTNOTES: