Report of Special Committee ON THE Game Situation Honourable W. D. Black, Parham, Chairman. A. Z. Aubin, M. P. P., Sturgeon Falls. F. E. Hollingsworth, Sault Ste. Marie. T. P. Lancaster, M.P.P., Havelock. Coulter McLean, M.P.P., Toronto Jack Miner, Kingsville. William Newman, M. P. P., Lorneville. Frank Spence, M. P. P., Fort William. D. J. Taylor, M. P. P., Wiarton. P. F. Cronin, Secretary. PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO SESSIONAL PAPER, No. 32, 1933 THE LIBRARY OF THE JUL 24 I933 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS TORONTO; Printed and Published by Herbert M. Ball, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty 1933 Tourists at the Miner Sanctuary watching the wild birds; almost all United States cars. [2] w Q-y, g/L. REMOTE STORAGE To the Honourable Dr. Herbert A. Bruce, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Ontario. May It Please Your Honour: I have the honour to submit herewith, for the information of Your Honour and the Legislative Assembly, the report of a Special Committee, composed of Honourable W. D. Black, Chairman, A. Z. Aubin, M.P.P., F. E. Hollings-worth, T. P. Lancaster, M.P.P., Coulter McLean, M.P.P., Jack Miner, William Newman, M.P.P., Frank Spence, M.P.P., D. J. Taylor, M.P.P., and P. F. Cronin, Secretary, appointed by the Honourable Charles McCrea, then Minister in charge of the Game and Fisheries Department, to inquire into the game situation in Ontario. I have the honour to be, Your Honour's most obedient servant, Geo. H. Challies, Minister in Charge of Game and Fisheries. Toronto, February 20th, 1933. TERMS OF REFERENCE "You are hereby named as a Committee to enquire into conditions relative to Ontario game resources* The Committee is not to be in the nature of a commission acting under specific directions to investigate particular matters, but, independent of the Department, will make careful enquiries with a view to furnishing definite suggestions or proposals which, in the opinion of the Committee from a public standpoint, might advantageously be adopted for the improvement of present conditions. Having in mind the ultimate improvement of game resources and the utilization of the same for the benefit of the Province as a whole, the Department, in carrying out its various activities, has some well defined views on different phases of game resources and law enforcement. It is anticipated, however, that this Committee, coming into contact with the public and viewing conditions from various angles, will be able to contribute beneficial suggestions which, incorporated with the present activities of the Department and with such changes in legislation as may seem wise, can be adopted for the general improvement of existing game conditions. "The appreciation and good wishes of the Government and the Department of Game and Fisheries are cordially extended in the labours you are undertaking, and we hope that your work will be a great benefit to our Province. (Signed) C. McCrea, 1931 Minister in Charge of the Department of Game and Fisheries." [3] 871859 GENERAL INDEX Addington, 32. Administration, 80, 81, 93. Agnew, F. G., Wilberforce, 28, 29. Airplanes, transport by, 31, 71. Alberta, 51. Algoma, 31, 32, 67, 133. Algonquin Park, 20, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 105. " timber, 25. Agricultural Enquiry Committee, 23. Artificial feeding, 92. Anderson, Dr. R. M., Biol. Div., 45, 46. Arkansas, State of, 27, 51. Aubin, Albert Z., 13, 106 et seq. Automobiles, Firearms in, 86. Avery Island, 51. Bag Limit, 104. Banding Records, 50. Bass, Depletion of, 78. Bears, 15, 35, 41, 44, 45, 46, 91. Beath, Thomas, 47. Betten, H. L., 53. Big Game, 16. Biological Research, 89. Biological Survey, Ottawa, 52. Bird Dogs, 92. Bird Farms, 64, 67. Birds in Captivity, 66, 92. Birds of Prey, 92. Birds, Native, 69. Bishopp, F. C, Washington, 36, 37. Black, Hon. W. D., 70, 106 et seq. Boundaries, Inter-Provincial, 31. Bounties, 27, 28. Bradford Creighton, 144. Bradley, Bruce, 61, 151. Bruce County, 10, 15, 22, 32. Buck Law, 12, 13, 97, 98. Bureau of Biol. Survey, U.S., 26. Burgess, W. O., 66, 67. Burns, C. W., Sault Ste. Marie, 76. Burns, James H., 46. California, 22, 44. Campbell, A. H., 16. Canada Atlantic Railway, 15. Canada (Western Provinces), 52. Canadian National Ry., 39. Canadian Pacific Ry., 18, 39. Canadian Pacific Ry. Main Line, 18. Cardwell Township, 15. Caribou, 91. Carleton County, 15, 22. Carscallen, A. H., 57. Cats, 84. Celery, Wild, 54, 55, 56, 92. Challies', Hon. G. H., Letter, 3. Chapleau Reserve, 30. Christie, John, Rock Lake, 29. Christie Township, 15. Clarkson, G. T., 61. Close Season, Vote, 96. Cochrane, 31, 32, 39. Codrington, 64. Commissioner of Crown Lands, 10. Committee plans, 8. Committee, List of Meetings, 95. Committee, Expression of Opinion, 20. Conover, F. H., 48, 146. Conservation, 7, 35. Co-operation, 28, 30, 31. Cornwall, 57. Couture, Rev. Father, 122 et seq. Crozier, W. G., 144. Deaton, W. N., (Arkan.), 27. Decoys, live, 53. Deer, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 33, 35, 91, 95, 96, 102. " annual kill, 34. " conservation, 21, 35. " exposure in transit, 101, 102. " killing in water, 17, 18, 99, 100. " range, 15, 21. " vote on season, 100, 101. " weight of, 14. Department of Colonization and Forestry, 24, 25. Department of Game and Fisheries, 10, 16, 24, 25, 30, 87, 88, 105. Department of Game and Fisheries, Dep. Minister, 33. Department of Lands and Forests, 24, 30, 31. District Superintendents, 38. Does, 14. " dry, 37. " and Fawns, 12, 14, 20, 22. Dogs, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 37, 38, 96, 97. " Ban, 19. " vote on, 19, 96. Dorion, 90. Drought, 52. Ducks, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 92, 103, 104. " diseases, 60. " season in U.S., 47, 53. " rest days, 53, 58. vote on, 103. Dundas Co., 15. " Marsh, 77. Dunkin, Major Grant, 89. Dymond, Prof., 65, 66, 147. Education, 82, 93. Elk and caribou, 42. Elliott, W. H., Fort Frances, 148. Emmerton, Col. R., 61. Endleman, H. N., 74, 75. Enforcement of law, 94. Essex county, 14, 16. Farmers, 16. u trapping, 76. " problems, 83. Fawns, vote on killing, 98, 99. Federation Ontario Naturalists, 69, 129. Finns, 123. Fish, 9, 78, 79, 106. Fish, vote on, 105. Fort Frances, 133, 149. Fort William, 42. Fox hunting, 37. Francke, A., 151. Fraser, District Superintendent, 42. French and Mattawa rivers, 16, 17, 19, 22 23 33 35 41. Frontenac county, 32, 33, 35, 40. Fur industry, 73, 74. Fur, wild, 75, 76. Fur-Bearers, Close season, 71, 72, 102. Fur-Buyers, vote on, 102. " bonds, 103. Game Law, 24, 25, 38. " Laws, early, 11. Game Committee, 10. Game and Fish Commission, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 25, 40. Game Wardens, 80, 105. Geese, 61, 63, 92. " vote on season, 105. Gill, Warden, Dunnville, 17, 18, 47. Glengarry county, 15. Godfrey, T., 122 et seq. Grant, Andrew, 29, 45, 65. Grenville county, 15. Grey county, 10, 15, 22, 32; Gross, Dr. A. D., Boston, 65. Grouse, ruffed, 11, 64, 65, 66. Guides, 94, 106. Guns, 104. Gun license, 80, 81, 93, 104. Haliburton, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35, 144, 145. Halton County, 32. Hastings county, 31, 32, 33, 35, 40. Havemeyer Estate, 26. Hawks and owls, 83, 105, 106. Henderson, W. C, Washington, 26, 27, 53, 54. High Point Park, 26. Hofmaier, Dr., 60. Hollingsworth, F. E., 14, 15, 16, 18, 26, 33, 37, 65, 66, 69; 106. Hoover, President, 51, 52. Hounds, 17. Hudson's Bay, 40. Hudson's Bay Company, 71, 72, 74. Hunters, number of, 18, 21, 33. caps, 102. Hunter township, 30. Illinois, 22. Indiana, 22. Indians, 16, 40, 41, 70, 72, 73, 75, 93, 102. Indian Affairs, Department, 73, 74, 106 et seq., 125. Indians, trapping, Vote on, 102. Indian Treaties, 127. Ignace, 42. Iowa, 22. Introductory, 7. James Bay, 76, 77, 86. Inman, W. F., 59. Iroquois Falls, Club, 134, 135, 136. James Bay, Coastal waters, 86. Jones, Rev. Charles J., 29. Kalbfus, Dr. Joseph, 13. Kapuskasing, 18. Kennedy, Rev. L. J., 29. Kenora and Rainy River, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39. Kent, A. and H., Assn., 141. Killarney, fish invoices, 142. Kirkfield Fur Farm, 89. Lake St. Clair, 57, 58, 59. Lanark County, 32. Law, Dr. Kirkfield, 89. Leeds Co., 15, 32. Lennox, 32. Legislation, 11. Lemna, 55, 56. Licenses, hunting, 33, 34. " in park, 25. Lancaster, T. P., 106 et seq. Lincoln county, 64. Long Point Park, 24. Louisiana, 50, 51, 63. Lumbermen, prosecution of, 18. Lyness, District Superintendent, 43, MacCallum, Dr. G. A., 12, 18. MacDiarmid Committee, 9. Maclnnes, T. R. L., 70, 71. Malkin, S. T., Orrville, 15. Maine, State, 45. Manitoba, 23, 31, 45, 51. " Game law, 75. Manitoulin, 31, 32, 33. Mattawa-Heron Bay line, 39. McCarthy, Frank, K.C., 106 et seq. McCormick, Thomas, 45. McCrea, Hon. Charles, 4, 7, 19. " " Terms of Com. Refer- ence, 3. McDonald, Dep. Min., 106 et seq. Mclllhenny, E. A., 51. McLean, A. Coulter, M.P.P., 17, 106. Michigan, 17, 36, 44, 48, 49, 50. Michigan, Department of Conservation, 54. Michipicoten, 18. Mickle, G. R., 54. Migratory Birds, 7, 50. " Protection Act, 47, 49, 60. Miner Sanctuary, 61, 62, 63. Miner, Jack, 14, 51, 67, 68, 77, 83, 84, 87, 106. Minnesota, 18, 45. Ministerial responsibility for dog ban, 20. Mississippi, 45. Missouri, 22. Mitchell's Bay, 141. Monteith township, 15. Moose, 16, 33, 40, 41, 91. " vote on, 102. Mount Pleasant, 64. Mourning Dove, 68, 69, 92. Munuskong Marsh, 49. Muskoka, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 31, 35. Muskrat season, vote, 93, 103. Nadon, S. A., 45. National Geographic Magazine, 87. New Hampshire, 45. New Jersey, 28, 45. Newman, Wm., 106 et seq. New York, 22, 35, 36, 44, 45, 68. Niagara Falls Park, 24. Nicholson, George B., 73, 140. Nipissing, 30, 31, 32. North Bay, 138. Northern Ontario, 30, 35, 39, 40. Northumberland, 32. N.W. Territories, 72. Nose-fly, 36, 37. Nova Scotia, 14, 35, 36, 51, 52. Oilman, H., 140. Ontario, 7, 12, 14, 36, 51. Ontario county, 32. Eastern, 39, 67. Ontario Hunters G.P. Assn., 129, 130. Open Seasons, 38, 39. Oregon State, 26, 43, 64, 148. Osier, H. S., 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 88, 146. Otter protection, vote, 93, 102. Parks, Dist. Superintendent, 43, 128, 136. Parry Sound, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 32, 33, 35, 40. Partridge, 11, 66, 92. " Open Season, vote, 103. " Hungarian, 67. Patricia, 31, 32, 75. Pennsylvania, 13, 14, 22, 33, 35, 36, 37, 45, 80, 83, 87. Petawawa, 42. Peterborough Co., 32, 35, 40. [5] Pheasants, 11, 64, 92. Poachers, 37, 38. Poison, use of, 102. Pollution, Water, 60, 77. Port Arthur, 122. Prairie Hens, 11, 69. Predators, control of, 25, 26, 27, 28, 83, 84, 92. Preserves, game, 94. Presqu'ile Park, 24. Protection, 10. of game, 15, 16. Provincial Parks Act, 30, 31. Public Parks, 24. Quail, Bob White, 66, 67, 68. Quail, 11, 105. Quallins, Warden, Leamington, 16, 48. Quebec, 21, 23, 31, 44, 51, 70, 71. " bounty, 32. " Dogs stopped, 21. Quetico Park, 24, 25. Quinn, Rev. J. Renfrew, 29. Rabbits, 84, 149. Rainy River, 18, 31, 32, 33. Recommendations, 91, 92, 93, 94. Redington, Paul G., U.S. Dept. Agric, 26, 48, 49, 51. Reindeer, 91. Renfrew Co., 29, 31, 32, 33. Rice, wild, 92. Richard, L.A., Dep. Minister, Que., 21. Rideau, waters, 78. Robertson, F. A., Perth, 48. Robinson Treaties, 72. Robinson, Mark, Algonquin Park, 29, 30, 44. Rod License, 79. Rondeau Park, 24, 35, 59. Rowan, William, Alberta Univ., 65. Rutting season, 17. Sabiskong, 132. Sanctuaries, 85, 86. Sanderson, F., 130, 131. Saskatchewan, 51. Sault Ste. Marie, 90. Schreiber, C. C, 53, 54. Schweikart, Walter, 47. Seine river, 133 Severn River, 10. Sherwood, E. S., Ottawa, 151. Shields, James, 45. Simcoe co., 10, 15, 32. Smith, A. H., Sudbury, 54, 55, 56. Smith, H. K, Belleville, 17, 18, 19. Smith, Montague, Forest, 18. Smith's Falls F. and G. Assn., 141. Sinclair, J. A., 48. Sioux Lookout, 42. Southworth, Thomas., 24. Tourists' Cars at Miner Sanctuary, 2. Deer Carcass, characteristic appearance, 28. Deer Killed by Wolves (Renfrew Co.), 29. Elk Herd brought to Ontario, 42. Canada Geese, Miner Sanctuary, 61. Spence, Frank, 1, 122 et seq. Spencer A., Fort William, 122, 124. St. Catharines and Lincoln G. and F. Assn., 145. St. Joseph's Island, 39. St. Mary's river, 134. Starlings, 83, 84. Stevenson, Dr. Lionel, 13, 14. Stevenson, P. Dis. Sup., 150. Stewart, A. D., Chief Warden, 15, 17. Still hunting, 19. Stone, Dr. E. L., 106 et seq. Stormont Co., 15. Sudbury, 31, 32, 33. Superior Game Preserve, 42. Superintendents, 80. District, 11, 30, 38, 42, 105. Swans on Niagara river, 63. Swedes, 122, 123. Taylor, D. J., 106 et seq. Temiskaming Game and F. Ass., 131. Thunder Bay, 31, 32, 33, 131, 132. Timber, values in parks, 25. Tinsley, Edward, warden, 19. Tourist business, 87. Temiskaming, 31, 32, 33, 139. Trappers, 30. Trapping, boundaries, 71, 72, 74, 102. " season, 103. Trent waters, 78. Turkey, wild, 11, 67. United States, 18. " Federal Parks, 26. Victoria county, 32, 33, 40. Votes, recapitulation of, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106. Warble fly, 37. Ward, District Superintendent, 42. Wasteful killing, 14. Waterfowl, 47. Waterloo county, 32. Ward, Superintendent, 42. Way, A. E., Lowbush, 45, 152. Wellington county, 32. Willmott, J. H., 12, 16, 17, 18, 40. Wilson, Dr. E. H., Perth, 150. Wisconsin, 45. Wolf, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 91, 102. " Bounty Applications, 31, 32, 33. " Bounties Paid in Seven Years, 32. " Bounty, U.S., 27. Vote, 102. " Kill in Algonquin Park, 24. Wood, G. C, 16. Woodcock, 11. Woodduck, 50. York County, 15, 32. Jack Miner liberating a Goose, 62. Where Jack Miner Catches Geese, 62. Bob White Quail, Miner Sanctuary, 68. Northern Ontario Indian Family, 73. Jack Miner's Starling Trap, 83. ILLUSTRATIONS [6] INTRODUCTORY Sportsmen, and others of habitual acquaintance with wild life, find Ontario the most interesting territorial division of North America. Its pre-eminence rests broadly upon the fact that it shares more of the faunal zones than any other Province of the Dominion, or State of the neighboring Republic. Ontario people once spoke of their "barren north/' though they knew it rightly as the world's greatest preserve of fur-bearers, together with big game. They further recognized its central position in that vast breeding ground, where, at the coming of winter, the bird flights are annually marshalled. "And in their wedgelike figures from the North, Day after day, flock after flock come forth." Civilization and industry are now established along the ocean boundary of this last natural refuge of our animals and birds. It becomes accordingly one of the most pressing problems facing the Province to take a worthy part in protecting the wild life indigenous to the region or annually breeding there. It need not be emphasized that this problem comprehends a conservation policy for the entire Province. Southward to the shore areas of Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron, Ontario possesses cover of every description. The essential public policy, indeed, presents itself as urgently in the Southern as in the Northern zones. Fortunate it is that Ontario retains, both in the north and the south, the native trees of the coniferous and hardwood species, and that there are everywhere supplies of berry-bearing shrubs, herbaceous vegetation and aquatic plants. Natural conditions are admirably suited for the furtherance of a strong conservation movement at the present time. Migratory birds have ever sought the vast and well-watered spaces between the Great Lakes and the northern tides. Cultivation of the soil, and a combination