Animal Sanctuaries in Labrador by William Wood
W >>
William Wood >> Animal Sanctuaries in Labrador
And it is just as bad with the birds as with the eggs. A schooner
captain says, "Now, boys, here's your butcher shop: help yourselves!"
and this, remember, is in the brooding season. Not long ago the men
from a vessel in Cross harbour landed on an islet full of eiders and
killed every single brooding mother. Such men have grown up to this,
and there is that amount of excuse for them. Besides, they ate the
birds, though they destroyed the broods. Yet, as they always say, "We
don't know no law here," it may be suspected that they do know there
really is one. These men do a partly excusable wrong. But what about
those who ought to know better? In the summer of 1907 an American
millionaire's yacht landed a party who shot as many brooding birds on
St. Mary island as they chose, and then left the bodies to rot and
the broods to perish. That was, presumably, for sport. For the same
kind of sport, motor boats cut circles round diving birds, drown them,
and let the bodies float away. The North Shore people have drowned
myriads of moulting scoters in August; but they use the meat. Bestial
forms of sport are many and vile. "C'est un plaisir superbe" was the
description given by some voyageurs on exploring work, who had spent
the afternoon chasing young birds about the rocks and stamping them to
death. Deer were literally hacked to pieces by construction gangs on
new lines last summer. Dynamiting a stream is quite a common trick
wherever it is safe to play it. Harbour seals are wantonly shot in
deep fresh water where they cannot be recovered, much as seagulls are
shot by blackguards from an ocean liner.
And the worst of it is that all this wanton destruction is not by any
means confined to the ignorant or those who have been brought up to
it. The men from the American yacht must have known better. So do
those educated men from our own cities, who shoot out of season down
the St. Lawrence and plead, quite falsely, that there is no game law
below the Brandy Pots. It is, of course, well understood that a man
can always shoot for necessary food. But this provision is shamelessly
misused. Last summer, when a great employer of labour down the Gulf
was telling where birds could be shot to the greatest advantage out of
season, and I was objecting that it was not clean sport, he said, "Oh,
but Indians can shoot for food at any time--_and we're all Indians
here!"_ And what are we to think of a rich man who used caribou simply
as targets for his new rifle, and a scientific man who killed 72 in
one morning, only to make a record? We need the true ideal of sport
and an altogether new ideal of conservation, and we need them very
badly and very soon.
We have had our warnings. The great auk and the Labrador duck have
both become utterly extinct within living memory. The Eskimo curlew is
decreasing to the danger point, and the Yellowlegs is following. The
lobster fishing is being wastefully conducted along the St. Lawrence;
so, indeed, are the other fisheries. Whales are diminishing: the Cape
Charles and Hawke Harbour establishments are running, but those at
L'Anse au Loup and Seven islands are not. The whole whaling industry
is disappearing all over the world before the uncontrolled persecution
of the new steam whalers. The walrus is exterminated everywhere in
Labrador except in the north. The seals are diminishing. Every year
the hunters are better supplied with better implements of butchery.
The catch is numbered by the hundreds of thousands, and this only for
one fleet in one place at one season, when the Newfoundlanders come up
the St. Lawrence at the end of the winter. The woodland caribou has
been killed off to such an extent as to cause both Indians and wolves
to die off with him. The barren-ground caribou is still plentiful,
though decreasing. The dying out of so many Indians before the time of
the Low and Eaton expedition of 1893-4 led to an increase of
fur-bearing animals. But renewed, improved, increased and uncontrolled
trapping has now reduced them below their former level. Hunting for
the market seems to be going round in a vicious circle, always
narrowing in on the quarry, which must ultimately be strangled to
death. The white man comes in with better equipment, more systematic
methods and often a "get-rich-and-get-out" idea that never entered a
native head. The Indian has to go further afield. The white follows.
Their prey shrinks back in diminishing numbers before them both.
Prices go up. The hunt becomes keener, the animals fewer and farther
off. Presently hunters and hunted will reach the far side of the
utmost limits. And then traded, traders and trade will all disappear
together. And it might so well be otherwise.
There is another point that should never be passed over. In these days
the public conscience is beginning to realize that the objection to
man's cruelty towards his other fellow-beings is something more than a
fad or a fancy. And wanton slaughter is very apt to be accompanied by
shameless cruelty. To kill off parents when the young are helpless....
