 CHAPTER 41 Teaching Wildlife Protection to the Young They are acting on the principle that the wildlife of today is not ours to destroy or keep as we choose, but has been given to us in trust, partly for our benefit and partly for those who come after us and audit our accounts. They believe that we have no right to squander and destroy a wildlife heritage of priceless value which we have done nothing to create and which is not ours to destroy. DUTY OF PARENTS This being the case it is very necessary that the young people of today should be taught early and often the virtue and the necessity of wildlife protection. There is no reason that the boy of today should not take up his share of the common burden just as soon as he is old enough to wander alone through the woods. Let him be taught in precise terms that he must not rob bird's nest and that he must not shoot songbirds, woodpeckers, and kingfishers with a .22 caliber rifle or any other gun. At this moment there lies upon my side table a vicious little .22 caliber rifle that was taken from two boys who were camping in the woods of Connecticut and amusing themselves by shooting valuable insectivorous birds. Now those boys were not wholly to blame for what they were doing, but their fathers and mothers were very much to blame. They should have been taught at the parental knee that it is very wrong to kill any bird except a genuine game bird and then only in the lawful open season. Those two fathers paid ten dollars each for having failed in their duty and it served them right for they were the real culprits. Small caliber rifles are becoming alarmingly common in the hands of boys. Parents must do their duty in the training of their boys against bird shooting. It is a very serious matter. A million boys who roam the fields with small rifles without having been instructed in protection can destroy an appalling number of valuable birds in the course of a year. Some parents are so slavishly devoted to their children that they wish them to do everything they please and be checked in nothing. Such parents constitute one of the pests of society and a drag upon the happiness of their own children. It is now the bound in duty of each parent to teach each one of his or her children that the time has come when the resources of nature and especially wildlife must be conserved. To permit boys to grow up and acquire guns without this knowledge is very wrong. The Duty of Teachers and Schools A great deal of nature study is being taught in the public schools of the United States. That the young people of our land should be taught to appreciate the works of nature and especially animal life and plant life is very desirable. Thus far, however, there is a screw loose in the system and that is the shortage in definite positive instruction regarding individual duty toward the wild creatures, great and small. Along with their nature studies all our school children should be taught in the imperative mood. 1. That it is wrong to disturb breeding birds or rob birds' nests. 2. That it is wrong to destroy any harmless living creature not properly classed as game except it to be to preserve it in a museum. 3. That it is no longer right for civilized man to look upon wild game as necessary food because there is plenty of other food and the remnant of game cannot withstand slaughter in that basis. 4. That the time has come when it is the duty of every good citizen to take an active, aggressive part in preventing the destruction of wildlife and in promoting its preservation. 5. That every boy and girl over twelve years of age can do something in this cause and finally, six, that protection and encouragement will bring back the almost vanished birds. We call upon all boards of education, all principals of schools, and all teachers to educate our boys and girls constantly and imperatively along these lines. Teachers do not say to your pupils, it is right and nice to protect birds, but say, it is your duty to protect all harmless wild things and you must do it. In a good cause there is great virtue in must. We are losing each year an immense amount of available wildlife protection. The doctrine of imperative individual duty never yet has been taught in our schools, as it should be taught. A few teachers have indeed covered this ground, but I am convinced that their proportion is mighty small. 6. Textbooks. The writers of the Nature Study textbooks are very much to blame because nine-tenths of the time this subject has been ignored. The situation has not been taken seriously, save in a few cases by a very few authors. I am glad to report that in 1912 there was published a fine textbook by Professor James W. Peabody of the Morris High School in New York and Dr. Arthur E. Hunt in which from beginning to end the duty to protect wildlife is strongly insisted upon. It is entitled, Elementary Biology, Plants, Animals, and Man. Thereafter, no zoological or Nature Study textbook should be given a place in any school in America unless the author of it has done his full share in setting forth the duty of the young citizen toward wildlife. Where I am a member of a Board of Education, I would seek to establish and enforce this requirement. Today, any author who will presume to write a textbook of Nature Study or zoology without knowing and doing his duty toward our vanishing fauna is too ignorant of wildlife and too careless of his duty toward it to be accepted as a safe guide for the young. The time for criminal indifference has gone by. Hereafter, everyone who is not for the preservation of wildlife is against it, and it is time to separate the sheep from the goats. From this time forth, the preservation of our fauna should be regarded as a subject on which every candidate for a teacher certificate should undergo an examination before receiving authority to teach in a public school. The candidate should be required to know why the preservation of birds is necessary, why the slaughter of wildlife is wrong and criminal, the extent to which wild birds and mammals return to us and thrive under protection, why wild game is no longer a legitimate food supply, why wild game should not be sold, and why the feathers of wild birds, other than game birds, never should be used as millinery ornaments. As sensible Americans and somewhat boastful of our intelligence, we should put the education of the young in wildlife protection on a rational business basis. State Efforts In several of our states, systematic efforts to educate children in their duty toward wildlife are already being made. To this end, an annual Bird Day has been established for statewide observance. This splendid idea is now legally enforced in the following states, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Bird Day is also more or less regularly observed, though not legally provided for, in New York, Indiana, Colorado, and Alabama, and locally in some cities of Pennsylvania. Usually the observance of the day is combined with that of Arbor Day, and the date is fixed by proclamation of the governor. Alabama and Wisconsin regularly issue elaborate and beautiful Arbor and Bird Day annuals, and Illinois, and possibly other states, have issued very good publications of this character. The Philips Educational Campaign for the Birds Quite recently there has come under my notice an episode in the education of school children that has given the public profound satisfaction. I cite it here