of destructive forces, have exterminated or measurably lessened some of the species that formerly, summer and winter, could be seen in the southern covers and marshes. The wild turkey, the quail, the woodcock, the woodduck� some of these have disappeared, others are less frequently seen. The passing of bird species, as well as of the elk and the caribou, should force all who value a noble heritage to face the truth at last, that large scale extermination of our wild life definitely threatens. Officials, naturalists, land owners and sportsmen clearly realize that the economic value of what may be called our most sensitive public asset must increase or decrease according to the adequacy or inadequacy of the measures of conservation that may be adopted in the present critical stage of game reduction. This was the keynote of the brief address made by the Hon. Charles McCrea to the members of the Special Game Committee upon the day of its organization. It is the only note that has been stressed at the long series of public meetings called by the Committee throughout the Province. These meetings have been well attended, and though all who came to offer information and advice were not agreed as to the means to be recommended to the Minister, recognition of an emergency was never absent from the expressions of opinion heard. By the Department, as well as by the Committee, the continuing right of sportsmen to take in each season a reasonable amount of game is conceded 17] and advocated. However, it will be only as a result of wise conservation measures that the sport of hunting can be expected to continue as one of the chief interests of the Province. The practice of the Committee was to test and check up by enquiry from competent experts all personal views and data in general considered helpful to the survey undertaken. In order to use the money appropriated most economically, the Committee divided into three sections, representing different parts of the Province. In this way, the sportsmen and interested public of each section met the members of the Committee best informed upon local conditions. [8] FISH This Committee was not instructed to examine any phase of the Game-Fish situation. A Report was made in March, 1930, to the Minister in charge of the Department of Game and Fisheries, by a Committee appointed in 1928, which Report was printed as part of the 23rd annual Departmental Report. In the commercial as well as in the sports phases of the fresh water fisheries of the Province, however, certain contacts with fur and game problems cannot be avoided in any examination touching control of watersheds, as well as other aspects of conservation. This Committee has been requested by many witnesses appearing at its sessions to make brief representations emphasizing the recommendations made by the Macdiarmid Committee, under such headings as water levels, dams, fish passes, and stream and lake pollution, from the point of view of the great importance of these factors in the present problem of protection for fur-bearers and waterfowl, and in all such cases, the recommendations suggested have been referred to the Department for its consideration. [9] 10 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 BACKGROUND OF THE PICTURE Three Periods The protection of game in the Province of Ontario since Confederation may be divided into three periods: (1) Preceding the appointment of the Game and Fish Commission (1890). (2) Administration by the Game and Fish Commission (1892-1905-6). (3) Under the Department of Game and Fisheries (1905-6 to the present time). It is advisable to review briefly the state of the Game Laws and the conditions so far as organized service for the protection of game may be considered, during each of these three periods. Preceding the administration of the Game and Fish Commission, no active or organized service can be said to have existed. Authority had been provided for the appointment of game inspectors by municipalities; but this authority was practically inoperative. Protection of game was almost nominal under the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Prosecutions for infraction before Police Magistrates or Justices of the Peace were rarely initiated, and then at the instance of informers. The body of the Game Laws, however, was as sound as in other Provinces and States. The findings of the Commission aimed more at organizing a protective service than at improving the character of the laws. The chief aim was to check wanton slaughter of wild deer. To this end the open season was changed from October 15-November 20 to November 1-15, to begin from 1895. The Commissioners had been authorized to divide the Province into districts for protective purposes, with suitable seasons for hunting. They appear to have disregarded this instruction, except for the inadequate recommendation to close for five years the counties south and west of the northern boundaries of Bruce, Grey and Simcoe, of the Severn River and the eastern boundary of the Province. The protection of fawns and does was not allowed to continue. The prevalent practices of yard hunting and crust hunting were declared illegal. Close seasons were provided for grouse, pheasants, prairie fowl, wild turkeys, swans, geese and ducks. The decade or more years following the appointment of the Game and Fish Commission witnessed some advance in law enforcement, but little in the matter of law improvement. Dogs were allowed as formerly in the chase, and the time of the Commission was largely consumed in "most vexatious" wrangling about the use of dogs. The third period has witnessed the development of game law enforcement on a more adequate scale, the division of the Province into districts and reduction in the quantity of game that may be taken under license. In this period the foundations of future success in the whole field of conservation, control and propagation have also been laid. The Department of Game and Fisheries finds itself today confronted with many problems, some of which are of a continuing nature from errors of the second period, and some of which are new. In this report of the Special Game Committee an endeavor is made to formulate recommendations that will meet the present situation. ON THE GAME SITUATION 11 RED DEER Game Laws At the outset a study was made of previous official Reports of nature similar to that now undertaken, and of the related records of the Department. These documents are marked by reiteration of identical complaints and recommendations, of which some still crop up in communications passing between the Department and the District Superintendents. Obviously, improvement of the game laws has been a slow process. It would almost appear that the economic value of the hunting and fishing facilities was underestimated by the governments of the past fifty years, and also by the public. But, though the process has been slow, it has been one of general education and discipline. The protection of deer began in early colonial days. Among the explorers and original settlers were men of sporting traditions, who identified themselves with the better ideas of their times, and, by checking the Indians and the hunters, became instrumental in planting a few notions of control and conservation in the older parts of the Province. The danger of extinction to many varieties of the native wild life must have been apparent to those first observers of the trapping and hunting customs of pioneer days. Preservation of menaced species thus became a definite purpose of the earliest legislation in this part of Canada. Protective Legislation Saving the red deer was the foremost purpose of the law makers. The earliest protective legislation applied to what is now Ontario was passed in April, 1821, in the form of an Act "to amend an Act for making more effectual provision for the government of the Province of Quebec in North America." There were bounty laws to keep down the wolf early in the 18th century, when there had been extensive northward movements of the Virginia deer. The first game legislation of Upper Canada shows need for protecting the red deer. It provided a fine of forty shillings for killing deer between January 10 and July 1. The next record is an Act of May 11, 1839, for the preservation of deer within the Province. That statute prohibited killing wild deer after February 1 and before August. 1. It also prohibited the killing of wild turkeys, prairie hens, grouse, pheasants, partridge, quail and woodcock between March 1 and September 1. Still later was a statute passed by the Legislature at Kingston (December 19, 1843), "An Act to prohibit the hunting and killing of deer and other game within the Province at certain seasons of the year." All early laws depended upon informers for their enforcement, and it is doubtful whether they accomplished much for game protection. Game and Fish Commission For the purpose of research in the field of more effective regulatory law, it is not necessary to go back beyond 1892, which was the first year covered by Reports made by the Ontario Game and Fish Commissioners, gazetted as a permanent Board in the month of June of that year, upon the recommendation of the Commission appointed by the Government of the Province in November, 1890. The Commissioners had investigated all the areas south of Parry Sound, Muskoka and Haliburton, and had concluded that, if teeth were 12 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 not put into law enforcement, there was little prospect of the then existing machinery ever saving the country from a desolation where no bird sings and no wild thing starts beside the bush trail. Most of the witnesses then heard doubted that the threatening danger of extinction could be finally averted. The work of the Commissioners actually covered only the first five months of 1892. But an effort was made to put a stop, as far as possible, to what the Chairman (Dr. G. A. MacCallum of Dunnville) characterized as "ruthless and indiscriminate destruction of the game and fish of the Province, which has well nigh caused their utter extinction." This was the first notable effort towards conservation. It was slow in gaining the momentum required to carry it forward in the direction of the Commissioners' hope. Educating the People The Commissioners found on commencing their work that a most lament- _________able ignorance^ (not wholly dispelled in the succeeding forty years) existed in the minds of the public as to what the game and fish laws really were. It was therefore decided to issue an abstract of these laws, and more than 30,000 copies were printed and distributed. Authority was obtained to appoint four wardens, among them Mr. J. H. Willmott, of Beaumaris, whose services were retained by the Government until his death in 1917. The Chairman described the newly appointed wardens as intelligent, active and zealous. The Commissioners found, of course, that the extreme hardship and difficulty of life in the game districts made the residents more intent on supplying their own immediate needs than in assuring a plentiful source of game for the future. Education in conservation and improvement in living conditions must go hand in hand. Complaints then, as at the present day, were often directed against the Indians as well as against the settlers. Today, the word Conservation carries more definite meaning to the public. Its success is seen in other parts of the continent, where restoration and propagation of game brings large revenue to the public treasury, and puts money into circulation through many branches of the business of the community. Does and Fawns The Commissioners recommended in the first year of their administration that the provision of the law that then prohibited the killing of does and fawns be struck out. This was done^ on the plea that sportsmen, often unable to distinguish a doe or a fawn from a young buck, broke the law unwittingly. The law still remains in the questionable condition to which the newly-appointed Commissioners, at the request of a number of hunters, reduced it. The result is that Ontario has a bad hunting tradition for the killing of the females and their young. A section of the hunters still seem to regard their license as a warrant to bring a dead deer out of the bush, be it buck, doe or fawn. This has never ceased to be a bone of contention, in view of the sadly depleted state of the deer herd in those hunting districts that have been the favorite camping grounds of the past forty years. Inasmuch as in places where a buck law is in force there still persists illegal killing of does, it is obvious that some hunters will endeavor as long as possible to retain the legal right to kill does in Ontario. ON THE GAME SITUATION 13 Buck Law The advocates of a buck law have behind them a respectable body of opinion.* According to the latter view, the Province would gain more revenue from tourists, attracted by the sight of wild deer a-plenty, than from licenses of the hunters opposed to this restriction. Hunting furnishes fine recreation; but thousands prefer recreation where wild life is to be observed without the privilege of killing it. Because the instinct of the true sportsman is to conserve, it should, however, be possible to find a solution. Dr. Lionel Stevenson, Provincial Zoologist, made the following suggestions to the Committee: "I have long felt there is need of some restraint being placed on the practice of killing does and fawns during the hunting season. I appreciate the difficulty of distinguishing the sex of deer when hunting. I have made the mistake of shooting a doe when I would much rather not have done so. Many hunters prefer bucks, and will not shoot a doe or fawn if they know it. Others make a practice of shooting does and fawns, and the great number of such brought out each year indicates a serious drain on the deer population. In hunting I have found that does and fawns will stick around the locality they have been used to, while the bucks, as soon as they get wise to the presence of the hunters, will move further back. Hence fewer bucks are shot and the does and fawns have to provide the venison. Why not charge a higher license fee on does and fawns? This could be done, I believe, by issuing a license as at present, with an additional tag for doe or fawn; and also require the man obtaining the license to report and declare his kill at the end of the hunting season to the man from whom he purchased the license or other official. In this way the killers of does and fawns could be taxed an additional fee of, say, $4. Those making false report or failing to report could be denied hunting licenses in future years. The additional fee would probably have the effect of making many hunters look before shooting, and not only save does and fawns but other hunters. Hunters have to go to the official issuer of hunting licenses now, and it should not be a hardship on them to report back to the same man. The low additional fee of, say, $4, while it would deter hunters knowingly shooting does and fawns, would not be as high as to cause wastage of carcass, as would result if the shooting of does and fawns were declared illegal. Let the hunter pay for his mistakes, or his desire if he wants a doe, by contributing more money to the Treasury. The same end might be obtained by raising Pennsylvania Game News, December, 1932. The first deer were stocked in 1906, when 50 were purchased from Michigan. Subsequently deer in limited numbers were purchased each year until 1924, the number totalling 1,094. Then, in 1907, came the so-called "Buck Law/' This law was bitterly fought by hunters throughout the state, and its repeal was petitioned as late as 1913. The principal reason for passing this law was fully explained in a statement made in 1907 by Dr. Joseph Kalbfus, for many years Secretary of the Board, which reads: "The law prohibiting the killing of any but a male deer with horns was passed mere to protect human life than to protect deer." In 1931 bucks were given further protection by declaring legal only animals with horns 4 inches or more above the hair. In 1923 still further protection was afforded by declaring legal only bucks with two or more points to an antler, with an added proviso that a buck with a horn 6 inches long measuring from the top of the skull would also be considered legal. This latter provision was abolished in 1925. "Concerning the buck law the opinions heard at meetings to my mind were rather divided with a preponderance in favor of shooting does also. The great majority, however, was against the shooting of fawns."