But I have already given enough sickening details of this. The
treatment of the adults is almost worse in many typical cases. An
Indian will skin a hare alive and gloat over his quivering
death-agonies. The excuse is, "white man have fun, Indian have fun,
too." And it is a valid excuse, from one point of view. When "there's
nothing in caribou" except the value of the tongue, the tongue has
been cut out of the living deer, whose only other value is considered
to be the amusement afforded by his horrible fate. And, fiendish
cruelty like this is not confined to the outer wilds. When some
civilized English-speaking bird-catchers get a bird they do not want,
they will deliberately wrench its bill apart, so that it must die of
lingering starvation. Sometimes the cruelty is done to man himself.
Not so many years ago some whalers secured a lot of walrus hides and
tusks by having a whole herd of walrus wiped out, in spite of the fact
that these animals were, at that very time, known to be the only food
available for a neighbouring tribe of Eskimos. The Eskimos were
starved to death, every soul among them, as the Government explorers
found out. But Eskimos have no votes and never write to the papers;
while walrus hides were booming in the markets of civilization.
Things like these are not much spoken of. They very rarely appear in
print. And when they are mentioned at all it is generally with an
apology for introducing unpleasant details. But I am sure I need not
apologize to gentlemen who are anxious to know the full truth of this
great question, who cannot fail to see the connection between wanton
destruction and revolting cruelty, and who must be as ready to rouse
the moral conscience of our people against the cruelty as they are to
rouse its awakening sense of conservation against the destruction.
CONSERVATION
All the sound reasons ever given for conserving other natural
resources apply to the conservation of wild life--and with three-fold
power. When a spend-thrift squanders his capital it is lost to him and
his heirs; yet it goes somewhere else. When a nation allows any one
kind of natural resource to be squandered it must suffer a real,
positive loss; yet substitutes of another kind can generally be found.
But when wild life is squandered it does not go elsewhere, like
squandered money; it cannot possibly be replaced by any substitute, as
some inorganic resources are: it is simply an absolute, dead loss,
gone beyond even the hope of recall.
Now, we have seen verifiable facts enough to prove that Labrador, out
of its total area of eleven Englands, is not likely to be
advantageously exploitable over much more than the area of one England
for other purposes than the growth and harvesting of wild life by land
and water. How are these ten Englands to be brought under
conservation, before it is too late, in the best interests of the five
chief classes of people who are concerned already or will be soon? Of
course, the same individual may belong to more than one class. I
merely use these divisions to make sure of considering all sides of
the question. The five great interests are those of--1. Food. 2.
Business. 3. The Indians and Eskimos. 4. Sport, and 5. The
Zoophilists, by which I mean all people interested in wild-animal
life, from zoologists to tourists.
1. FOOD.--The resident population is so sparse that there is not one
person for every 20,000 acres; and most of these people live on the
coast. Consequently, the vast interior could not be used for food
supplies in any case. Besides, ever since the white man occupied the
coast, the immediate hinterland, which used to be full of life, has
become more and more barren. Fish is plentiful enough. A few small
crops of common vegetables could be grown in many places, and outside
supplies are becoming more available. So the toll of birds and mammals
taken by the present genuine residents for necessary food is not a
menace, if taken in reason. In isolated places in the Gulf, like
Harrington, the Provincial law might safely be relaxed, so as to allow
the eggs of ducks and gulls to be taken up to the 5th of June and
those of murres, auks and puffins up to the 15th. Flight birds might
also be shot at any time on the outside capes and islands. There is a
local unwritten law down there--"No guns inside, after the 1st of
June"--and it has been kept for twenty years. Similar relaxations
might be allowed in other places, in genuine cases of necessity. But
the egging and out-of-season slaughter done by people, resident or
not, who are in touch with the outside world, should be stopped
absolutely. And the few walrus now required as food by the few
out-living Eskimos should be strictly protected. Of course, killing
for food under real stress of need at any time or place goes without
saying. The real and spurious cases will soon be discriminated by any
proper system.
2. BUSINESS.--Business is done in fish, whales, seals, fur, game,
plumage and eggs. The fish are a problem apart. But it is worth noting
that uncontrolled exploitation is beginning to affect even their
countless numbers in certain places. Whales have always been exploited
indiscriminately, and their wide range outside of territorial waters
adds to the difficulties of any regulation. But some seasonal and
sanctuary protection is necessary to prevent their becoming extinct.
