It is the purpose of this paper to briefly discuss the conditions surrounding wild life in this country during the colonial period and through the life of the Republic; to set forth the facts of its present day existence; to bring the question of game preservation nearer home by contrasting the records and the experiences of certain other states with those of North Carolina; and finally to suggest a constructive program for furthering the conservation of fish and game, which should be followed by both the Federal and State Governments in the Southern Appalachians, a region arbitrarily defined for the purpose of this sketch as the mountain section south of Pennsylvania.

The opinions of men undergo great changes as time passes and as experiences multiply or repeat themselves. "Fifty years ago," says Dr. Hornaday, "the preservation of wild life was a sentimental cause, of practical interest only to sportsmen. Today it is not only acutely sentimental, but it has become also intensely practical to the public at large." Formerly arguments based on commercial or economic considerations were ineffective because the great body of the population believed that the source of supply would be forever bountiful. Now, with wider knowledge gained from observation, by word of mouth of men who travel much afield, and thru the publications of hunters and naturalists, we have learned definitely that instead of filling from inexhaustible springs, the wells of supply have too often had their levels lowered to such great depths that the recovery of certain species of animal life is not longer possible through any effort of man.

But let us look together for a moment upon the picture of wild life on this continent 200 years ago, and as it continued to be for a long period thereafter. The early colonists found the land abundantly stocked with game. The lakes within and the coastal waters without the land were covered with waterfowl. An unbroken forest extending from shore-line to the prairie's eastern edge was filled to overflowing with deer, elk, moose, bear, bison, wild turkey, grouse, and vast quantities of smaller game. During the period of migration early writers record that the waters where swans resorted appeared as if dressed in white drapery. Mighty flocks of geese and wild ducks innumerable wintered in Virginia and the Carolinas. The wild turkey was described as the most important fowl of the country and was found in large flocks in every woodland. They were often bought for 20 cents each in the New Netherlands. It is recorded that the heath hen, or eastern prairie chicken, was so plentiful in New England that oftimes in the articles of apprenticeship it was specified that the apprentice should not be compelled to eat the meat of it more frequently than twice each week. We read that the Indians in bands of two and three hundred visited the nesting places of wild pigeons and there feasted on squabs for weeks at a time.

As to the larger game a similar story of its numerical strength is told. Moose were everywhere abundant throughout their natural range. Elk were so numerous in spring time that often a hundred could be tallied on a square mile. And it strikes the most imaginative of us as almost incredible, to learn on excellent authority that

Settlement in the country was slowly accomplished from the coastal plain to the western base of the Appalachian Range. It was a century and a half creeping from coast line to mountain crest. The line of permanently advancing settlement was not in Eastern Kentucky for example, until 1760, or thereabout. It was still another hundred years chopping its way to the eastern edge of the Great Plains. So slowly had population increased as compared with the destruction of game that only a few laws pertaining to wild life were placed on the statute books of any state prior to the beginning of the 19th century. Special laws protecting insectivorous birds began to be enacted in the 'fifties and 'sixties, but it was not until after the Civil War that the movement for adequate protection had its real inception.

Game still continued to be abundant in some regions. As illustrative of the conditions during the middle of the last century, the report made by a select committee of the Senate of Ohio, in 1857, is most illuminating. This report was made in connection with a bill proposed to protect the passenger pigeon. "The passenger pigeon needs no protection. Wonderfully prolific, having vast forests to the North as its breeding grounds, traveling hundreds of miles in search of food, it is here today and elsewhere tomorrow and no ordinary destruction can lessen its numbers, or be missed from the myriads that are yearly produced." Yet what was the story to tell a half century later? The last passenger pigeon known on the continent died in the Zoological Gardens of the city of Cincinnati. The market gunners had done their job only too well.

Game, of course, was always actually decreasing despite the fact of its seeming continued abundance. Buf-

The principal cause of the decrease in earlier days is attributable directly to the heavy and unnecessary and utterly reckless killing by hunters. Deer were shot in great numbers and only the haunches were used. Wild geese were shot as food for dogs. Great canebrakes were set on fire in order to drive out game for furnishing the day's sport, and, in the burning, the haunts and nesting places and bedding grounds of animals and birds were destroyed. Buffalo even in the earliest times were often killed only for the sake of a tidbit such as the tongue, the balance being left to birds and beasts of prey.

In more recent times in accounting for the diminishing numbers of game, we find a still more potent agency of destruction, namely the unregulated trade in the flesh and skins of slaughtered wild life. This sort of destruction grew by leaps and bounds, as the cities grew in population, as firearms were perfected and cheapened, and as the haunts of game were more easily reached by railroad. Dr. Hornaday in his book, "Our Vanishing Wild Life," states that "beyond reasonable doubt the traffic in dead game is responsible for at least three-fourths of the slaughter that has so reduced our game birds to the present remnant of their former abundance. There is no influence so deadly to wild life as that of the market gunner."