�Albert Z. Aubin. 14 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 the license fee to, say, $8, and providing for a refund to those killing bucks only. If it is to be all still hunting, anything that will restrain a hunter from shooting until he can see horns will also add to the safety of other hunters in the woods." Conditions to Face in Ontario Many conservationists take the simple ground that saving the females and the young is a fundamental principle. They agree from the example of Pennsylvania, Nova Scotia, and other places, that does may periodically be taken as their proportion in the herd, or the increase of the herd as a whole, may indicate. But where the deer herd is sparse, as admittedly is the case in Ontario, the fundamental consideration must outweigh all questions of difficulty that hunters may find in distinguishing the doe and the fawn before shooting. After long consideration, the Committee could only come to the conclusion that the fundamental condition is not to be denied in existing circumstances, which constitute a strong challenge to Ontario conservationists and hunters alike. Wasteful Killing In 1892 the Commissioners encountered a number of proposals for game protection that still continue to press upon the Department. They bent all their policy at first against the long-prevalent practice of unnecessary killing of deer, but apparently were too timid to reduce the kill per license from two to one deer. Scientific knowledge, and the experience of other countries, forced attention to the regulation of hunting as a continuing sport. Sportsmen had learned to realize that they themselves have an important protective function in the business of supervision. But the comment must be made that slaughter of red deer continued to be marked for many long years by sheer waste. As the kill steadily increased with the increase in the number of hunters, the deer herd disappeared from the southern counties of the Province. In Essex, not so long ago, the fall hunting was abundant.* Later on, hunting became concentrated in Parry Sound, Muskoka and Haliburton. In this way the chase of the deer extended northward and westward. It is not contended that instinctive deer movements were not taking place.f We have had witnesses before us who declare that dispersal of the herd is an unproven theory, unwarranted by long observation of deer habits. In our opinion, however, it requires consideration. We feel convinced that the deer history of the Province makes it evident that the gradually widening hunting area helped to put the deer more and more at the mercy of their natural enemies, the wolves. *"Our extreme southern Ontario deer are not and never were as large as the northern deer. The largest deer I ever saw, in Essex County, some fifty more or less years ago, weighed 185 lbs. This same thing applies all through the Southern States. In Northern Ontario, bucks that weigh 250 lbs. are quite common."�Jack Miner. t"The red deer invariably follow the lumberman and the settler, and bush fires. In heavily forested land there is no food. It has been the experience in the north that where there are big lumbering operations deer come in, seeking food on roads, clearings, etc."�F. E. Hollingsworth. ON THE GAME SITUATION 15 The Deer Range A study of such statistical information as the records of the Department afford, together with the conclusions that may fairly be drawn from the accounts of experienced hunters, settlers and guides who have been before us, justifies the statement that in the Province as a whole there are not now more deer than there were when the Ontario Game and Fish Commission assumed office in 1892. And if this be so, there is little room for asserting that conservation of deer has ever had a chance in Ontario. In some of the western and northern areas deer are fairly plentiful where once they were not seen, which, in our opinion, implies that modern methods of hunting in territory much more extensive than the deer range of forty years back present the same problems of the past. Prohibition of hunting and killing, found necessary in the Counties of Bruce, Grey, Simcoe, York, and south and west of those counties, as well as in Leeds, Grenville, Dundas, Stormont, Glengarry and Carleton, has now resulted in indications of the deer coming back to those older sections, where, -------------------for an interyal of _y_e>_ars,_the_y_ had disappeared. They would return rapidly to sanctuaries or adequate cover. In the face of all the information offered us, we are convinced that this return of the deer in the extent to which it has taken place, shows that rehabilitation of the herd can be made possible by the imposition of a close season in any section of Old Ontario where there is cover. In short, the whole of habitable Ontario is a natural deer range, in all parts of which deer are sparse. So far as all the closed Southern area is concerned, the necessity still exists, not only for prohibition of hunting, but for very strict enforcement of the law. Peotection a Slow Process These conditions of the present make it all the more interesting to study the slow progress of deer protection in the Province during the whole of the administration of the Game and Fish Commission. The long series of reports by wardens proves that an increasing measure of protection afforded by the laws, however slow in growth, was the principal factor operating as a brake upon the rate of reduction. This is not evident where intensive hunting was carried on. The Chief Warden, Mr. A. D. Stewart, of Hamilton, in his first report was able to say that only one quarter of the deer killed in 1891 were taken in 1892. This statement was made by him in face of the fact that the deputy wardens were most unsatisfactorily organized, and were themselves liable Jor costs in unsuccessful prosecutions. Mr. S. T. Malkin (Orrville) has lived in the Parry Sound District for sixty years. He refers to an area of 50,000 acres without settlement in the townships of Christie, Monteith and Cardwell. There are numerous lakes and small swamps. Wolves and bears are seen. Were statistics available, he says, rapid increase could be noted in the number of deer shipped out each season after the building of the Canada Atlantic Railway, bringing a host of hunters with their dogs annually. The decimation process brought disaster to the deer in a period of 25 years.* *"I have in mind an area of slightly smaller extent, in which there was wonderful hunting fifteen years ago. Today, there are very few deer. Bush has again filled all logging roads and deserted clearings. Consequently, there is no summer feed and no deer."�F. E. Hollingsworth. 16 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 An Interminable Contention The running of dogs had already revolted a good many hunters before the nineties. The public contention on this question was older than the Game and Fish Commission, but the Reports of that body are full of it. It persists through the entire administration of the Commission and was one of the factors that contributed most to loss of prestige by that body. The Commissioners were obviously incapable of decision concerning it. The settlers in Muskoka claimed that dogging was resorted to principally by outside sportsmen. Some outside sportsmen defended themselves. A. H. Campbell (Toronto) declared that dogs should long have been prohibited. The dispute became involved with duration of the season. The annual reports of the Game and Fisheries Department show, however, that it abated not in the slightest degree after the Commission had passed out of existence, and the open season south of the French and Mattawa Rivers had been shortened to fifteen days. Mr. G. C. Wood was one of those who pressed both for the shorter season and the ban on dogs. The hunters who strove resolutely to retain the dog held that settlers and Indians, being permitted to kill deer at all seasons for their own use and their families' needs, should bear as much of the reproach for wasteful conditions as was attributed to these hunters and their dogs. Extermination in Essex Warden Quallins, of Leamington, made strong and frequent representations concerning extermination of the deer in his district, which he charged to hunting out of season by Indians, cutting of the forests, killing the does, and hounding. He asked for five years of rigid protection for his district; and the five years had not elapsed before the government passed an order-in-council protecting deer in Essex County for a ten-year period. The measure would seem to have come too late. The Warden found unlawful killing going on and the remainder of the deer being exterminated. Several farmers were heard boasting of having killed nine to eleven deer.* The people of the district were in vigorous opposition to the dog, and kept up a demand for the permanent protection of deer, when it was altogether too late to stop the destruction, and the last wild deer in Essex had been chased into the lake and pulled out with a rope. Protection in the south-western section drove hunters in large numbers into the more remote hunting camps. In 1893, between 600 and 800 deer were reported taken out of Muskoka, Parry Sound and Haliburton, which small number did not include the quantity consumed in the camps of the hunters. In 1894 the Commissioners were driven to the conclusion that the deer season was both too long and too early. An enormous quantity of meat spoiled every season. Rig Game in Parry Sound Warden Willmott, who in 1894 passed through a portion of the Parry Sound District, found for ten or fifteen miles the road and the bush on each side of the road literally padded down with deer tracks, also with occasional moose tracks. This is the first time we encounter arresting mention of the *"It was a common practice out of season in the north by still hunting."�F. E. Hollings-worth. ON THE GAME SITUATION 17 wolf menace in the official reports. It would appear that whatever the deer movement of that time, it was followed by the wolf pack. Warden Willmott was convinced of an opinion we have heard from more than a score of observers of the present time, viz., that one wolf could do more damage than many hunters. The wolf, however, did not save the hunter or his dog from the blame put upon them. Mr. H. K. Smith, Warden at Belleville, who succeeded Mr. A. D. Stewart as Chief Warden in 1894, had previously been in favor of the dogs. As Warden, however, he wanted them suppressed, since apparently they could not be restricted. Wardens Gill, of Dunnville, and Willmott, made a trip through Muskoka in the hunting season, finding at least 300 dogs brought into the district by persons from other parts of the Province, supplemented by some 150 dogs owned by residents. Mr. GuTs reaction was to recommend that the open season be shortened by ten days and put back a similar period. Fully two-thirds of the dead deer he saw were tainted and spoiled. On his way home he found the train full of returning sportsmen, and the air almost unbearable from the stench of tainted carcasses. Shortening the Season The overdue recommendation that the season be shortened by ten days was acted upon when proposed in 1894. In the ensuing season the Commissioners were still commenting upon the "alarming slaughter" of deer. The wardens estimated that at least 3,000 deer were killed in the Muskoka District; that 800 hounds had been let loose there; that hounding in the rutting season, forcing the overheated animals into the icy water, and the wanton slaughter charged to hunters, would inevitably exterminate deer from all Ontario hunting grounds unless more restrictive measures were taken. A resolution to prohibit the use of dogs was actually moved, but was lost on division of the Commissioners, three to two. In the desire to do something to satisfy an aroused public feeling in the Province, it was decided that coupons be thenceforth attached to deer transported or sold and issued two to each hunter. At that time the State of Michigan compelled hunters to attach coupons to all deer or parts of deer as a means of checking the number killed each season. Many of the States had made it unlawful to hound deer, and the press had begun to publish denunciation of the practice. Shooting Deer in the Water Warden Willmott declared that 95 per cent of the settlers in Muskoka, including many old hunters accustomed to run dogs, revolted against incidental features of the chase. The large number of deer shot through the head indicated that they had been killed in the water in no sportsmanlike fashion. This practice, said Warden Willmott, is "cowardly and unsportsmanlike." He further declared an opinion held by a majority of anti-dog hunters at all times, that long chase renders the meat less valuable as food. The Commissioners were agreed that hounding had helped depopulate localities to which deer would otherwise be attracted, and that great loss ensued from the chasing of does heavy with young.* Insistent opinion of hounding given to the Commission was: "It is barbarous and cruel and can end only *"This condition would not be possible within our present hunting season south of the French and Mattawa."�Coulter McLean. 