as an object lesson for Pan America. In Carrick, Pennsylvania, just across the Monongahila River from the city of Pittsburgh, lives John M. Philips, state game commissioner, nature lover, sportsman, and friend of man. He is a man who does things and gets results. Goat Mountain Park, 450 square miles in British Columbia, today owes its existence to him, for without his initiative and labor it would not have been established. It was the first game preserve of British Columbia. Three years ago Mr. Philips became deeply impressed by the idea that one of the best ways in the world to protect the wildlife, both of today and the future, would be in teaching school children to love it and protect it. His fertile brain and open checkbook soon devised a method for his home city. His theory was that by giving the children something to do, not only in protecting but in actually bringing back the birds, much might be accomplished. In studying the subject of bringing back the birds, he found that the Russian mulberry is one of the finest trees in the world as a purveyor of good fruit for many kinds of birds. The tree does not resemble our native mulberry, but is equally beautiful and interesting. The fruit is not a long berry, nor is it of a purple color, but it grows from buds on the limbs and twigs, something after the manner of the pussy willow. It is smaller, of light color and has very distinct flavor. The most striking peculiarity about the fruit is that it keeps on ripening during two months or more, new berries appearing daily while others are ripening. This is why it is such good bird food, nor is it half bad for folks, for the berries are good to look at and to eat, either with cream or without, and to make pies that will set any sane boy's mouth a watering at sight, Erasmus Wilson. Everyone knows the value of sweet cherries, both to birds and to children. Mr. Phillips decided that he would give away several hundred bird boxes, and also several hundred sweet cherry and Russian mulberry trees. The first gift distribution was made in the early spring of 1909, another followed in 1910, but the last one was the most notable. On April 11, 1912, Carrick had a great and glorious bird day. Mr. Phillips was the author of it, and Governor Tenor, the finisher. On that day occurred the third annual gift distribution of raw materials, designed to promote in the breast of two thousand children a love of birds, and an active desire to protect and increase them. Mr. Phillips gave away five hundred bird boxes, five hundred sweet cherry trees, and two hundred mulberry trees. The sun shone brightly, five hundred flags waved in Carrick. The Governor made one of the best speeches of his life, and Erasmus Wilson, faithful friend of the birds, wrote this good story for the occasion for the gazette times of Pittsburgh. The Governor was there, and the children, the bird boxes and the young trees. And was there ever a brighter or more fitting day for a children and bird jubilee? The scene was so inspiring that Governor Tenor made one of the best speeches of his life. The distribution of several hundred cherry and mulberry trees was the occasion, and the beautiful grounds of the Roosevelt School, Carrick, was the scene. Mr. John M. Phillips, sane sportsman and enthusiastic friend of the birds, has been looking forward to this as the culmination of a scheme he has been working on for years, and he was more than pleased with the outcome. The intense delight it afforded him more than repaid him for all it has cost in all the years past. But it was impossible to tell who were the more delighted, he or the Governor or the children, or the visitors who were so fortunate as to be present. County Superintendent of Schools Samuel Hamilton was simply a mass of delight. And how could he be otherwise, surrounded as he was by two thousand and more children fairly quivering with delight? Children will care for and defend things that are their very own, fight for them and stand guard over them. During this, Mr. Phillips undertook to show them how they could have birds all their own. Being clever in devising schemes for achieving things most to be desired, he began giving out bird boxes to those who would agree to put them up, and to watch and defend the birds when they came to make their homes with them. And he found that no more faithful sentinel ever stood on guard than the boy who had a birdhouse all his own. Here was the solution to the vexed problem. Provide boxes for those who would agree to put them up, care for the birds, and study their habits and needs. The children agreed at once, and the birds did not object. So Mr. Phillips had some hundreds, four or five, bluebird and ren boxes constructed during the past winter. These were passed out some weeks ago to any boys or girls who would present an order signed by their parents and countersigned by the principal of the school. He knows enough about a boy to know that he does not prize the things that come without effort, nor will he become deeply interested in anything for which he is not held more or less responsible, hence the advantage of having him write an order, having it endorsed by his parents and vouched for by his school principal. That he had struck the right scheme was proven by the evidity with which the girls and boys rushed for the boxes. The fact that a heavy rain was falling did not dampen their ardor for a moment, nor did the fact that they were tramping Mr. Phillips' beautiful lawn into a field of mud. Mr. Phillips, seeing the necessity of providing food for the prospective hosts of birds, and wishing to place the responsibility on the boys and girls, offered to provide a cherry tree or mulberry tree for every box erected, provided they should be properly planted and diligently cared for. This was practically the culmination of the most unique bird scheme ever attempted, and yesterday was the day set apart for the distribution of these hundreds of fruit trees, the products of which are to be divided share and share alike with the birds. Nowhere else has such a scheme been attempted, and never before has there been just such a day of jubilee. The intense interest manifested by the children and the earnest enthusiasm manifested leaves no doubt about their carrying out their part of the contract. Up to date, 1912, Mr. Phillips has given away about 1,000 bird boxes, 1,500 cherry and Russian mulberry trees, and transformed the schools of character into seething masses of children militantly enthusiastic in the protection of birds, and in providing them with homes and food. As a final coup, Mr. Phillips has induced the city of Pittsburgh to create the office of city ornithologist at a salary of $1,200 per year. The duty of the new officer is to protect all birds in the city from all kinds of molestation, especially when nesting, to erect birdhouses, provide food for wild birds on a large scale, and report annually upon the increase or decrease of feathered residents and visitors. Mr. Frederick S. Webster, long known as a naturalist and practical ornithologist, has been appointed to the position and is now on active duty. So far as we are aware, Pittsburgh is the first city to create the office of city ornithologist. It is a happy thought. It will yield good results, and other cities will follow Pittsburgh's good example. End of Chapter 41. Chapter 42 of Our Vanishing Wildlife. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Shrutagal. Our Vanishing Wildlife by William T. Hornaday. Chapter 42, The Ethics of Sportsmanship. I counted as rather strange that American and English sportsmen have hunted and shot for a century, and until 1908 formulated practically nothing to establish and define the ethics of shooting game. Here and there, a few unwritten principles have been evolved and have become fixed by common consent. But the total number of these is very few. Perhaps this has been for the reason that every free and independent sportsman prefers to be a law unto himself. Is it not doubly strange, however, that even down to the present year, the term sportsman never has been defined by a sportsman? Forty years ago, a sportsman might have been defined, according to the standards of that period, as a man who hunts wild game for pleasure. Those were the days where no one first saw the wholesale annihilation of species, and there were no wilderness game preserves. In those days, gentlemen shot female hoofed game, trapped bears if they felt like it, killed 10 times as much big game as they could use, and no one made any fuss whatever about the waste or extermination of wildlife. Those were the days of ox teams and broad axes. Today, we are living in a totally different world, a world of grinding, crunching, pulverizing progress, a world of annihilation of the works of nature. And what is a sportsman today? A sportsman is a man who loves nature and who, in the enjoyment of the outdoor life and exploration, takes a reasonable toll of nature's wild animals, but not for commercial profit, and only so long as his hunting does not promote the extermination of a species. In view of the disappearance of wildlife all over the habitable globe and the steady extermination of a species, the ethics of sportsmanship has become a matter of tremendous importance. If a man can shoot the last living virtual zebra or pronghorned antelope and be a sportsman and a gentleman, they may as well drop down all bars and say no more about the ethics of shooting game. But the real gentlemen, sportsmen of the world, are not insensible to the duties of the hour in regard to the taking or not taking of game. The time has come when canon laws should be laid down of worldwide application, and so thoroughly accepted and promulgated that their binding force cannot be ignored. Among other things, it is time for a list of species to be published, which no man claiming to be either a gentleman or a sportsman can shoot for ought else than preservation in a public museum. Of course, this list would be composed of the species that are threatened with extermination. Of American animals, it should include the pronghorned antelope, Mexican mountain sheep, all the mountain sheep and goats in the United States, the California grizzly bear, mule deer, West Indian seal, and California elephant seal and walrus. In Africa, that list should include the Ellen, white rhinoceroses, Blesbok, Bontbok, Kudu, giraffes and southern elephants, sable antelope, rhinoceroses south of the Zambezi, leercorax antelope, and whale-headed stork. In Asia, it should include the great Indian rhinoceroses and its allied species, the burl, the nilgeritar, and the gale, the David deer of Manchuria already is extinct in a wild state. In Australia, the introduction should include the thylacine or Tasmanian wolf, all the large kangaroos, the imu, the lyrebird, and the mallybird. Think what it would mean to the species named above if all the sportsmen of the world would unite in their defense, both actively and passively. It would be to those species a modus vivivendi worthwhile. Prior to 1908, no effort, so far as we are aware, ever had been made to promote the establishment of a comprehensive and up-to-date code of ethics for sportsmen who shoot. A few clubs of men who were hunters of big game had expressed in their constitutions a few brief principles for the purpose of standardizing their own respective memberships, but that was all. I have not taken pains to make a general canvas of sportsmen's clubs to ascertain what rules have been laid down by any large number of organizations. The Boone Crockett Club of New York and Washington had in its constitution the following excellent article. Article 10. The use of steel traps, the making of large bags, the killing of game while swimming in water, or helpless in deep snow, and the unnecessary killing of females or young of any species of ruminant shall be deemed offenses. Any member who shall commit such offenses may be suspended or expelled from the club by a unanimous vote of the executive committee. In 1906, this club condemned the use of automatic shotguns in hunting as unsportsmanlike. The Lewis and Clark Club of Pittsburgh had in its constitution, as Section 3 of Article 3, the following comprehensive principle. The term legitimate sport means not only the observance of local laws, but excludes all methods of taking game other than by fair stalking or still hunting. At the end of the Constitution of this club is this declaration and admonition. Purchase and sale of trophies. As the purchase of heads and horns establishes a market value and encourages Indians and others to shoot for sale, often in violation of local laws and always through the detriment of the protection of game for legitimate sport, the Lewis and Clark Club condemns the purchase or the sale of the heads or horns of any game. In 1906, the Lewis and Clark Club condemned the use of automatic shotguns as unsportsmanlike. The Shikara Club of London, a club which contains all the big game hunters of the nobility and gentry of England and of which His Majesty, King George, is honorary president, has declared the leading feature of its objects in the following terms. To maintain the standard of sportsmanship, it is not squandered bullets and swollen bags which appeal to us. The test is rather in a love of forest, mountains, and desert, an acquired knowledge of the habits of animals, in the strenuous pursuit of a weary and dangerous quarry, in the instinct for a well-divised approach to a fair shooting distance, and in the patient retrieve of a wounded animal. In 1908, the Campfire Club of America formally adopted as its Code of Ethics, the sportsman's platform of 15 articles that was prepared by the writer in place before the Sportsman of America, Great Britain, and her colonial dependencies in that year. In the book of the club, it regularly appears as follows. Code of Ethics of the Campfire Club of America, proposed by William T. Hornaday and adopted December 10th, 1908. One, the wild animal life of today is not ours to do with as we please. The original stock is given to us in trust for the benefit both of the present and the future. We must render an accounting of this trust to those who come after us. Two, judging from the rate at which the wild creatures of North America are now being destroyed, 50 years hence there will be no large game left in the United States nor in Canada outside of rigidly protected game preserves. It is therefore the duty of every good citizen to promote the protection of forests and wildlife and the creation of game preserves while supply of game remains. Every man who finds pleasure in hunting or fishing should be willing to spend both time and money in active work for the protection of forests, fish, and game. Three, the sale of game is incompatible with the perpetual preservation of a proper stock of game. Therefore, it