A third factor which contributed and still does contribute to the reduction of game, and which has the merit of being a well founded reason, is the change of forestland to cultivated and pasture land. Forests, the natural cover of most game, were cut away and the fields of grain and meadow took their place. With its permanent shelters destroyed, wild life had to succumb in part, though no one will deny that the numbers have been reduced to a point far in excess of actual necessity. It is axiomatic that, as the country is more fully occupied by man, it must be

less and less occupied by game. But for all the truth in this statement it is still both practicable and desirable to preserve an appreciable quantity of wild life. The true objective sought is the complete development of all the ways in which our wild life forms may be enjoyed between the extremes of observing them solely for the pleasure derived from their appearance and actions in their free state, and the exhilaration of the chase and the taking and utilization of the food. All of us are poignantly aware of the fact that today there is but a remnant of wild life in the whole Southern Appalachians. Even the common white tailed deer, hardy and fecund as it is, exists only in private game preserves, or in scattered groups here and there. It is doubtful if there are today more than 25 head of deer in the mountains of East Tennessee and Western North Carolina outside of the Toxaway property, the head of Tuckaseegee and Pisgah Forest. Horace Kephart in his volume, "Our Southern Highlanders," says, "that a stranger in these mountains will be surprised at the scarcity of game. It is not unusual for one to hunt all day long in an absolute wilderness where no track of fowl or animal is seen. There is really very little game in them in comparison with sections of the Adirondacks, Maine, and Canada, where game has been conserved for many years. It used to be the same up there." "In 1877 a certain naturalist writing of the Maine woods said, 'the most striking feature of the forest after one has become habituated to the gloom, the pathlessness, and the impenetrability of the screen it forms around him, is the absence of animal life. One may wander for hours without seeing a living creature. One thinks of woods and wild beasts, yet in all my years of wilderness wandering I can catalog all of the wild animals I have seen other than squirrels and grouse and small birds. Here is the list: One deer, one porcupine, one marten, and half a dozen hares." And yet the Southern Appalachians offer one of the most favorable game harborages to be found on the face of the entire globe. It is the highest, roughest, best watered, most densely

Is it desirable to have wild life back in some of its former haunts? The answer is affirmative, if only for sentimental reasons. But it is desirable also because of the tangible assets which accrue to the state, because it can easily be made to pay its way, because it will add materially to the food supply of the country, and because it will afford recreation which builds up the health and increases the vigor of those who seek the chase.

The game history of other states is most interesting in this connection. In 1875 Vermont had no live deer within its boundaries. They had been exterminated. At this time a group of public spirited citizens of Rutland, after having suitable protective laws enacted, purchased 13 deer from the Adirondacks and turned them loose in the open forests about the city. For 22 years none was killed except for a few shot in trespass. In 1897 the deer were numerous enough to justify the killing of bucks only, and in that year 150 were shot. Each year thereafter the deer increased and so did the annual kill until in 1909 (the latest date for which accurate figures were obtained), this amounted to 5,261 head. The market value of this meat for that year was close to one hundred thousand dollars. In New York, where the fish and game resources are handled in a most businesslike manner, the annual kill of deer in the mountains of the state is between 7,000 and 10,000. In the state of California the record is larger still with 12,000 killed in 1917, with a

There is an angle pertaining to other values which is of deep interest. Maine, for example, which we mentioned previously as having no game in 1877, has so well husbanded her wild life resources since, that today she estimates that nearly $2,000,000 are left within her borders each year in return for licenses, for supplies, for guides, for hotels, and all the other things for which a tourist or a hunter or an angler will spend his money, when he gets away from home. Similarly California, wide-awake and always on the lookout for the entertainment of the pleasure-seeker, has him leave with her each year between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. Other states can tell similar though less opulent tales. The point to keep in mind is this: that neither California or Maine is inherently better off, so far as natural conditions favoring wild life are concerned, than is North Carolina, or Virginia. The chief difference is that the states which now have plenty of certain kinds of game are giving it the protection it must have. They have put themselves to a good deal of trouble and expense to bring the wild life back, while some of our Southern Appalachian states have not troubled themselves about the matter, but have let the game-hog and the fish-hog clean up as they go. They should call to mind the aphorism that "nothing is had for nothing." Good hunting and good trout fishing in a region such as ours would mean the immediate advent of thousands of sportsmen. There are counties in the Southern Appalachians and in North Carolina which might readly be made self-supporting—as in northern Pennsylvania— by properly caring for fish and game resources.