18 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 in the extermination of the deer." In 1895 the number of hunters had increased 50 per cent. Warden Gill, who saw 564 deer killed in his district, said at least as many more were shot by settlers. He declared for a much shortened season, or else the prohibition of dogs. In 1896 the plan of issuing coupons with the licenses worked well. Such slight restrictions as the Commission could agree upon did not much affect the devastating conditions in Muskoka. It was admitted in 1896 that deer must become as scarce in the northward camping-grounds as in the more southern counties. Several parties went out in 1896 and 1897 without dogs. Clubbing in the Water Another barbarous practice investigated by Warden Smith was the clubbing of deer in the water. As the outcome of his investigation a demand was made that the law should clearly prohibit the use of canoes and boats in pursuit of deer that had taken to the water to escape the hounds. Akin to this practice of meat hunting was the killing of deer by settlers and others out of season and when under no sort of necessity beyond that of the price to be had in the lumber camps for deer and moose meat. It was estimated that, in the 1898 season, 4,000 deer fell to licensed hunters. In that year a circular went out regarding hounding and killing in the water. Of the hunters who answered the questionnaire, the majority stood for retaining the dog, but condemned killing in the water. Thus the dog secured a longer day, till another recent Departmental questionnaire showed a decided loss of popular taste for the "glorious music" the hounds furnished as the accompaniment of fall hunting. Prosecution of lumber men was undertaken about this time. The Commissioners were impressed by one argument in favor of the dog, viz., that his part in the hunt was a safeguard for the hunters, especially the elderly men. In point of fact, up to 1901 there had been an almost total absence of hunting accidents in Ontario. This compared well, indeed, with the United States record, though the greater territory over which the 8,000 to 9,000 Ontario hunters distributed themselves was one of the factors in the comparison. C.P.R. Main Line Practically all these hunters of 30-odd years ago kept their camps south of the C.P.R. main line. It was chiefly because of the fact that few hunters went north of the main line of the C.P.R. that the Commissioners plucked up courage to oppose both hounding and killing in the water in all the territory lying north of the railway. The deer had gone north rapidly, and municipal bodies as far west as Rainy River began to notice them coming from Mirfnesota, and to demand that the deer have a period of ten years' protection in these newer districts.* Nothing at all came of Warden Willmott's efforts, before the Chairman, Dr. McCallum, was appointed to another Government post, and was succeeded by Mr. Montague Smith, of Forest, who could see no cause for alarm either in the number of deer killed or in the permitted manner of their killing. He was pleased by the record of the first year of his Chairmanship, when 12,000 deer were numbered as the official kill. He and the new Chief Warden, Mr. *"It is a question if any deer ever came to Rainy River from the East. Even today there are very few deer at Kapuskasing or past Michipicoten."�F. E. Hollingst* orth. ON THE GAME SITUATION 19 Edwin Tinsley, of Hamilton, who had succeeded Chief Warden Smith in 1895, supported the use of dogs for the reason that "90 per cent of the hunters to whom licenses are issued would never see a deer otherwise." "We have/' said the Warden, "periodical outcry of the still hunters who want hounding prohibited." The Chief Warden saw a further objection, one still taken by many hunters, that in the northern country, where the original woods had been cut down, the second growth would make still hunting difficult or impossible. Dogs Strictly speaking, the dog agitation did not concern this Committee. The dog had already been banned north of the French and Mattawa Rivers, when the Committee was appointed and received its instructions. The Minister made it quite plain that permission of dogs in the southern hunting grounds was but a temporary concession. The hunters in these southern camps, however, insisted on presenting their case for the hounds at almost every meeting of this Committee. In this way the dog agitation, traced in these foregoing paragraphs from the first year of the Game and Fish Commission, may be said to have persisted in every possible public manner through the entire period of our investigations in 1931 and 1932. The Committee heard again and again every phase and note of it. We heard scores of hunters who refused to forget their dogs, or be consoled for their loss. We heard many advocates of still hunting also. Summaries of all representations, from both sides, made at our public meetings, were impartially passed on to the Minister and the Department. This practice was adopted prior to the Legislative Session of 1931-32, and to the introduction and passage (1932) of the amending Act (Chapter 41), which made it unlawful for any person to use or to be accompanied by a dog while hunting deer or moose, or for any owner to permit a dog to run at large in a locality in which deer, moose or caribou are usually found. This Special Committee held some thirty public meetings subsequent to the passage of the amending Act. After, as well as prior to, the enactment of Chapter 41, the arguments of either class of hunters varied little from what had been said for forty years. We can say, however, that few of the believers in the dogs' assistance in the hunt were satisfied that the new law should have a trial in the Province. Recapitulation of our minutes shows that eight meetings pressed the dog question to the vote in favor, one meeting south of the French and Mattawa voted against, whilst at forty-seven meetings, although the matter was debated and dogs strongly favored, no vote was taken. The question, as voted on at our meetings, showed the following results: The Running of Dogs For Against No Vote Tie Haliburton Dunchurch Parry Sound Richard's Landing Ahmic Harbor Thessalon Magnetawan (but general Blind River opposition) Windsor McKellar North Bay voted London Sundridge that dogs be pro- Hamilton Powassan hibited or permit- Kitchener South River ted all over the Earnstein Province, not by Bracebridge sections 20 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No 32 For Against No Vote Tie Lindsay Wilberforce Sault Ste. Marie Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances (but genera opposition) Minaki Sioux Lookout Kapuskasing Cochrane Timmins New Liskeard Kingsville Leamington Guelph Sudbury Sturgeon Falls Mattawa Pembroke Renfrew Arnprior Perth Ottawa Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Gananoque Kingston Napanee Belleville Marmora Peterborough Owen Sound Wiarton Gore Bay Smith's Falls Ministerial Responsibility In face of such opposition by hunters, Chapter 41 is perhaps the most courageous legislation looking to the preservation of deer in Ontario since the one-deer restriction of the hunting license. But it need not be expected that one of the immediate effects of this particular amendment will be a marked increase of deer in those extensive districts where the breeding stock has been endangered. Depletion of the breeding stock by the abuses previously described may be called the second stage of the Ontario herd in the belt of fine natural deer territory stretching across Parry Sound, Muskoka and Haliburton to the western boundary of Algonquin Park. That depletion is too marked to allow for a quick recuperation. The situation needs all the protection that the does and fawns can have. It presents a challenge to the spirit of all good sportsmen, as well as to their interest, to conserve the deer before the best hunting territory in Ontario has been hunted bare. Protection of the does and fawns has never failed as a conservation measure. Realizing that fact, the Committee agreed to place the following expression of their opinion on record: "Throughout our meetings we found a very strong vote for the prohibition of the shooting of fawns. But there were doubts expressed that the hunter would be able to distinguish between the doe and the buck. The Committee found that there was considerable objection to the prohibition of the use of dogs in all sections of the Province, except in North-western Ontario. The ON THE GAME SITUATION 21 Committee records its opinion that prohibiting the shooting of does and fawns is a real measure of conservation and recommends its adoption/' Dogs Stopped in Quebec In the flood of correspondence directed for months upon this Committee, in addition to the viva voce demand at many of our meetings, to let the dog run, an allegation was often repeated to the effect that in the neighboring Province of Quebec, where the character of the country and the general hunting conditions correspond more nearly with what may be seen in Ontario, the ban against the dog had not given satisfaction, and would probably be removed. The statement, however, was not borne out by enquiry of the Quebec Government, as the following letter shows: translation Quebec, 10th December, 1931. Sir, I acknowledge reception of your letter of the 30th of last month, and in reply I must inform you that the Department has no intention of amending the law which forbids the use of dogs in hunting deer. We have had some protests from certain hunters, but the Department came to the conclusion that there was no reason to modify the law which was passed to prohibit the hunting of deer with dogs. Yours very truly, (Signed) L. A. Richard, Deputy Minister of Colonization, Game and Fisheries. The Special Game Committee does not feel called upon to make further comment on a decision that was taken over by the Minister after long and serious consideration. Causes of Deer Reduction Many phases of the deer situation have been presented to or studied by us. Unquestionably, deer conservation appears the major problem with which Ontario must be concerned for years to come. It is not amiss to remind the general public that, on the whole, deer study is backward throughout North America. The chief reason why this is so in Ontario may be deduced from the fact that, up to the present time, reduction of the Ontario deer herd has been viewed with alarm only because of the possible disaster ahead for the sport of hunters, who have in fact been engaged in pushing back the deer habitat. At the outset, then, the Committee must note, from the conservation standpoint, the need of a great deal of fundamental information touching composition of our deer herd compared with herds across the border, where more data than we have has been compiled concerning conditions as to winter yarding, proportion of the sexes, average age, and other important factors. In making comparisons, Ontario easily bears the palm for reckless driving of red deer year in and year out, without much regard to sex or age. The deer population now is far below what it ought to be; that is to say, from 250 to 400 deer to a township, where average conditions in regard to forage, swamps and seclusion obtain. Various causes other than those of human agency operate against normal increase of deer in settled and unorganized areas. Severe seasons, accidents by flood, lightning, short forage, disease and natural enemies are chief in the list of these sources of loss. The spring of 1904 was a very hard one. Deputy Wardens made trips to the deer yards to cut down cedars and other trees for browse for the starving 22 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 deer. The lumber camps contributed hay stored for horses. The spring of 1923 was the cause of a very great decrease of deer. The snow lay on the ground until late May. Deer Returning Southward In Ontario we find the most arresting fact so far in the history of the Province has been the steady thinning of the herd. It began half a century back, with the characteristics of a true deer shift. Deer are now more plentiful north and west of the Great Lakes than in the Parry Sound, Muskoka and Haliburton Districts, which a few decades ago had the heaviest deer population. In the oldest counties, where for years hunting has not been allowed, the deer are once more beginning to come back. The returning encroachment has not thus far been considerable, but may be expected to develop southward with rapidity in the future. Deer, perhaps more than other wild creatures, learn to come without fear into all safe feeding areas, and are not deterred but rather attracted by settlement. It was in a measure to seek safety that they went northward, facing at closer quarters their original enemy, the wolf. The migration had probably been a quest for food the year round, for safer yarding in winter, and undisturbed swamps. Restoration of like conditions south of the French and Mattawa Rivers promises for Ontario in the future much more even deer distribution and possibly reopening of hunting seasons in some of the counties now closed. The hunters of Bruce and Grey do not yet favor an open season in those Counties, even with a buck law in force. They wish to see the deer fully reestablished. Carleton was opened in 1932 for deer shooting at the request of deer hunters there. Menace of the Wolf It must be declared upon the evidence offered to the Committee by settlers, game wardens, hunters and others, that wolves constitute one of the principal destructive forces in our deer districts. Marked responsibility for the steady destruction of the deer herd is laid to the following causes: (1) Slaughter of does and fawns. (2) Licensed hunters. (3) Wolves. (4) Illegal hunting. (5) Starvation in deep snow. (6) Other causes. There is not, and never has been attempted, a census of Ontario hunting districts. Neither is there a census available for the leading deer States across the line. Pennsylvania, New York, California and other States where the deer population is really large have made approximations of their deer population. They have been able to do so by counting deer in sanctuaries. Fairly dependable census returns have been published by Missouri, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa. In the majority of States the practice is adhered to by publishing the annual deer kill. From this a rough census may be figured. ON THE GAME SITUATION 23 Ontario's Wolf Problem No leading deer State or Province has the wolf problem in so menacing a form as Ontario. This problem of ours is shared but not alleviated by conditions both in Manitoba and Quebec, on the west and east. Our observation of the situation here obliges us to place the wolves prominent among the causes of deer destruction during the past forty years. In many places we have been reminded by old settlers that in their longer recollection both deer and wolves together were numerous in the same localities. The closer settlement of such localities should have caused the wolves to disappear. In a sense they have disappeared, because they no longer are seen, and only the results of their incursions are discovered sometimes in the farmsteads, and constantly in the deer yards. So that today the wolf problem remains quite as menacing to the deer as ever. What is the explanation of this? We have heard a great deal about it, and can offer at least one explanation: Just as the strength of the wolf is in the pack, so the continuance of the pack depends on the safety of its retreat. In Northern and North-western Ontario, while we heard of destruction by wolves as a usual feature of deer conditions, there was less said of their deer-slaying exploits there than by hunters and settlers south of the French and Mattawa Rivers. The remarks that follow apply only to certain Counties comparatively close to the Algonquin Park boundary. In giving place to a fair idea of public opinion in this Report, the Committee desired to discount merely local views, to whatever extent they might possibly reflect the personal motives of some trappers, hunters and guides. We have in fact taken pains to question and test all the statements made to us in hunting grounds contiguous to Algonquin Park. We found no lack of sympathy with the declared aims of the Government when the park area was set aside, or with general administrative methods of advancing those aims. The concensus of local opinion expressed disappointment only as to the measure in which those aims have fallen short of realization, because of insufficient protection of fur and game life and neglect of predator control. And what we have set forth is intended to advance public thinking in the cause of conservation. Algonquin Park Wolf Retreat Throughout Parry Sound, Muskoka, Haliburton and in the eastern hunting districts the story was always the same. The wolves came out of the Algonquin Park and went back