should be prohibited by laws and by public sentiment. Four, in the settled and civilized regions of North America, there is no real necessity for the consumption of wild game as human food, nor is there any good excuse for the sale of game for food purposes. The maintenance of hired laborers on wild game should be prohibited everywhere under severe penalties. Five, an Indian has no more right to kill wild game or to subsist upon it all year round than any white man in the same locality. The Indian has no inherent or God given ownership of the game in North America any more than of its minimal resources and he should be governed by the same game laws as white men. Six, no man can be a good citizen and also be a slaughterer of game or fishes beyond the narrow limits compatible with high class sportsmanship. Seven, a game butcher or market hunter is an undesirable citizen and should be treated as such. Eight, the highest purpose which the killing of wild game and game fishes can hear after be made to serve is in furnishing objects to overworked men for tramping and camping trips in the wilds and the value of wild game as human food should no longer be regarded as an important factor in its pursuit. Nine, if rightly conserved wild game constitutes a valuable asset to any country which possesses it and it is good statesmanship to protect it. Ten, an ideal hunting trip consists of a good comrade fine country and a very few trophies per hunter. Eleven, in an ideal hunting trip the death of the game is only by an incident and by no means is it really necessary to a successful outing. Twelve, the best hunter is the man who finds the most game, kills the least and leaves behind him no wounded animals. Thirteen, the killing of an animal means the end of its most interesting period. When the country is fine pursuit is more interesting than possession. Fourteen, the killing of a female hoofed animal save for special preservation is to be regarded as incompatible with the highest sportsmanship and it should everywhere be prohibited by stringent laws. Fifteen, a particularly fine photograph of a large wild animal in its haunts is entitled to more credit than the dead trophy of a similar animal, an animal that has been photographed never should be killed unless previously wounded in the chase. This platform has been adopted as code of ethics by the following organizations besides the Campfire Club of America, the Lewis and Clark Club of Pittsburgh, John M. Phillips President, the North American Fish and Game Protective Association International, the Massachusetts Fish and Game Protective Association Boston, Campfire Club of Michigan Detroit, Rod and Gun Club Sheridan County, Wyoming. The platform has been endorsed and published by the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the British Empire, London, which is an endorsement of far reaching importance. Major J. Stevenson Hamilton, CMZS, Warden of the Government Game Reserves of the Transvale, South Africa, has adopted the platform and given it the most effective endorsement that it has received from any single individual. In his great work on game protection in Africa and wild animal lore entitled Animal Life in Africa and very highly commended by the committee on literary honours of the Campfire Club, he publishes the entire platform with a depth and cordiality of endorsement that is bound to warm the heart of every man who believes in the principles laid down in that document. He says, it's reprinted on the back of every license that is issued for hunting in Africa. I am profoundly impressed by the fact that it is high time for sportsmen all over the world to take to heart the vital necessity of adopting high and clearly defined codes of ethics to suit the needs of the present hour. The days of game abundance and the careless treatment of wildlife have gone, never to return. End of Chapter 42, The Ethics of Sportsmanship. Chapter 43 of Our Vanishing Wildlife This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Sharon Bautista. Our Vanishing Wildlife by William T. Hornaday. Chapter 43, The Duty of American Zoologists and Educators to American Wildlife. The publication of this chapter will hardly be regarded as a bid for fame or even popularity on the part of the author. However, the subject cannot be ignored simply because it is disagreeable. Throughout 60 years, to go no further back, the people of America have been witnessing the strange spectacle of American zoologists as a mass so intent upon the academic study of our continental fauna that they seem not to have cared a continental about the destruction of that fauna. During that tragic period, 12 species of North American birds have been totally exterminated. 23 are almost exterminated and the mammals have fared very badly. If by their works ye shall know them, then no man can say that the men referred to have been conspicuous on the firing line in defense of assaulted wildlife. In their hearts, we know that in an academic way, the naturalists of America do care about wildlife slaughter and the extermination of species and we also know that perhaps 50 American zoologists have at times taken an active and serious interest in protection of work. I am speaking now of the general body of museum directors and curators, professors and teachers of zoology in our institutions of learning, a legion in themselves, teachers of nature study in our secondary schools, investigators and specialists in state and government service, the texturists and osteologists and the array of literary people who, like all the foregoing, make their bread and butter out of the exploitation of wildlife. Taken as a whole, the people named above constitute a grand army of at least 5,000 trained, educated, resourceful and influential persons. They all depend upon wildlife for their livelihood. When they talk about living things, the public listens with respectful attention. Their knowledge of the value of wildlife would be worth something to our cause, but thus far it never has been capitalized. These people are hard workers and when they mark out definite courses and attainable goals, they know how to get results. Yet what do we see? For 60 long years, with the exception of the work of a corporal's guard of their number, this grand army has remained in camp, partly neglecting and partly refusing to move upon the works of the enemy. For 60 years, with the exception of the non-game bird law, as a class and a mass, they have left to the sportsmen of the country the dictating of laws for the protection of all the game birds, the mammals and the game fishes. When we stop to consider that the game birds alone embrace 154 very important species, the appalling extent to which the zoologist has abdicated in favor of the sportsmen becomes apparent. It is a very great mistake and a wrong besides for the zoologists of the country to abandon the game birds, mammals and fishes of North America to the sportsmen to do with as they please. Yet that is practically what has been done. The time was 30 or 40 years ago when wildlife was so abundant that we did not need to worry about its preservation. That was the golden era of study and investigation. That era ended definitely in 1884 with the practical extermination of the wild American bison, partly through the shameful greed and partly through the neglect of the American people. We are now living in the middle of the period of extermination. The