As we consider the fisheries of the region the outstanding fact is that in a way in the Southern Appalachians the record parallels that of game. Well stocked streams filled with fish were the usual thing even to a comparatively late date. This condition does not obtain today. While there are a few streams well stocked it is

The Federal and State Governments began to take cognizance of fish culture about 1870. The results of artificial restocking have amply justified the optimism of the scientists and the sportsmen who first broached the plan. Working plans have been outlined in some states designed to determine the character of all waters within the state, to find out more about the natural food supply of the fish, to study the enemies of spawn and young fish, so that it may be set down in black and white how to manage each stream to best advantage. But in a majority of the states the streams have not been properly protected, and even less is known of the habits, the food, and the reproductive capacity of the fish than of the game. We do not have adequate legislative safe-guards thrown around our streams. Too much unnecessary pollution is allowed to be dumped into them. Commercial interests too are selfish in their attitude and are inclined to resent any sort of control over their action. But, as with game, the true conservationist does not ask for the impracticable or the impossible. Dams across rivers may interfere with the spawning of certain species of ascend-

"If there were no other justifications for the existence of the Fish and Game Commission, it could well rely upon the results of its attempts to stock the streams of the state. Hundreds of lakes and streams formerly barren of fish life now contain millions of fish and these fish furnish food and recreation for all who will cast a fly or drop a line. Trout are now to be found in nearly every living stream easily accessible to the angler. Furthermore there have been introduced into the waters of the state a number of food and game fishes not formerly found here: Bass and shad and other species now add greatly to our fishery resources. Due to the activity of the Commission the state of California offers fine fishing

What are the best methods of obtaining the increase of fish and game we desire? In the first place, we need good laws, certain restrictions placed upon the killing, hunting, and disposition of game. It is often observed that we now have too many laws and, furthermore, that there is no need of laws unless they are enforced. Both observations are partly correct especially with respect to this state, as we shall see later. Nevertheless we must have some good laws in order to assist wild life in its unequal struggle for existence. There are many law-abiding men who will hunt and fish where the laws are lax.

In the second place, methods of obtaining more fish and game must be put into effect. This may be accomplished by the establishment of public and private preserves and the erection of hatcheries for the propagation of fish.

And then we need publicity. We need to present the facts with accuracy and with simplicity. California's slogan has been for many years "conservation through education." It is both a sensible and a practical point of view. The public has to decide in the end whether or not wild life shall stay, and the public can be won for the cause if it has the record truthfully and insistently presented.

How, you may ask, are these things to be done unless considerable funds are at hand ? They cannot be done without money, but there is one practical way of obtaining it. So far as my information goes it has not been a failure in any state where fairly tried and willingly sup-

Tennessee which has a comparatively new game law had in 1916 receipts amounting to $34,000. Disbursements were $15,000.

Year Receipts Disbursements

Kentucky________1915-16 $34,000.00 $12,000.00

_______1916-17 63,000.00 35,000.00

_______1917-18 70,000.00 46,000.00

Virginia_________1916-17 $88,000.00 $67,000.00

Maine_________1895-1918 25,000.00 100,000.00

(No comments on disburesments available)

Massachusetts______1917 54,000.00

Small reserve left.

New York_________1917 365,000.00 320,000.00

California_______1914-15 319,000.00 272,000,00

_______1915-16 320,000.00 320,000.00

Many other states could be listed, but these are enough to support the argument that the license system can readily furnish funds enough if properly applied. The disbursements given above cover not only the expenses of the Fish and Game Commission, but go for wardens and deputy wardens' salaries, for hatcheries, for experiments in restocking with exotic species, and all sorts of legitimate ends which the various Commissions with to accomplish.

In any scheme for increasing the wild life resources in the Southern Appalachians the fact that the Federal

Every state which has not already done so should enact a state wide game law, putting the administration of the law up to a Fish and Game Commission created by it, and giving it liberal powers-of action. In North Carolina the present game laws are so intricate and so local that they are often violated in ignorance. As they now stand on the statutes there is no living person who can give a summary of their purport. We have the county system which is very bad. Enforcement of the game laws by the counties is farcical. Think of a state having 36 different open seasons for deer! In nine counties in the eastern part of the state where natural conditions are quite similar, there are fourteen different open seasons for deer, due to different county laws, and even to different laws in the various townships in the counties. For partridge or grouse we have 40 different periods of killing. Then the bag limits are, too, variable. Our neigh-

Tennessee which has a comparatively new game law had in 1916 receipts amounting to $34,000. Disbursements were $15,000.

Year Receipts Disbursements

Kentucky________1915-16 $34,000.00 $12,000.00

_______1916-17 63,000.00 35,000.00

_______1917-18 70,000.00 46,000.00

Virginia_________1916-17 $88,000.00 $67,000.00

Maine_________1895-1918 25,000.00 100,000.00

(No comments on disburesments available)

Massachusetts______1917 54,000.00

Small reserve left.

New York_________1917 365,000.00 320,000.00

California_______1914-15 319,000.00 272,000,00

_______1915-16 320,000.00 320,000.00

Many other states could be listed, but these are enough to support the argument that the license system can readily furnish funds enough if properly applied. The disbursements given above cover not only the expenses of the Fish and Game Commission, but go for wardens and deputy wardens' salaries, for hatcheries, for experiments in restocking with exotic species, and all sorts of legitimate ends which the various Commissions with to accomplish.

In any scheme for increasing the wild life resources in the Southern Appalachians the fact that the Federal

SIXTH: Stock the forests and the waters with good native stock, where possible.

If some such plan is carried out in the Southern Appalachians our wild life will be safe from extermination, our food supply will be augmented, our assets added to, our waste lands alive with animals and birds as in olden days, our streams full of the leaping trout, and our mountains thronged with those whom the "Red Gods" call.