there again to safety. Out of the Park they tracked the deer in spring into their yards over the snow crust. The she wolves by this means got blood and food. This is no new story. It was given to the Agricultural Enquiry Committee to account for market scarcity of Muskoka lamb. It was told to the Government in the plainest language back in 1905 by the Ontario Game and Fish Commissioners. The very extent of the Park constitutes its most undeniable security as a wolf retreat. The "lone wolf" is a favorite expression. But the track the lone wolf leaves into and from the deer yard is no evidence of non-association with the pack. The principal representations made to this Committee about the Park were concerned with the essential need of vermin control. The larger the Park the more serious is the potential danger to game from vermin. While it is true that the severe censure passed upon the Park in 1905 by the Game and Fish 24 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Commission remained for many years disregarded, it must be admitted that in recent years energetic efforts to reduce the wolves have been made. We applied to the Department of Lands and Forests for a return of the numbers of wolves taken in the Park over a period of 30 years, in order to show the results of the drive undertaken by the Park rangers against the wolves. We learned, however, that a record of the wolf kill was not kept prior to 1927. Wolf Kill in the Park The Inspector, Game and Fisheries Department, has furnished the following figures as sent in by the Superintendent of Algonquin Park of the number of wolves on which bounty was paid: Fiscal year 1927-28�19. Fiscal year 1928-29�21. Fiscal year 1929-30�36. Fiscal year 1930-31�33. Fiscal year 1931-32�27. This includes the period from November 1st, 1931, to August 31st, 1932. No skins have been received from Algonquin Park up to this date (September 13th) during September of the present year (1932). Place and Use of Public Parks Public opinion expressed at the meetings of this Committee in connection with the complaints about the Park, likewise opposed very strongly the idea of divided management of the game of the Province. It is held absurd by sportsmen and others to have the game in the public parks controlled by the Department of Lands and Forests, with the rest of the Province under the authority of the Department of Game and Fisheries. The proposition that the public parks should come directly under the Department of Game and Fisheries is the corrollary of the major proposal made to the Committee at many meetings to constitute this latter Department the essential authority over all game and fish resources of the Province. But, on the other hand, the uses of public parks are not regarded today from exactly the same viewpoint as when the Algonquin Park was turned over to the Department of Colonization and Forestry at the instance of Mr. Thomas Southworth, then at the head of that Department. Whilst no revenue-producing forest uses have been lost sight of in the .meantime, the chief parks, together with all forest areas in the Crown domain, are now wisely placed under modern ways of protection against fire hazard by air service. It is, of course, most important that there should be unity of control over this important air service branch, and it is difficult to see how two great areas like Algonquin Park and Quetico Park could be excluded in any sense or measure and be managed under dual control with efficiency and economy. Rondeau Park is not in the same category. That Park is an area of only eight square miles, fit for cottages by the lake side, where deer and birds are kept to supplement the interest of the scene for the summer holiday dwellers. The deer are inbred and small. The recreational features of Queen Victoria Park are all of the impressive sort, and need no such aids as Rondeau maintains. It ought to be obvious that in Rondeau as well as in parks under boards of Commissioners�Long Point and Presqu'ile�there should be no separate authority over game and consequently no room for misunderstanding concerning violations. Manifestly the killing of game of all kinds in]closed season, hunting without license, killing more than bag limit, illegal trapping, shipping and exporting, and so on, are matters to be dealt with by uniform law throughout ON THE GAME SITUATION 25 the whole Province, and by law enforcement uniform in principle and method in the knowledge of all citizens alike. It ought to be obvious, too�we believe it to be so�to every citizen who has conservation at heart, that all parks without distinction should be treated as wild life sanctuaries within the meaning of the statute. Questions concerning game and fish, and control of predators, as they arise should be referred to and passed upon by the Department of Game and Fisheries. We are touching here on points of administration that are not new, because they have arisen when some of the parks above named were created. If all such points have not been definitely and satisfactorily settled, it is to be regretted in the interest of game management and of necessary control of vermin. Timber Values and Public Uses The Algonquin and Quetico Parks, in extent and character, as well as for their water reservoirs, combine, with picturesqueness and recreational use, first-class possibilities for fishing, camping and nature study. These two parks have not, however, passed through whatever stages of economic importance they originally possessed. Existent lumbering interests in them, and future value of the standing timber, are considerations for public policy and must so continue. These noble park areas, one of 2,741 square miles, the other 1,720 square miles, kept green all over, will offer the best protection for wild life if the problem of vermin control can be competently handled. New plans of cooperation to this end have, we understand, been made under the leadership of the Algonquin Park Superintendent. He is a practical man, who has been carefully selected for the position he holds. It is expected that the upkeep of the Park, and the conservation of game and fish, can be better handled than heretofore by co-operation with the Department of Game and Fisheries, avoiding the danger of any dual control of the fire protection service. Licenses in the Park In 1906 the Board of Fish and Game Commissioners emphasized a recommendation of the preceding year that Algonquin Park ought to be under the same control and direction as the game and fish. It was then pointed out that most of the difficulties in the way of the proposed change arose from the fact that timber licenses covering considerable portions of the Park were granted prior to 1893, when the Park was established. The Commissioners also said: "If the owners of these licenses are recognized as having a perpetual right to the growth of timber, the Park can never be a credit to the Province for the purposes for which it was established." During the public sessions of this Committee, when settlers through all the interested districts declared the Park a breeding place for wolves, it was not contended that events, so far as the fate of game is concerned, could have turned out differently if there were no timber licenses within the Park. It is entirely probable that when management of the Park went to the Department of Colonization and Forestry, the control of vermin did not appear important to the Government or the Departmental authorities. It was almost inevitable that Algonquin Park should become a game trap, unless special measures were adopted to destroy the wolves. And it is reasonably certain that no special measures were thought of for many years. 26 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 High Point Park, N.J., the Havemeyer Estate, and other posted areas in the United States, of fairly large extent, in the same way did become game traps, although the sole and very excellent intention in posting them was that they should be game sanctuaries, the overflow from which might enrich large surrounding territories. There is really nothing exceptional in the fact that the Park became a retreat for the wolves. In many other public and private game reserves in different parts of the Continent the same thing happened. A Western Example There ar& in the western States vast land holdings owned by the Federal Government at Washington. This Committee was interested in the means of wolf and coyote control in these big areas, which, in regard to size and character, constitute breeding retreats for predators on a scale that allows some points of comparison with Algonquin Park. The neighboring ranches along the borders of these federal lands find their battle against wolves a tremendous undertaking. Something has been accomplished in the way of a defensive alliance between Governments and the ranchers. They undertake between them co-operative pest control, where sheep and livestock form the chief industry of large sections. Mr. Paul G. Redington, Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey at Washington, tells us that before the development of that Bureau almost every conceivable plan had been tried to cope with the wolf menace. Traps, dogs, guns and poison �often used very clumsily by individual sheepmen�only sustained a losing fight. Private hunters had no better luck. Fortunes were paid in the way of local and state bounties. Under the Bureau plan there has been established a corps of hunters more capable of coping with wolves and coyotes. These hunters have afforded the first real relief ever obtained by users of western sheep ranches. The effectiveness of their work is shown by the fact, as stated by Mr. Redington, that in sixteen States, including all those from the Rockies westward, their services are constantly sought, and local co-operation from some source is always forthcoming. The funds contributed for co-operative control of the predators have included not only State appropriations, but money furnished by county livestock associations, State Game Commissions, and other associations, to the extent of more than $2 for every $1 appropriated.* Measures Governed by Circumstances In a letter to this Committee, Mr. W. C. Henderson, of the Bureau of Biological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, says: "In its activities for the control of predatory animals the Bureau cooperates with various agencies, including State game departments, State agricultural departments, State livestock boards and commissions, boards of county commissioners, game protective associations, and livestock associations, as well as individuals. The Bureau has no fixed policy restricting its co-operation to any class of organization, but it prefers to extend its co-operation to those States having some particular State agency. The agencies with which we co-operate in the various States are determined largely by the character and extent of co-operation offered us. We have no definite rule as to what part of *"Game census of Wallawo National Forest (Oregon), 1931. Elk, 2,515; deer, 10,300; black and brown bears, 450; wolves, 1,600; bobcats, 325. Deer seem to live with wolves."�F. E. HOLLINGSWORTH. ON THE GAME SITUATION 27 the cost shall be borne by co-operators, each case being considered on its own merits. In most cases, however, our co-operators expend about twice as much as the Bureau. The operations are conducted under a single organization, created by merging the interests in predatory animal control of the several agencies in each State, under the supervision of the Bureau; that is, the expenditures and operations are supervised by the Bureau's district office having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations are carried on." Arkansas' Solution Arkansas is one of the States where the wolf problem has been particularly felt in the past. An enquiry went from this Committee to the Game and Fish Commission of Arkansas, concerning the operation of the co-operative control plan from the standpoint of the State, which is, of course, interested for the protection of deer as well as the ranchers' sheep. The following reply was received: State of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Office of the Secretary, Little Rock Conroy, Arkansas, August 9th, 1932. . . . We have Federal Govt, trappers to take wolves, coyotes and bobcats. Our State co-operates in this work in meeting the Federal Govt, in the expense of the trapping. These trappers are stationed in our State and trap for these predators under special supervisors�these supervisors also being employed by Federal Government. Any time we "spot" any wolves in our refuges we notify the Supervisor and he immediately comes to our relief with a Govt, trapper. I might say that the caretakers of our refuges also do necessary trapping to eradicate vermin and small predators. . . . (Signed) W. N. Deaton, Game Refuge Director. Cost of the System The following figures cover the years 1929, 1930 and 1931 (the animals taken being wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats and stock-killing bears): Total Cost to Bureau No. of Animals Receipts from Cost per and Co-operators Taken Furs Animal $2,636,935.21 148,690 $165,000.00 $16.42 Total Net Cost Average Number of Number of Hunters on Force States $2,471,935.21 505 18 Many other animals were destroyed, but lost, stolen, or otherwise unaccounted for. Mr. Henderson, of the Federal Bureau, states that the organization is modelled somewhat on the pattern of the Northwest Mounted Police in Canada. The success of the system is due to a well-trained personnel, and experience has shown as a general rule that a good trapper is not a good warden, and vice versa. Promotions and long-time employment have proved valuable incentives to the men. Many States that formerly paid bounties have discontinued the bounty system in favor of the system of co-operation with the Federal Bureau. The above figures may be compared with the figures for Ontario for the same years, 1929, 1930 and 1931. Number of Wolf Bounty Amount Paid in Cost per Animal Applications Bounties (Amount of Bounty) 8,890 $147,443.70 $25.00 28 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 In Ontario, the number of applications in a given year does not quite correspond with the amount paid in bounties, as many payments are held over until the following fiscal year. The two situations are not parallel; but their comparison suggests that a new campaign be undertaken against wolves in our vast park areas. Co-operation Possible in Ontario Something akin to that which is satisfactorily reported from the Western States should be possible in Ontario. The general experience of those who plan preserves for native animals, birds and flowers has been that vermin thrive a good deal more readily than the fauna and flora they prey upon. The constant pulling down of the game by the more prolific predators eventually must result Characteristic appearance of partial deer carcass left by wolves. (Supplied by Mr. F. G. Agnew, merchant, Wilberforce.) in any large sanctuary becoming a breeding ground for the latter, and therefore requiring special control measures. Some of our witnesses believe they have traced as many as ten pup wolves behind one she wolf. The Committee has been reminded at some of its sessions, and particularly in sections adjoining the western limits of Algonquin Park, that it is in the power of licensed hunters to aid the Department in a very substantial manner in ridding the Province of pests. Sportsmen are only too keen to do so, if met half-way. In many parts of the United