The "white porpoise" could have its young protected; and whaling
stations afford means of inspection and consequent control. The only
chance at present is that when whales become too scarce to pay they
are let alone, and may revive a little. The seals can be protected
locally and ought to be. The preponderance of females and young killed
in the whelping season is a drain impossible for them to withstand
under modern conditions of slaughter. The difficulty of policing large
areas simultaneously might be compensated for by special sanctuaries.
The Americans are protecting their seals by restrictions on the
numbers, ages and sex of those killed; and doing so successfully. The
fur trade is open to the same sort of wise restriction, when
necessary, to the protection of wild fur by the breeding of tame, as
in the fox farms, and to the benefits of sanctuaries. Marketable game,
plumage and eggs can be regulated at out ports and markets. And the
extension of suitable laws to non-game animals, coupled with the
establishment of sanctuaries, would soon improve conditions all round,
especially in the interest of business itself. No one wants his
business to be destroyed. But if Labrador is left without control
indefinitely every business dealing with the products of wild life
will be obliged to play the suicidal game of competitive grab till the
last source of supply is exhausted, and capital, income and employment
all go together.
3. INDIANS AND ESKIMOS.--The Eskimos are few and mostly localized. The
Indians stand to gain by anything that will keep the fur trade in full
vigour, as they are mostly hunters and trappers. Restriction on the
number of skins, if that should prove necessary, and certainly on the
sale of all poisons, could be made operative. Strychnine is said to
kill animals eating the carcases even so far as to the seventh remove.
Close seasons and sanctuaries are difficult to enforce with all
Indians. But the registration of trappers, the enforcement of laws,
the employment of Indians as guides for sportsmen, and other means,
would have a salutary effect. The full-bloods, unfortunately, do not
take kindly to guiding. Indians wishing to change their way of life or
proving persistent lawbreakers might be hived in reserves with their
wives and families. The reserves themselves would cost nothing, the
Indians could find employment as other Indians have, and the expense
of establishing would be a bagatelle. As a matter of fact, in spite of
all the bad bargains having always been on the Indian side when sales
and treaties were made with the whites, there is enough money to the
credit of the Indians in the hands of the Government to establish a
dozen hives and keep the people in them as idle as drones on the mere
interest of it. But good hunting grounds are better than good hives.
4. SPORT.--Sport should have a great future in Labrador. Inland game
birds, except ptarmigan, are the only kind of which there is never
likely to be a great abundance, owing to the natural scarcity of their
food. But, besides the big game on land and game birds on the coast,
there are some unusual forms of sport appealing to adventurous
natures. Harpooning the little white whale by hand in a North Shore
canoe, or shooting the largest and gamest of all the seals--the great
"hood"--also out of a canoe, requires enough skill and courage to make
success its own reward. The extension and enforcement of proper game
laws would benefit sport directly, while indirectly benefitting all
the other interests.
5. ZOOPHILISTS.--The zoophilist class seems only in place as an
afterthought. But I am convinced that it will soon become of at least
equal importance with any other. All the people, from zoologists to
tourists, who are drawn to such places by the attraction of seeing
animal life in its own surroundings, already form an immense class in
every community. And it is a rapidly increasing class. Could we do
posterity any greater injury than by destroying the ten Englands of
glorious wild life in Labrador, just at the very time when our own and
other publics are beginning to appreciate the value of the appeal
which such haunts of Nature make to all the highest faculties of
civilized man?
The way can be made clear by scientific study. The laws can be drawn
up by any intelligent legislators, and enforced quite as efficiently
as other laws have been by the Mounted Police in the North West. The
expense will be small, the benefits great and widely felt. The only
real hitch is the uninformed and therefore apathetic state of public
opinion. If people only knew that Labrador contained a hundred
Saguenays, wild zoos, Thousand Islands, fiords, palisades, sea
mountains, canons, great lakes and waterfalls, if they only knew that
they could get the enjoyment of it for a song, and make it an heirloom
for no more trouble than letting it live, they might do all that is
needed to-morrow. But they don't know. And the three Governments
cannot do much without the support of public opinion. At present they
do practically nothing. The Ungavan Labrador has neither organization
nor laws. The Newfoundland Labrador has organization but no laws. And
the Quebec Labrador has laws but no observance of them.