questions for every American zoologist and every sportsman to answer now are, shall the slaughter of species go on to a quick end of the period? Shall we give posterity a birdless, gameless, fishless continent or not? Shall we have closed seasons all over the country for five or 10 years or for 500 years? If we are courageous, we will brace up and answer these questions now, like men. If we are faint-hearted and eager for peace at any price, then we will sidestep the ugly situation until the destroyers have settled it for us by the wholesale extermination of species. If the zoologist cares to know, then I will tell him that today the wildlife of the world can be saved by law but not by sentiment alone. You cannot educate a poacher, a game hog, a market gunner, a milliner or a vain and foolish woman of fashion. All these must be curbed and controlled by law. Game refuges alone will not save the wildlife. All species of birds, mammals and game fishes of North America must have more thorough and far-reaching protection than they now have. Do not always take your cue from the sportsman, especially regarding the enactment of long-closed seasons. If you need good advice or help about drafting a bill, write to Dr. T. S. Palmer, Department of Agriculture, Washington, and you will receive prompt and valuable assistance. The doctor is a wise man and there is nothing about protective laws that is unknown to him. Go to your state senator and your assemblyman with the bills that you know should be enacted into law and assure them that those measures are necessary for the wildlife and beneficial to 98% of the people who own the wildlife. You will be heard with respectful attention in any law-making body that you choose to enter. People who cannot give time and labor must apply you with money for your campaigns. Ask and you will receive. I have proven this many times. With care and exactness, account to your subscribers for the expenditure of all money placed in your hands and you will receive continuous support. In times of great stress, print circulars and leaflets by the 10,000 and get them into the hands of people calling for their help. Our 42,000 copies of the Wildlife Call, 16 pages, were distributed by organizations all over the state of New York and along with Mr. Andrew D. Malloy's letters to the members of the New York State League aroused such a tidal wave of public sentiment against the sale of game that the Bane bill was finally swept through the legislature with only one dissenting vote. And yet in the beginning, not one man dared to hope that that very revolutionary measure could by any possibility be passed in its first year in New York State, even if it ever could be. It was the aroused public that did it. This volume has been written under great pressure in order to put the whole situation before the people of America, including the zoologists and to give them some definite information state by state regarding the needs of the hour. Look at the needs of your own state in the roll call of states and you will find work for your hand to do. Clear your conscience by taking hold now to do everything that you can to stop the carnage and preserve the remnant. 25 or 50 years hence, if we have a birdless and game-less continent, let it not be said that the zoologists of America helped to bring it about by wicked apathy. At this juncture, a brief survey of the attitude toward wildlife of certain American institutions of national reputation will be decidedly pertinent. I shall mention only a few of the many that through their character and position owe specific duties to this cause. No bless oblige. The biological survey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is a splendid center of activity and initiative in the preservation of our wildlife. The work of Dr. T.S. Palmer has already been spoken of and thanks to his efforts and direction, the survey has become the recognized special champion of preservation in America. The U.S. Forestry Bureau is developing into a very valuable ally and we confidently look forward to the time when its influence and preservation will be a hundred times more potent than it is today. That will be when every national forest is made a game preserve and every forest ranger is made a game warden. Let us have both those developments and quickly. In 1896, the American Museum of Natural History became a center of activity in bird protection and the headquarters of the New York State Audubon Society. The President of the Museum, Professor Henry Fairfield Osborne is also the president of that organization. In several of the New York State movements for bird conservation, especially those bearing on the plumage law, the American Museum has been active and at times conspicuous. No one, so I believe, ever appealed to the President of the Museum for help on the firing line without receiving help of some kind. Unfortunately, however, the preservation of wildlife is not one of the declared objects of the American Museum Corporation or one on which its officers may spend money, as is so freely and even joyously done by the Zoological Society. The museum's influence has been exerted chiefly through the active workers of the State Audubon Society and it was as president of that body that Professor Osborne subscribed to the fund that was so largely instrumental in creating the New York law against the sale of game. There is room for an important improvement in the declared objects of the American Museum. To the cause of protection, it is a distinct loss that that great and powerful institution should be unable to spend any money in promoting the preservation of our fauna from annihilation. An amendment to its constitution is earnestly recommended. The activities of the New York Zoological Society began in 1896 and they do not require comment here. They have been continuous, aggressive, and far-reaching and they have been supported by thousands of dollars from the society's treasury. It is true that the funds available for protection work have not represented a great annual sum such as the work demands, but the amount being expended from year to year is steadily increasing. In serious emergencies, there is always something available. During the past two years to relieve the society of a portion of this particular burden, the director of the park secured several large subscriptions from persons outside the society who previously had never entered into this work. The Milwaukee Public Museum has entered actively and effectively into the fight to preserve the birds of Wisconsin from annihilation by the saloon loafer element that three years ago determined to repeal the best bird laws on the books and throw the shooting privilege wide open. Mr. Henry L. Ward, director of the museum, went to the firing line and remained there. Last year, the saloon element thought that they had a large majority of the votes in the legislature pledged to vote their way. It looked like it, but when the decent people again rose and demanded justice for the birds, the members of the legislature stood by them in large majorities. The spring shooting, bad glimate, and hunting license laws were not repealed. The University of Kansas Lawrence scored heavily for the cause of wildlife protection when in 1908, it gave the governor of the state the services of a member of its faculty, Professor Louis Lindsay Dyke, who was wanted to fill the position of state fish