States the hunters have established a vermin week. A study of the game census of New Jersey, completed within the past year, shows that, over a five-year period, the sportsmen of that State, independent of the force of wardens, much larger than Ontario with its vaster area provides, destroyed 54,492 tramp cats, 26,042 weasels, 3,519 foxes, 341 crows, 298 hawks, and 36 predatory dogs. ON THE GAME SITUATION 29 Photographs of Wolves and Their Work The records of the Committee contain much interesting evidence touching the havoc done among deer by wolves. Mr. F. G. Agnew, General Merchant, Wilberforce, supplied the photograph characteristic of the appearance of the deer carcass on the snow. The picture was taken in the second week of March, 1931. The carcasses of two other deer were seen on the same morning. Father Charles J. Jones, Calabogie, furnished negatives of similar photographs. In one picture (below) the carcass appears almost untouched by the wolves. There was in fact mute evidence from the wolf tracks around some open water at the head of Deschenes Rapids that the deer had stood in the open water until the wolves became discouraged and departed. Then it crawled up the bank about fifty feet away, lay down and died. The belly was torn and the entrails hanging. In the case of two other deer there was left only bones and hair. Picture of deer left almost untouched by wolves. The animal emerged from the water to die after its enemies had retired. (Supplied by Rev. Father C. J. Jones, Calabogie.) The pictures were taken February 15th, 1930. Reverend L. J. Kennedy and Reverend J. Quinn of Renfrew were present and saw the carcasses about two miles above Black Donald, Renfrew South. Personal Observations Andrew Grant, Daventry: "When the deer shelter is gone they come out when it rains. Then comes a frost and the deer cannot get away from the wolf. The crust will bear the wolf, but not the deer. Sometimes when deer are caught thus on the crust they are eaten right on their feet. I have shot a deer with the thigh torn off in the marsh. When the wolf heard a noise or got scent of me he ran away." John Christie, Ranger (Rock Lake): *'The wolf kills all through winter. In spring he kills and leaves the carcass of the deer as if for the fun of killing." Mark Robinson, Ranger (Algonquin Park): "From my own observation a full grown wolf will destroy twenty-five deer each season. Young wolves do not kill many deer until about two years. After that they seem to kill for pure cussedness. Just recently Mr. A. E. Needham and his wife saw a single wolf (supposed to be a female) kill a large doe almost in a minute within ten 30 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 feet of the shore of Source Lake. I have seen a three-year-old buck killed by a single wolf in less than two minutes. Afterwards the same wolf killed two fawns and their mother a mile away. I have seen evidence of as many as five deer killed by a single wolf, in less than fifty yards' distance. I once saw where seven deer were killed by one wolf in less than 150 yards' distance. I have quite often seen evidence of three and four deer killed by one wolf. Old male wolves kill in the deer yards in the spring months, evidently to supply food for the female wolf and whelps. One spring I found in the township of Hunter over fifty deer killed in less than a square mile. In this case I believe one wolf did most of the killing. The young are born in the latter part of April and in May. I have known an old wolf to have whelps assisting in a kill~on two occasions about May 24. Rabbits furnish a considerable part of the food of young wolves. Very few fawns and does are killed once they can leave the winter yard. It is usually a buck or dry doe we find killed by the wolves up to the end of August. Then we find a number of fawns killed. A low average would be five whelps per birth. The whelps travel with the mother the first year and it is easy to count the tracks. I have seen the tracks of seven and eight dozens of times with one mother. We judge female wolves more numerous than males. The female is more cautious of the snare." More Co-operation Required Dependence upon the co-operative spirit elsewhere, and knowledge of cooperative relations already developed by the Department of Game and Fisheries with Conservation Associations and sportsmen's organizations, in our Province, afford much encouragement. Chapleau Reserve, we understand, is being efficiently controlled in regard to wolves by the Department of Game and Fisheries. Trappers selected by the Department have given satisfaction and shown good results there. This Committee heard little or no complaint in the large stretch of territory which is the habitat of brush and timber wolves, including Kenora and Rainy River, where the wolf kill has been largest, but has shown a marked decline since 1928. The rangers of the Department of Lands and Forests have, since 1930, been paid, in addition to their salaries, the full wolf bounty. They are taking more wolves in Algonquin Park, as the increased applications for Nipissing, which include the Park takes, show. There is in the minds of trappers and sportsmen a disposition to question ultimate results of the policy of paying the bounty as a special perquisite to Park rangers. It may in the long run be charged, without proper knowledge, that the Park has become a wolf farm for the exclusive profit of the rangers. We have encountered the well formed opinion practically everywhere throughout the Province that protection of fur and game life in Algonquin Park has suffered from lack of protection and lack of co-operation�perhaps of the means of co-operation�with the essential purposes of the game laws and the cause of conservation. Certain sub-sections of the Provincial Parks Act, amended in 1927, as for example in regard to removal, arrest, seizure of firearms, etc., take no account of the existence of District Superintendents and Overseers, the law enforcement officers�in full uniform�of the Game and Fisheries Department, other than Sub-section 2 of Section 14, which, in our opinion, may be regarded as a step in the direction away from co-operation. This Sub-section reads; ON THE GAME SITUATION 31 "(2) All persons appointed under the Game and Fisheries Act (1927) to enforce the provisions thereof shall, as to the territory in every Provincial Park, be under the control and direction of the Superintendent of the Park, and this Act and the regulations made thereunder shall, as to the said territory, take precedence over the Ontario Game and Fisheries Act (1927) and the regula_ tions made under said last mentioned Act." We were well pleased, however, by all the results of our enquiry concerning the progress of co-operation, with a view to conservation and law enforcement, between the Ontario Department of Game and Fisheries and similar Departments in the adjoining Provinces. The Province of Quebec makes special provision and appoints two Ontario officers, investing them with full jurisdiction along the inter-Provincial boundary on the Quebec side. Reciprocal appointments are made by the Ontario Department. We have been informed that the resultant benefits are appreciated in both Provinces and that close co-operation has been established between them. Again we learned that one of the Manitoba and one of the Ontario officers went together on a patrol along the Manitoba-Ontario boundary. We would emphasize the increasing present-day need for co-operation all along the inter-Provincial boundaries, and within our own Province in view of the possibilities and of the actual operations of planes engaged in illegal fur-taking and transportation outside. Large sums are paid to pilots who engage in the taking and air transportation of pelts. No more striking need for co-operation to combat illegal practices exists anywhere than along the Park boundaries. This fact must confront the Department of Lands and Forests and the Department of Game and Fisheries alike. Some specific arrangement between them is, however, required. Perhaps the simplest agreement would allow the uniformed enforcement officers of the latter Department the right, not only to patrol the Park boundaries, but to penetrate the Park at their discretion in the performance of their duties. We see such co-operation giving satisfactory results along the inter-Provincial boundaries, and cannot entertain the smallest doubt that adoption of a similar plan would greatly assist law enforcement along provincial Park boundaries. Wolf Bounty Applications The comparative statement below covers seven years, 1925-31. It shows, by the number of applications made for wolf bounty, that the districts of Kenora, Thunder Bay and Rainy River accounted for most of the wolves killed in Ontario in those years. Next came Algoma, Sudbury, Patricia, Nipis-sing, Manitoulin and Cochrane. After these, Renfrew, Parry Sound, Haliburton, Temiskaming, Muskoka and Hastings display highest infestation. What proportion of this infestation may be justly charged to the breeding facilities of Algonquin Park can only be conjectured. The settlers' attitude, outside Temiskaming, is to blame the Park for most of it. Bounty paid for the wolves taken inside Algonquin Park is included in the figures for Nipissing. 32 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Comparative Statement of Wolf Bounty Applications for Seven Years County or District 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 158 203 258 240 242 209 1438 0 0 0 7 3 7 17 101 69 98 84 47 43 523 2 0 0 5 1 16 27 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 20 25 17 30 57 163 20 5 14 9 13 23 109 1714 2298 2071 867 594 537 8771 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 5 10 8 4 10 44 98 87 98 96 94 110 621 3 6 4 8 18 14 54 136 105 94 142 163 214 938 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16 17 33 34 51 73 229 79 195 258 213 218 226 1235 0 7 2 12 6 19 51 702 1039 1124 647 372 359 4561 58 45 45 52 66 88 410 0 3 3 11 5 10 32 165 154 166 215 167 252 1239 544 1249 1667 915 446 458 5566 10 6 12 5 9 11 74 0 1 2 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Addington............. 0 Algoma................ 128 Bruce................. 0 Cochrane.............. 81 Frontenac.............. 3 Grey.................. 0 Halton................ 0 Haliburton............. 9 Hastings............... 25 Kenora................ 690 Lanark................ 0 Leeds.................. 0 Lennox................ 3 Manitoulin............. 38 Muskoka.............. 1 Nipissing.............. 84 Northumberland........ 0 Ontario................ 0 Parry Sound............ 5 Patricia................ 46 Peterborough........... 5 Rainy River............ 318 Renfrew............... 56 Simcoe................ 0 Sudbury............... 120 Thunder Bay........... 287 Temiskaming........... 21 Victoria................ 2 Waterloo............... 0 Wellington............. 0 York.................. 0 TOTAL........... 1922 3817 5514 5988 3588 2551 2751 26131 Comparative Statement of Wolf Bounties Paid During the Last Seven Years 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 $25,465.62 $51,994.42 $82,970.07 $92,674.43 $53,495.13 $38,074.77 $55,873.80 No. of Wolf Skins received at this Department for the month of November, 1931.......... 416 " " " " " " " " " " " "December, 1931......... 527 " " " " " " " " " " " "January, 1932......... 411 Toronto 2, February 18th, 1932. The bounty applications reached the peak both for number and amount of bounty paid in 1928. The increase in the bounty did not arrest the downward curve of the results, the falling off being gradual in all counties and districts except Patricia, where the kill in 1930 was second largest of the four-year period. Whether the figures can be accepted as an indication that the Ontario wolf is being beaten is still doubtful. Quebec, which raised the wolf bounty for a short time to the Ontario level, has again cut it back to the former $15. So far as Departmental figures afford enlightenment, the price that the buyer is enabled by fur market conditions to pay is the factor, after the bounty, influencing the trapper to go after wolves. In 1926, wolf fur for trimming brought the trappers' profit from a wolf skin up to $40. The fur market in more recent years has been weak for the more desirable furs. ON THE GAME SITUATION 33 Effects of Bounty It will be noticed in the comparative statement of wolf bounty applications that marked increases appear for 1931 from Frontenac, Haliburton, Hastings, Muskoka, Parry Sound, Renfrew and Victoria. All these counties and districts are subject to the wolf foray from the Park. It will be noticed also that the applications from the principal wolf areas of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora, Rainy River and Thunder Bay have greatly decreased from the figures of 1926-1929. Sudbury and Manitoulin, however, more than liold their own. In this connection the fact is significant that in June, 1930, the Order-in-Council passed establishing the $25 bounty on wolf skins subject to the restriction that this bounty would be paid north of the French and Mattawa Rivers, only for wolves killed within 25 miles of an agricultural settlement, but not including Manitoulin. South of the French and Mattawa Rivers payment of the increasing bounty carried no conditions and seems to have been most effective. The Wolf Bounty Act passed in 1931, which is now effective, replacing the Order-in-Council, allows the $25 bounty on all wolves without restriction as to the proximity of agricultural settlements. Statistics of Deer Hunting The statistics of hunting licenses issued in Ontario during the past six years (1926-31) provide the only available grounds upon which estimates may be made of the number of deer killed in that period. As a general rule we were told by the representatives of hunting clubs that l'every member got his deer." If only 75 per cent of hunters each killed one deer in every season of the six year period above, there would still appear to be a great many more deer being killed in recent years than in the ' 'terrible slaughter" days of a former generation.* Again, taking the statistics of 1921 as an average year further back, the number of resident deer hunting licenses issued was 18,689. In that year the report of the Deputy Minister of Game and Fisheries said deer were reported by hunters to be "quite plentiful." No complaint appears to have been received that hunters were not meeting with continued success. In 1928 the Deputy Minister made this statement: "It is reported that the majority of these (deer and moose) licensees were successful in securing their animals." As pointed out already, both resident and non-resident hunters were going to more remote camping grounds for their sport, into Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Algoma, Temiskaming; fewer into Parry Sound, Muskoka and Haliburton. At all events, the annual deer kill has been left too much in the realm of conjecture. Deer and moose hunters should be required to report their take and weight of take to the issuer of the hunting license in every instance, and failure to do so should be considered as cause for refusal of another license. Hunting Licenses Sold and Revenue Received, 1926-31 1926 Non-resident Small Game................................. 394 at $20.00 $ 7,880.00 Non-resident "General".................................. 1,406 at 40.00 56,240.00 Resident Deer.......................................... 15,913 at 3.50 55,695.50 " Special Camp Deer.............................. 313 at 3.50 1,095.50 " Farmers'Deer.................................. 3,758 at .80 3,006.40 " Moose......................................... 