However, Quebec has laws, which are something, legislators who have
made the laws, and leaders who have introduced them. The trouble is
that the public generally has no sense of responsibility in the matter
of enforcement. It still has a hazy idea that Nature has an
overflowing sanctuary of her own, somewhere or other, which will fill
up the gaps automatically. The result is that poaching is commonly
regarded as a venial offence, poachers taken red-handed are rarely
punished, and willing ears are always lent to the cry that rich
sportsmen are trying to take the bread out of the poor settler's
mouth. The poor settler does not reflect that he himself, and all
other classes alike, really have a common interest in the conservation
of any wild life that does not conflict with legitimate human
development. There is some just cause of complaint that the big-game
reserves are hampering the peasants in parts of India and the settlers
and natives in parts of Uganda. But no such complaint can be raised
against the Laurentide National Park, so wisely established by the
Quebec Government. The worst of it is that many of the richer people
set the example in law-breaking. The numbers of big game allowed are
exceeded, out-of-season shooting goes on, and both out-of-season and
forbidden game is sold in the markets and served at the dinner tables
of the very class who should be first in protecting it.
Partly because Quebec has taken the lead in legislation, and partly
because an ideal site is ready to hand under its jurisdiction, I would
venture to suggest the immediate establishment of an absolute
sanctuary for all wild birds and mammals along as much of the coast as
possible on either side of cape Whittle. The best place of all to keep
is from cape Whittle eastward to cape Mekattina, 64 miles in a
straight line by sea. The 45 miles from cape Mekattina eastward to
Shekatika bay are probably the next best; and, next, the 35 from cape
Whittle westward to Cloudberry point. As there are 800 miles between
Quebec and the Strait, I am only proposing to make from one-tenth to
one-fifth of them into a sanctuary. And this part is the least fitted
for other purposes, except sea-fishing, which would not be restricted
at all, the least inhabited, and the most likely to succeed as a
sanctuary, especially for birds.
Cape Whittle is 550 miles below Quebec, 70 below Natashkwan, which is
the last port of call for the mail boats, and 50 below Kegashka, the
last green spot along the shore. It faces cape Gregory, near the bay
of Islands in Newfoundland, 130 miles across; and is almost as far
from the north-east point of Anticosti. It is a great landmark for
coasting vessels, and for the seal herds as well. A refuge for seals
is absolutely necessary to preserve their numbers and the business
connected with them. Of course, I know there is a feeling that, if
they are going to disappear, the best thing to do is to exploit them
to the utmost in the meanwhile, so as to snatch every present
advantage, regardless of consequences. But is this business, sense, or
conservation? Even if any restriction in the way of numbers, sex, age
or season should be imposed on seal hunting, a small sanctuary cannot
but be beneficial. While, if there is no other protection, a sanctuary
is a _sine qua non_. It is possible that some protection might also be
afforded to the whales that hug the shore.
The case of the birds is quite as strong, and the chance of protection
by this sanctuary much greater. With the exception of the limited
egging and shooting for the necessary food of the few residents--the
whole district of Mekattina contained only 213 people at the last
census--not an egg nor a bird should be touched at all. The birds soon
find out where they are well off, and their increase will recruit the
whole river and gulf. A few outlying bird sanctuaries should be
established in connection with this one, which might be called the
Harrington Sanctuary, as Harrington is a well-known telegraph station,
a central point between cape Whittle and Mekattina, and it enjoys a
name that can be easily pronounced. In the Gulf the Bird rocks and
Bonaventure island to the south; one of the Mingan islands, the
Perroquets and Egg island to the north; with the Pilgrims, up the
River, above the Saguenay and off the South Shore, are the best. The
Pilgrims, 700 miles from the Atlantic, are probably the furthest
inland point in the world where the eider breeds. They would make an
ideal seabird sanctuary. On the Atlantic Labrador there are plenty of
suitable islands from which to choose two or three sanctuaries,
between Hamilton inlet and Ramah. The east coast of Hudson bay is full
of islands from which two corresponding sanctuaries might be selected,
one in the neighbourhood of the Portland promontory and the other in
the southeast corner of James bay.