and game commissioner. Professor Dyke proved to be a very live wire and his activities have covered the state of Kansas to its farthest corners. We love him for the host of enemies he has made among the poachers, game butchers, and pseudo sportsmen and law breakers generally. The men who thought they had had the pull of friendship for law breaking were first warned and then as second offenders hauled up to the bar, one and all. The more the destroyers tried to hound the commissioner, the more popular is he with the great, solid mass of good citizens who believe in the saving of wildlife. The Museum of Comparative Zoology has at last made a beginning in the field of protection. Last winter, while the great battle raged over the Wharton No Sale of Game Bill, several members of the museum staff appeared at the hearings and otherwise worked for the success of the measure. It was most timely aid and very much needed. It is to be hoped that that auspicious beginning will be continued from year to year. The museum should keep at least one good fighter constantly in the field. The Boston Society of Natural History takes a very active part in promoting the preservation of the fauna of Massachusetts and in resisting the attempts of the destroyers to repeal the excellent laws now enforced. Its members put forth vigorous efforts in the great campaign of 1912. The Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences is well represented in the field of protection by director Franklin W. Hooper, now president of the American Bison Society and an earnest promoter of the perpetuation of the bison. When the wind-caved national bison herd is fully established in South Dakota as it practically is already, the chief credit for that coup will be due to the unflagging energy and persistence of Professor Hooper. The Buffalo Academy of Sciences in 1911 entered actively and effectively under the leadership of Dr. Lee H. Smith into the campaign for the Bain Bill. Besides splendid service rendered in Western New York, Dr. Smith appeared in Albany with a strong delegation in support of the bill. The University of California was the first institution of learning to enter the field of wildlife protection for active, aggressive, and permanent work. W. L. Taylor and Joseph Grinnell of the University Museum have taken up the fight to save the fauna of California from the dangers that now threaten it. At this point, our enumeration of the activities of American zoological institutions comes to an unfortunate end. There are many individuals to be named elsewhere in the role of honor, but that is another story. I am now going to set before the public the names of certain institutions largely devoted to zoology and permeated by zoologists, which thus far seem to have entirely ignored the needs of our fauna, in which so far we know have contributed neither men, money, nor encouragement to the army of the defense. Partial list of institutions owing service to wildlife. The United States National Museum contains a large and expensive core of zoological curators and assistant curators, some of whom long ago should have taken upon themselves the task of reforming the laws of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland at their very doors. This museum should maintain at least one man in the field of protection, and the existence of the biological survey is no excuse for the museum's inactivity. The Field Museum of Chicago is a great institution, but it appears to be inactive in wildlife protection and indifferent to the fate of our wildlife. Its influence is greatly needed on the firing line, especially in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Northern Minnesota. First of all, the odious sale of game situation in Chicago should be cleaned up. The Philadelphia Academy of Sciences has been represented on the AOU committee on bird protection by Mr. Whitmer Stone. The time has come when this academy should be represented on the firing line as a virile, wide awake, self-sacrificing, and aggressive force. It is perhaps the oldest zoological body in the United States. Its scientific standing is unquestioned. Its members must know of the carnage that is going on around them, for they are not ignorant men. The Pennsylvania State Game Commission today stands in urgent need of active, vigorous, and persistent assistance from the Philadelphia Academy in the fierce campaign already in progress for additional protective laws. Will that help be given? The Carnegie Institute of Washington, endowment $22 million, unquestionably owes a great duty toward wildlife, no portion of which has yet been discharged. Academic research work is all very well, but it does not save faunas from annihilation. In the saving of the birds and mammals of North America, 100 million people are directly interested, and the cause is starving for money, men, and publicity. Education is not the only duty of educators. The Carnegie Museum at Pittsburgh should be provided by Pittsburgh with sufficient funds that its director can put a good man into the field of protection and maintain his activities. The state of Pennsylvania and the nation at large needs such a worker at Pittsburgh, and this statement is not open to argument. The California Academy of Sciences, the Chicago Academy of Sciences, the New York Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the Philadelphia Zoological Society, the National Zoological Park, appear to have done nothing noteworthy in promoting the preservation and increase of the wildlife of America. A few of the institutions of learning, which should each donate one man to this cause. Columbia University of New York has a very large and strong core of zoological professors in its Department of Biology. No living organism is too small or too worthless to be studied by high-grade men, but does any man of Columbia ever raise his voice actively and determinately for the preservation of our fauna or any other fauna? Columbia should give the services of one man wholly to this cause. There are men whose zoological ideals soar so high that they cannot see the slaughter of wildlife creatures that is so furiously proceeding on the surface of this blood-stained earth. We don't want to hear about the behavior of protozoans while our best songbirds are being exterminated by Negroes and poor whites. Cornell University should now awake into the new situation. All the zoological Negroes should not fiddle while Rome burns. For the sake of consistency, Cornell should devote the services of at least one member of its large and able faculty to the cause of wildlife protection. Cornell was a pioneer in forestry teaching, and why should she not lead off now in the new field? Yale University in Professor James W. Toomey, Director of the School of Forestry, possesses a natural, ready-made protector of wildlife. From forestry to wildlife is an easy step. We hopefully look forward to the development of Professor Toomey into a militant protectionist fighting for the helpless creatures that must be protected by man or parish. If Yale is willing to set a new pace for the world's great universities, she has the man already at hand. The University of Chicago should become the center of a great new protectionist movement which should cover the whole Middle West area from the plains to Pittsburgh. This is the inflexible logical necessity of the hour. Either protect zoology or else for very shame give up teaching it. Every higher institution of learning in America now has a duty in this matter. Times have changed. Things are not as they were 30 years ago. To allow a great and valuable wild fauna to be destroyed and wasted is a crime against both the present and the future. If we mean to be good citizens, we cannot shirk the duty to conserve. We are trustees of the inheritance of future generations and we have no right to squander that inheritance. If we fail of our plain duty, the scorn of future generations surely will be our portion. End of chapter 43, recording by Sharon Bautista in Evanston, Illinois. Chapter 44 of Our Vanishing Wildlife. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Stephen Kinford. Our Vanishing Wildlife by William T. Hornaday. Chapter 44, The Greatest Needs of the Wildlife Cause and the Duty of the Hour. The fate of wildlife in North America hangs today by three very slender threads, the names of which you will hardly guess unaided. They are labor, money, and publicity. The threads are slender because there is so little raw material in them. We do not need money with which to buy votes or influence, but money with which to pay workers, to publish things to arouse the American people, to sting sportsmen into action, to hire wardens, to prosecute game hogs and buy refuges for wildlife. If a sufficient amount of money for these purposes cannot be procured, then as sure as the earth continues to revolve, our wildlife will pass away forever. This is no cause for surprise or wonder. In this 20th century, money is essential to every great enterprise, whether it be for virtue or mischief. The enemies of wildlife and the people who support them are very powerful. The man whose pocket or whose personal privileges is threatened by new legislation is prompted by business reasons to work against you and spend money in protecting his interests. Now, it happens that the men of ordinary means who have nothing personal at stake in the preservation of wildlife save sentimental considerations, cannot afford to leave their business more than three or four days each year on protection affairs. Yet many times services are demanded for many days or even weeks together in order to accomplish results. Bad repeal bills must be fought until they are dead and good protective bills must be supported until the breath of life is breathed into them by the executive signature. With money in hand, good men always can be found who will work in game protection for about one half what they would demand in other pursuits. With the men whom you really desire, sentiment is always a controlling factor. It is my inflexible rule, however, in asking for services that men who give valuable time and strength to the cause shall not be allowed to take their expense money from their own pockets. Soldiers on the firing line cannot provide the sinews of war that come from the paymaster's chest. Campaigns of publicity are matters of tremendous necessity and importance, but their successful promotion requires hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars for each state that is covered. I believe that the wealthy men and women of America are the most liberal givers for the benefit of humanity that can be found in all the world. New York especially contains a great number of men who year in and year out work hard for money in order to give it away. The depth and breadth of the philanthropic spirit in New York City is to me the most surprising of all the strange impulses that sway the inhabitants of that seething mass of mixed humanity. Every imaginable cause for the benefit of mankind, save one, has received and still is receiving millions of gift dollars. Some enterprises for the transcendent education of the people are at this moment hopelessly wallowing in the excess of wealth that has been thrust upon them. Men are being hired at high salaries to help spend wealth in high, higher, highest education and research. It is now fashionable to bequeath millions to certain causes that do not need them in the least. In education there is a mad scramble to educate every young man to the topmost notch, often far above his probable station in life and into tastes at once far beyond his powers to maintain. In all this, however, there would be no cause for regret if the wildlife of our continent were not in such a grievous state. If we felt no conscious burden for those who come after us, we would not care where the millions go, but since things are as they are, it is heartbreaking to see the cause of wildlife protection actually starving or at the best, subsisting only on financial husks and crumbs, while less important causes literally flounder and surplus wealth. This regret is intensified by the knowledge that in no other cause for the conservation of the resources most valuable to mankind will a dollar go so far or bring back such good results as in the preservation of wildlife. The promotion of the bane bill and the enactment of the bane law is a fair example. That law is today on the statute books of the state of New York because 50 men and women promptly subscribe $5,000 to a fund formed with special references to the expenses of a campaign for that measure, and the uplift of that victory will be felt for years to come, just as it already has been in Massachusetts. At one time I was tempted to show the financial skeleton in the Clause of Wildlife Protection by inserting here a statement of the funds available to be expended by all the New York organizations during the campaign year of 1911 to 1912, but I cannot do it. The showing is too painful, too humiliating. From it our enemies would derive too much comfort. Even in New York State, in view of the great interest at stake, the showing is pitiful. But what shall we say of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, and a dozen other states where the situation is much worse? In the winter of 1912 a cry for help came to us from a neighboring state where a terrific fight was being made by the forces of destruction against all reform measures and in behalf of retrogression on spring shooting. The appeal said, the situation in our legislature is the worst that it has been in years. Our enemies are very strong, well organized, and they fight us at every step. We have no funds, and we are expected to make bricks without straw. Is there not something that you can do to help us? There was. Only one week previously, a good friend, who declines to be named, gave us $2,000 of real money for just such emergencies. Within 36 hours an entirely new fighting force has been organized and equipped for service. Within one week those reinforcements have made a profound impression on the defenses of the enemy. And in the end the great fight was won. Of our small campaign fund it took away over $1,000, but the victory was worth it. With money enough, a reasonable sum, the birds of North America and some of the small mammal species also can be saved. The big game that is hunted and killed outside the game preserves and outside of such places as New Brunswick and the Adirondacks cannot be saved until each species is given perpetual protection. Colorado is saving a small remnant of her mountain sheep, but Montana and Wyoming are wasting theirs because they allow killing. And the killers are 10 times too numerous for the sheep. They imagine that by permitting only the killing of rams, they are saving the species. But that is an absolute