1,223 at 5.50 6,726.50 " Hunting (Gun).................................. 5,217 at 1.75 9,129.75 * "Under the Buck and Doe Law of last year in Pennsylvania one licensee in six got a deer. In this Province one in five would be a fair proportion."�F. E. Hollingsworth. 34 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 1927 � Non-resident Small Game................................. 368 at $20.00 $ 7,360.00 Non-resident "General".................................. 1,661 at 40.00 66,440.00 Resident Deer........................................... 17,501 at 3.50 61,253.50 " Special Camp Deer.............................. 326 at 3.50 1,141.00 " Farmers' Deer.................................. 4,352 at .80 3,481.60 " Moose......................................... 1,382 at 5.50 7,601.00 " Hunting (Gun).................................. 7,648 at 1.75 13,384.00 1928 Non-resident Small Game................................. 393 at $20.00 $ 7,860.00 Non-resident "General"....................... .......... 1,700 at 40.00 68,000.00 Resident Deer........................................... 17,407 at 3.50 60,924.50 Special Camp Deer.............................. 317 at 3.50 1,109.50 Farmers' Deer............................... 4,617 at .80 3,693.60 " Moose......................................... 1,379 at 5.50 7,584.50 " Hunting (Gun).................................. 12,922 at 1.75 22,613.50 1929 Non-resident Small Game................................. 491 at $20.00 $ 9,820.00 Non-resident "General".................................. 1,652 at 40.00 66,080.00 Resident Deer........................................... 19,784 at 3.50 69,244.00 " Special Camp Deer.............................. 345 at 3.50 1,207.50 " Farmers7 Deer.................................. 6,001 at .80 4,800.80 " Moose......................................... 1,452 at 5.50 7,986.00 " Hunting (Gun).................................. 29,912 at 1.75 52,346.00 1930 Non-resident Small Game................................. 451 at $20.00 $ 9,020.00 Non-resident "General".................................. 1,369 at 40.00 54,760.00 Resident Deer........................................... 20,192 at 3.50 70,672.00 Special Camp Deer.............................. 326 at 3.50 1,141.00 " Farmers' Deer.................................. 6,568 at .80 5,254.40 " Moose......................................... 1,548 at 5.50 8,514.00 " Hunting (Gun).................................. 31,375 at 1.75 54,906.25 1931 Non-resident Small Game................................. 355 at $20.00 $ 7,100.00 Non-resident "General".................................. 1,092 at 40.00 43,680.00 Resident Deer........................................... 17,051 at 3.50 59,678.50 " Special Camp Deer.............................. 271 at 3.50 948.50 " Farmers' Deer.................................. 5,817 at .80 4,655.60 " Moose......................................... 1,209 at 5.50 6,649.50 " Hunting (Gun)................................. Season lasts until April 30, 1932 In comparison with the six-year period (1926-31), the summary figures for the previous six-year period (1920-25) are given: 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Resident Moose.......... 1,988 1,989 1,584 1,098 1,385 1,291 Resident Deer............ 16,943 18,689 20,504 17,877 19,517 17,034 Non-resident Hunting..... 796 950 1,256 1,247 1,651 1,581 Figures of Annual Kill Needed The statistics covering the twelve-year period under review show considerable fluctuation in the numbers hunting in Ontario season after season. An increasing tendency is, however, obvious. In the year 1922 the number reached a peak, nearly attained again in 1930. A somewhat similar fluctuation backward to 1920 and forward to 1931 appears at the same time. There seems to be no special reason for such fluctuation. It cannot be accounted for wholly by the character of the season, though good hunting weather is always a factor. It is not possible to say whether the actual number of deer taken in any hunting season corresponds with the number of hunters. It is clearly desirable that some method should be adopted of compiling the numbers of big game killed in Ontario each season, on the basis of the issue of licenses. In most of ON THE GAME SITUATION 35 the States the deer hunting regulations require the licensee to report his kill. The interested public can thus learn the number of deer killed in each county of the State. Does and fawns found dead, whether by wardens or others, are also reported, with the probable cause in all cases. Two Sides of the Picture The heavy deer States across the border are overcrowded with hunters. In Ontario there are easily accessible hunting areas into which deer conservation should in the future bring thousands more sportsmen. Deterred by the danger to life where hunters are more numerous than deer, hunters in the United States are turning to Canada. The migration of the Ontario deer herd north and west has by all accounts improved the stock qualitatively. The white tail deer of the northern and western sections of this Province is twice the size and weight of the average animal seen in Rondeau Park, or reported from the overcrowded State of Pennsylvania. This would imply many things; but quite clearly it implies that abundance of deer in a Province, or other area, is not complete evidence that all is well with the deer herd. So that some consolation may fairly be derived from study of the admitted facts. Nowhere on the continent is the herd in finer condition than in Northern Ontario, mainly because, with regard to soil and feed, the deer have found favorable conditions. The other side of the picture is that intensive shooting of deer has been so long allowed south of the French and Mattawa Rivers that the breeding stock is inevitably being slaughtered and driven off the range. That, and the ravages of the wolves in the deer yards in spring. Measures of Protection There is no reason why the local conditions in most parts of Ontario should not support as many deer as Nova Scotia had produced by the simplest measures of protection. On the one hand, we have what was very recently a splendid deer country now greatly depleted. Nova Scotia on the other hand began upon territory about which much doubt was entertained that deer had ever before been seen there. The question presented to Ontario is this: Should there also be restraint of doe and fawn killing?�or should a close season be maintained for a period of years, in order that the deer may increase towards normal numbers? Afterwards, should bucks only be allowed to be shot, except in odd years when, as in Nova Scotia and Pennsylvania, the proportion of does may grow beyond good management? The adaptability of Parry Sound, Muskoka and Haliburton, and the northern sections of Peterborough, Hastings and Frontenac Counties, for deer and deer hunting#is impressive, though matched by other areas of the Province. Hardwood and mixed bush alternate with open spaces on the high ridges commanding magnificent valleys abundantly watered, and accommodating many swamps, which, without question, will furnish warm weather refuge indefinitely for deer. Results of Conservation What conservation may do for Ontario will be understood from what conservation has done for Pennsylvania and New York, two States that together fall far short of one-fourth of the area of this Province. There has been complaint of bears in Ontario, but many more bears are killed in Pennsylvania where they contribute one of the most attractive features of the 36 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 hunting season (Nov. 10-Dee. 15). Game hunting in Pennsylvania represents a business of over $16,000,000 a year. The value of the game killed is over ten and a half millions. General business related to game taking absorbs three and a half millions. In New York, 657,833 fish and game licenses were issued in 1931, bringing in $962,428. Nearly one and a half million animals were taken, and 355,725 birds, in that State. Numbered in the animal take were 7,154 deer, 170 bears, 229 bobcats, 10,913 red foxes, 427 others, 24,230 raccoons, and 1,538 opossums. The kill included 825,723 cottontail rabbits. Of the birds, 193,870 were pheasants, 131,694 ducks, 13,316 woodcocks, 10,070 quail, and 1,698 geese. Ontario Not Unique The Committee have been challenged frequently by hunters who contend that Ontario stands in no need to learn from the experience of other Provinces or States. In reply to this challenge, let us cite the case of Nova Scotia. In 1927, does were permitted to be included in the Nova Scotia season's kill. The latest reports from the Forest Rangers show th&t does are again greatly in preponderance in the Nova Scotia stand. It may be desirable to reopen the season for does. The Nova Scotia deer are of fine size. Ontario is not unique, otherwise than that by reason of extent and general suitability of its whole area it may well become the leading deer territory of North America. Remarkable conditions have also developed in Pennsylvania out of what some regard as excessive protection. The increase of game has undoubtedly become a problem in Pennsylvania. Within this generation the State buckled down to the task of bringing back the disappearing game. Restocking and resolute protection of game of every sort soon proved that game can come back. The Pennsylvania Game Commission purchased 50 deer from Michigan in 1906. A system of refuges for deer and other game was begun soon afterwards. Now there are 35 refuges in the State, ranging in area from 650 to 4,000 acres each, the total acreage being about 80,000. Around each refuge a space about four times the actual refuge area owned by the Game Commission is open to public hunting under the game laws of the State, for all time to come. The total acreage of these open hunting areas is roughly 300,000 acres, and more than 1,500,000 to which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania holds title and controlled by the Department of Forests and Waters. The Pennsylvania deer herd is estimated now to exceed 1,000,000, and the annual kill is between 20,000 and 25,000 deer. The range cannot in fact feed the deer herd, so that farmers, fruit-growers and others complain of some little damage by the hungry herd, whilst many of the young die of starvation. A recent increase in the license fee has provided an additional fund of $378,000 which has been expended for the purchase and maintenance of additional game refuges and hunting grounds. Nose Fly We have received from Mr. F. C. Bishopp, Principal Entomologist in Charge of Insects Affecting Man and Animals, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, the following information about the nose fly: "There are two or three species of deer head bots, all of which are classified in the genus Cephonomyia. These are widely distributed throughout the world, but very little accurate information is at hand with reference to their habits, seasonal history, and methods of avoiding attack. "A considerable percentage of the deer in the United States have been found more or less infested with these parasites. Their economic importance has not been fully established, but it ON THE GAME SITUATION 37 is the general belief that when they become very numerous, and especially if the deer are in poor condition or their vitality lowered from other causes, the presence of considerable numbers of these grubs is decidedly inimical. There is some evidence that, in certain cases at least, death of the deer may result from their presence. Inflammation appears to be set up in the sinuses and this may extend to the brain regions and perhaps the infection finally involves the brain membrane, producing a type of meningitis. "Briefly, the habits of the insect are as follows: 'The flies are comparatively large and very rapid fliers. They deposit living larvae with a drop of protecting fluid in the nose of the deer, and the young larvae then work rapidly over the mucous membrane, back into the nasal cavities. The larvae attach with their strong mouth-hooks to the mucous linings of the pharynx or sinuses of the head. Complete growth seems to require nearly a year. When full grown the maggots are rather large and quite spiny. They detach themselves and are passed out by the deer. When they fall on the ground the outer skin hardens, forming a pupa or resting stage, in which the larva transforms to a fly. The flies do not feed, there being sufficient food stored up in the larval stage to develop their offspring. The flies are inclined to congregate in protected places on rocks or trees, usually in the higher altitudes of a given region." The Department at Washington has also furnished detailed information about the Warble Fly and the Nose Fly in Reindeer. Witnesses who have appeared before the Committee have done no more than suggest the existence of nose-fly disease in Ontario. The matter might bear closer observation by game Overseers and by the Department of Game and Fisheries. Barren Does This Special Committee heard much in the way of general statement about "barren does." Many witnesses, apparently impressed by falling-off in productivity, were inclined to attribute it to the chasing of the does by the dogs, and others to the constant disturbance and difficulty in finding safe and satisfactory yards. Whether or not either of these causes is having an effect upon the increase of dry does, the Special Committee is not now prepared to say.* There is little dependable information to be referred to at the present time, either from wardens or from guides and hunters whose testimony went upon the record.f It i& our recommendation that the Department instruct all wardens to give more attention to the matter, and if possible to get some facts together that may help to an understanding of the cause or causes of this alleged condition, with some certain knowledge as to the areas where it is most in evidence. Deer are victims of foxes as well as of dogs, after the close of the deer hunting season. The same dogs trained to run deer are also used to hunt the fox. It happens that a fox hunter may start his dog on a fox track, but the hound will break away to follow the first deer track it comes to.{ In this way the deer are molested during the winter and are unable to locate a good yard when the snow is deep. The issue of permits for fox hunting in districts where there are deer is competently controlled by the Department through the wardens. Fox Hunting At several of our meetings deer hunters made a case against fox hunting, in the cause of deer protection. It is our opinion fox-hunting with dogs might be made an excuse by deer poachers. In the winter the poacher may kill the deer, clean it, and hang it in the bush; and after leaving it for a few days, *Pennsylvania is carrying on experiments. t 'There are few barren does; condition not more common than with sheep or other species '*�F E. Hollingsworth. X i have never heard of a fox-hunter using a hound to run deer in the winter. The hound is too good an advertiser."�F. E, Hollingsworth. 