There is the further question--affecting all migratory animals, but
especially birds--of making international agreements for their
protection. There are precedents for this, both in the Old World and
in the New. And, so far as the United States are concerned, there
should be no great difficulty. True, they have set us some lamentable
examples of wanton destruction. But they have also set us some noble
examples of conservation. And we have good friends at court, in the
members of the New York Zoological, the Audubon and other societies,
in Mr. Roosevelt, himself an ardent conserver of wild life, and in Mr.
Bryce, who is an ex-president of the Alpine Club and a devoted lover
of nature. Immediate steps should be taken to link our own bird
sanctuaries with the splendid American chain of them which runs round
the Gulf of Mexico and up the Atlantic coast to within easy reach of
the boundary line. Corresponding international chains up the
Mississippi and along the Pacific would be of immense benefit to all
species, and more particularly to those unfortunate ones which are
forced to migrate down along the shore and back by the middle of the
continent, thus running the deadly gauntlet both by land and sea.
Inland sanctuaries are more difficult to choose and manage. A deer
sanctuary might answer near James bay. Fur sanctuaries must also be in
some fairly accessible places, on the seaward sides of the various
heights-of-land, and not too far in. The evergreen stretches of the
Eastmain river have several favourable spots. What is needed most is
an immediate examination by a trained zoologist. The existing
information should be brought together and carefully digested for him
in advance. There are the Dominion, Provincial and Newfoundland
official reports; the Hudson Bay Company, the Moravian missionaries;
Dr. Robert Bell, Mr. A.P. Low, Mr. D.I.V. Eaton, Dr. Grenfell, Dr.
Hare, Mr. Napoleon Comeau, not to mention previous writers, like
Packard, McLean and Cartwright--a whole host of original authorities.
But their work has never been thoroughly co-ordinated from a
zoological point of view. A form of sanctuary suggested for the
fur-bearing Yukon is well worth considering. It consists in opening
and closing the country by alternate sections, like crops and fallow
land in farming. The Indians have followed this method for
generations, dividing the family hunting grounds into three parts,
hunting each in rotation, and always leaving enough to breed back the
numbers. But the pressure of the grab-all policy from outside may
become irresistible.
The one great point to remember is that there is no time to lose in
beginning conservation by protecting every species in at least two
separate localities.
A word as to the management and wardens. Two zoologists and twenty men
afloat, and the same number ashore, could probably do the whole work,
in connection with local wardens. This may seem utterly ridiculous as
a police force to patrol ten Englands and three thousand miles of sea.
But look at what the Royal North West Mounted Police have done over
vast areas with a handful of men, and what has been effected in Maine,
New Brunswick and Ontario. Once the public understands the question,
and the governments mean business, the way of the transgressor will be
so hard--between the wardens, zoologists and all the preventive
machinery of modern administration--that it will no longer pay him to
walk in it. Special precautions must be taken against that vilest of
all inventions of diabolical ingenuity--the Maxim "silencer." No
argument is needed to prove that silent firearms could not suit crime
better if they were made expressly for it. The mere possession of any
kind of "silencer" should constitute a most serious criminal offence.
The right kind of warden will be forthcoming when he is really wanted
and is properly backed up. I need not describe the wrong kind. We all
know him, only too well.
BENEFITS
I am afraid I have already exceeded my allotted time. But, with your
kind indulgence, Sir, I should like, in conclusion, simply to
enumerate a few of the benefits certain to follow the introduction and
enforcement of law and the establishment of sanctuaries.
First, it cannot be denied that the constant breaking of the present
law makes for bad citizenship, and that the observance of law will
make for good. Next, though it is often said that what Canada needs
most is development and not conservation, I think no one will deny
that conservation is the best and most certainly productive form of
development in the case before us. Then, I think we have here a really
unique opportunity of effecting a reform that will unite and not
divide all the legitimate interests concerned. What could appear to
have less in common than electricity and sanctuaries? Yet electricity
in Labrador requires water-power, which requires a steady flow, which
requires a head-water forest, which, in its turn, is admirably fit to
shelter wild life. Except for those who would selfishly and
shortsightedly take all this wealth of wild life out of the world
altogether, in one grasping generation, there is nobody who will not
be the better for the change. I have talked with interested parties of
every different kind, and always found them agree that conservation is
the only thing to do--provided, as they invariably add, that it is
done "straight" and "the same for all."