fallacy. And soon it will have a fatal ending. With an endowment fund of $2 million, only double the price of the two old Velazquez paintings purchased recently by a gentleman of New York, a very good remnant of the wildlife of North America could be saved. But who will give the fund, or even a quarter of it? Thus far, the largest psalms ever given in America for the cause of wildlife protection, so far as I know personally, have been the following. Albert Wilcox to the National Association of Audubon Societies, $322,000. Mary Butcher Fund to the National Associations of Audubon Societies, $12,000. Mrs. Russell Sage for the purchase of Marsh Island, $150,000. American Game Protective and Propagation Association for the manufacturers of firearms and ammunition, annually, $25,000. Charles Willis Ward and E.A. Michael Henney, purchase of Game Preserve presented to Louisiana, $39,000. Mrs. Russell Sage, miscellaneous gifts to the National Audubon Society, $20,000. The American Bison Society for the Montana National Heard, $10,526. New York Zoological Society, total about $20,000. John E. Thayer, purchase of Game Preserve, $5,000. Caroline Phelps Stokes, Bird Fund, New York Zoological Society, $5,000. Boone and Crockett Fund for Preservation, $5,000. The Friend in Rochester, $2,500. Henry C. Frick, $1,500. Samuel Thorn, $1,250. Of all the above, the only endowment funds yielding an annual income are those of the National Association of Audubon Societies and the Caroline Phelps Stokes Fund, $5,000, in the Treasury of the Zoological Society. A fund of $25,000 per year for five years has been guaranteed by the makers of shotguns, rifles, and ammunition to the American Game Protective and Propagation Association. This is like a limited endowment. In the civilized world, there are citizens of many kinds, but all of them can be placed in two groups. One, those with a sense of duty toward mankind and who will do their duty as good citizens. And two, those who from the cradle to the grave meanly and sordidly study their own selfish interests, who never do ought save an expectation of a quick return benefit and who recognize no such thing as duty toward mankind at large. Men and women of the first class are honored in life, mourned when dead, and gratefully remembered by posterity. They leave the world better than they found it and their lives have been successful. Men and women of the second class are merely so many pieces of animated furniture and when they pass out, the world cares no more than when old chairs are thrown upon the scrap heap. There are many men so selfish, so ignorant and mean of soul that even out of well-filled purses, they would not give $10 to save the whole bird fauna of North America from annihilation. To all persons of that brand, it is useless to appeal. As soon as you find one, waste no time upon him, get out of his neighborhood as quickly as you can and look for help among real men. The wildlife of the world can be saved by a few persons, even though they work their hearts out in the effort. The cause needs two million more helpers and they must be sought in group number one. They are living somewhere, but the great trouble is to find them before it is too late. There are times and causes in which the good citizen has no option but to render service. The most important of such causes are the relief of suffering humanity, the conservation of the resources of nature and the prevention of vandalism. If the American nation had refused aid to stricken San Francisco, the callous hard-heartedness of it would have shocked the world. If the German army of 1871 had destroyed the art treasures in the libraries of Paris, it would have set the German nation back 10 centuries into the ranks of the lowest barbarians. And yet, in America and in the regions now being scourged by the feather trade, a wonderful fauna is being destroyed. It took millions of years to develop that marvelous array of wildlife, and when it is gone, it never can be replaced. Yet the army of destruction is sweeping it away as joyously as a hired laborer cuts down a field of corn. That wildlife can be saved. If done, it must be done by the men and women of group number one. The means by which it can be saved are money, labor, and publicity. Every man of ordinary means and intelligence can contribute either money or labor. The men on the firing line must not be expected to furnish their own food and ammunition. The workers must be provided with the money that active campaign work imperatively demands. Those who cannot conveniently or successfully labor should give money to this cause. But at the same time, every good citizen should keep in touch with his law-making representatives and, in times of need, ask for votes for whatever new laws are necessary. With money enough to arouse the American people in certain ways, the wildlife of North America, north of Mexico, can be saved. Money can secure labor and publicity, and the people will do the rest. For this campaign work I want and must have a permanent fund of $10,000 per annum. Cash always ready for every emergency in fieldwork. I greatly need and must have, immediately, an endowment, wildlife fund, of at least $100,000, and eventually $250,000. I can no longer pass the hat each year. This is needed in addition to the several thousands of dollars annually being expended by the zoological society in this work. The society is already doing its utmost in wildlife protection, just as it is in several other fields of activity. Outside of New York, many wealthy men will say, let New York do it. That often is the way when national campaigning is to be done. In national wildlife protection work, New York is, today, bearing about nine-tenths of the burden. It is my belief that in 1912, outside of New York City, less than $10,000 was raised and expended in wildlife protection, saved by state and national appropriations. We know that in the year mentioned, New York expended $221,000 in this cause, all from private sources. In a very short time, I shall call for the $100,000 that I now must have as an endowment fund for nationwide work to be placed at 5.5% interest for the $5,500 annual income that it will yield. How much of this will come from outside the state of New York? Some of it, I am sure, will come from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. But will any of it come from Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis and San Francisco? The duty of the hour. I have now said my say in behalf of wildlife. Surely the path of duty toward the remnant of wildlife is plain enough. Will those who read this book pass along my message that the hour for a revolution has struck? Will the millions of men commanded by general apathy now arouse before it is too late to act? Will the true sportsmen rise up and do their duty bravely and unselfishly? Will the people with wealth to give away to their duty toward wildlife and humanity fairly and generously? Will the zoologists awake, leave their tables in their stone palaces of peace and come out to the firing line? Will the lawmakers heed the handwriting on the wall and make laws that represent the full discharge of their duty toward wildlife and humanity? Will the editors beat the alarm gong early and late in season and out of season until the people awake? On the answer to these questions hang the fate of the wild creatures of the world. Their preservation or their extermination.