38 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 return whenever he feels safe from the risk of observation. If met by a warden, overseer or deputy, when carrying a rifle, the deer poacher, having dogs at his heel, may quite safely say that he is fox hunting and no more than legally equipped for the sport. In order to give the dog ban a fair test in all parts of the Province, it is necessary to extend the present prohibition to cover possible poaching in the guise of fox hunting, and also dogs running at large after deer or sheep. The hand of the law enforcement officer in this respect needs to be strengthened. In the time since the first appointment of paid Provincial game wardens, the enforcement branch has become an efficient body of officials. The contact between them and the public is seldom unfriendly. The position of the farmer or his son taking a fox on his own land presents no difficulty to the game warden. The fox-hunting permits may, however, place him in a position of difficulty with a poacher after deer. Poachers on Snow Shoes Poachers who use snow shoes and skis are implacable deer killers. They run down the deer in the deep snow, when yarded, copying the methods of the wolf in winter. The deer, without power of escape or defence, is equally helpless before the attack of the man or the wolf. The penalties now provided in the law are inadequate to deter poachers of this type. It is our opinion that a severe jail sentence, without option of a fine, should be imposed for such offences. Fines for offences against the Act and the regulations in respect of deer�the most menaced species of our native game�are limited to $100. In the very nature of some acts of lawlessness in the deer yards, heavier penalty and imprisonment are required. Otherwise, penalties under the Game and Fisheries Laws are severe enough in average cases of infraction. Particular conditions may arise in face of which either the law must be lenient, or in which the Department must be considerate. Such a case is that of the settler with a dependent family and no way of finding money to meet a fine. We heard this story many times in relation to industrial depression. It is a problem that District Superintendents frequently meet. It is one in connection with which local opinion invariably plays a public part, and to which no law of inevitable penalty should apply. It is possible that in some instances the lawbreaker and his dependents may be hungry, and the temptation to get a deer is scarcely to be turned away by any family provider who is not exceptionally enduring. Where there is fair room for it, leniency naturally abides in the Department. The District Superintendent may understand it as a principle that cases of this class be specially reported upon. The Department should have clear authority to suspend prosecution where deemed advisable. The law gives the Minister power to remit or reduce disproportionate penalties imposed from the bench, in excess of $200. But we can conceive of cases where the cause of justice would be better served by leniency before sentence stage. Open Seasons and Districts Ontario is laid out for big game hunting purposes in five districts, each with a different open season. When these districts were created, access by motor to some of them was not available. The time formerly required and the difficulty experienced in gaining the camping ground are not now involved. The hunting holiday has become an easier adventure by rail and car. In ON THE GAME SITUATION 39 creating these districts the view of the Department was to afford more protection to the game closer in. The open sections of Eastern Ontario and St. Joseph's Island have the shortest seasons, of fifteen days, whilst north of the Canadian National line of railway the hunting season extends over seventy-one days, and between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways, thirty-six days. Both resident and non-resident hunters have in recent years been looking to more remote camping grounds. There is no good reason why the Northern Ontario seasons should be so long, unless it be to allow the settlers and Indians to take deer and moose legally in three months of the year. Even this intention does not appear to have been reciprocated. Illegal taking of deer and sale of meat are matters of common report. The general opinion from Kenora to Cochrane is that the hunting season is both too long and too early. But one deer season cannot meet conditions in all the territory north of the C.P.R. For moose and bear a special season prior to the opening of deer hunting was suggested to bring non-resident hunters in large numbers into all the country north of the Mattawa-Heron Bay line. Though this suggestion may be considered again at a later time it did not recommend itself to the Committee now. The question of naming later dates than the present ones is not without difficulty. It is obviously right that the season should close in all districts on the same day. Setting back the opening dates appears the best advised way of dealing at once with the two problems of early freeze-up in occasional seasons and of venison going to waste because fall hunting opens too early everywhere and every year. 40 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 MOOSE The law of the Province allows the same open season for deer and moose, although in regard to habits and range these animals differ considerably. Prior to the appointment of the 1890 Commission, moose had been protected, and the Report of that Commission recommended continuation of that protection. Illegal slaughter had been going on for years, on which account principally the animals did not increase, notably at any rate, in number. They were slaughtered for the flesh, which was readily sold by Indians and settlers to lumber camps and in the towns of the north. It is not difficult to discover in the Departmental records significant references to diminution of moose. Nor is it hard to understand the desire of many hunters to kill such big game, both for the killing and for the delicacy of the meat. Many hunters desired most, perhaps, to go out after the moose for the sake of the head as a trophy, although the animal is not hard to take. It may have been a mistake, from the standpoint of conservation when an open season was allowed, to put the moose in the same class with the red deer. It belongs with the elk and the caribou to the class of large game, in which the bear might find more fitting place than the deer. But because it has been linked up with the deer, some hunters are asking why the female and calf moose are not allowed to be taken, when the doe and the fawn are not protected. It is very questionable indeed that the slight measure of protection retained in the law in respect to the female and her calf prevents all illegal slaughter. Something more is required to safeguard that provision at least. Moose were not infrequently seen in Parry Sound before their protection by closed season ended in 1894. At that time, Warden Willmott urged that means be taken to prevent their slaughter in numbers, thenceforward. He advised that no person be permitted more than one moose, and killing the cow moose and calf prohibited altogether. The inevitable effect of the open season, however, was to drive the moose back. Presently they were seen no closer in than Algoma. The fact, if it be a fact, that moose are as plentiful as formerly in the northern hunting grounds, did not stop the sportsmen who seek these fields from advising a shorter season. The Committee recognizes the force of such advice, but cannot very well recommend different hunting seasons for the two species of big game. Local opinion demands a close season for moose in the counties of Peterborough, Victoria, Hastings and Frontenac. Protection of Moose In 1895, Warden Willmott found plenty of evidence that moose were being killed in numbers by the Indians. Any natural increase was in fact more than offset by slaughter for sale. The owners of timber limits almost as a general thing had their camps supplied with illegally procured moose meat. So common was this practice that for a time it was urged that licenses, in regard to which repeated complaints went unheeded, should be cancelled. These very practices are not now unknown. Whilst it is true that Northern Ontario along the height of land on the Hudson Bay slope constitutes the most spacious natural range for moose upon the continent, it is equally true that continuation of hunting and illegal killing can end only in the extermination of the most impressive species of our native big game. They must follow the elk and caribou. The rutting season of the moose is little earlier than with the deer, the young being brought forth as a rule in May. Biologists hold this magnificent animal the same as the elk of Sweden; but it has been identified with this part ON THE GAME SITUATION 41 of Canada back to the days of the early missionaries as entirely indigenous. The early missionaries often encountered the moose, which they classed with the buffalo as "boeuf sauvage." In the neighboring Province of Quebec, extinction of the moose is being provided against by such well-considered plans of rearing in captivity as saved the buffalo in Alberta. Unless Ontario takes some similar action there can be no great hope that disgraceful practices of the kind referred to can have any other than a sure end of the wild herd. The moose is a browsing animal, and in the free range of the northern bush is healthy and well developed. Enquiries made by this Committee from the Dominion Biologist and other sources of information have failed to secure any reports of physical depreciation in the herd. It is not uncommon to see thin moose in the winter or spring of the year. Not Holding His Ground These observations are offered in face of the Departmental reports of the past ten years touching moose. These reports, as a rule, speak of plenty of moose in all sections north and west of the French and Mattawa Rivers. It may be remarked that the numbers of resident hunters taking out moose licenses do not increase. While the figures fluctuate from season to season there was a sustained drop from 1922 to 1926. Resident sportsmen all want a shorter season, and not a few of them declare the moose to be decreasing. At Kenora absolute protection of moose was demanded, for the stated reason that they are "too easy to kill." Indians are mainly accused of slaughtering in and out of season. Among other causes of diminution assigned by those who say the moose is not holding his ground, the bear appears. The Committee has been supplied with quite a pile of opinion from various northern districts that the bear is one of the most active and destructive enemies of the moose. Personal observation of the bear when engaged in killing and eating the moose calf is reported and cannot be brushed aside. Inasmuch, however, as the bear and the moose have been joint denizens of the bush for centuries, it is very likely they could get along together without disaster to the less intelligent animal. The far more deadly pursuers of the moose are the Indian and the white hunter. The latter is often a law breaker, and the Indian is a law unto himself in the remote parts of the northern country. 42 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 ELK AND CARIBOU The elk has vanished from the northern wilderness as far as any recent observation shows. If this animal is to be seen again within the confines of the Province, it can only be upon some extensive game preserve where of a certainty his species can be saved from extinction.* This has been proved in some of the nearby States. We are far from any desire to depreciate the work of the Department for salvage of the Ontario caribou herd. There are now reported to be from fifty to seventy-five of these animals in the Superior Game Preserve, embracing Ignace and other islands in the English River country. This Preserve, in physical character and situation, is a credit to the foresight of the Department. Sidelights upon its success are apparent in the most recent reports of District Superintendents. From the Report of District Superintendent Ward (October, 101k herd brought into Ontario from Wainwright, November, 1932. 1932), we, take the following statement: "There appears to be little, if any, improvement in the numbers of caribou, an occasional small herd being reported north of Nakina, Tashota and Allanwater, at the latter place small bands or an occasional single one being seen both on the south as well as the north side of the railway, as is also the case from there west to the Manitoba boundary. Several small bands have been reported by trainmen as being seen south across the track near Farlane, while one trainman reported having seen one herd of over twenty at this point." District Superintendent Ward's headquarters are at Sioux Lookout. District Superintendent Fraser, Fort William (November 28th, 1932), reported: "I beg to advise that a few scattered herds of caribou are to be found in different parts of this district, some in the country south of Dinorwic, between there and Fort Frances, and some around English River country, between Ignace and Fort William. There are also a few to be found *On November 14th, 1932, twenty Cow elk and five males, selected by the Department, arrived at Petawawa. This is the first step in the plan of restoring the elk in our northern areas, ON THE GAME SITUATION 43 north of Schreiber, between the C.P.R. and C.N.R. main line north, and a few on the Islands of Nipigon Lake at the north end. The main herds of caribou to be found in this district are, I believe, on the islands in the Superior Game Preserve; and from the best sources of information available I would estimate this herd at between 50 and 75 animals." District Superintendent Lyness, Sault Ste. Marie (November 28th, 1932), also reported: "There are plenty of caribou north of Amyot between the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. They have increased steadily in this section for the last few years and have spread east and west; a few have been seen in the west end of the Chapleau Game Preserve." District Superintendent Parks, North Bay (December 8th, 1932), reported: "I have to advise that a few of these animals have been seen in the vicinity of Oba, while a few others were located in the townships of Moberly and Wilhel-mina, about 40 miles north of Timmins." All these officers are careful observers and men who understand the ideals of the Department. These two species may still be restored. In the State of Oregon, extermination of the elk was foreseen. The consequence has been that the State Game Commission was able to report of it in 1930, as follows: "This splendid and most magnificent of all game animals on the North American continent has steadily increased during the past twenty years, until they are now numbered by the thousands in Oregon. In fact, they have increased in such numbers and are so plentiful in some counties of Eastern Oregon that many sportsmen are advocating a short open season." 44 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 BEARS Some review of the conflicting demands made upon the Committee is called for so far as the bear is concerned. We have been asked to recommend hunting this attractive animal during the spring of the year when the skin is in best condition. That would class him among the game animals as he is classed in New York State. Ontario does not regard the bear as game, but as a fur-bearer. In most of the States from Michigan to California some measure of protection is afforded to Bruin. The use of steel jacketed bullets, automatic firearms, steel traps, is everywhere prohibited. The open season over there runs from November 1st to December 15th, as a rule. Spring hunting is another thing altogether. Some seem to urge it as a protective measure, others as a mobilization against the bear because he is a menace to game. In the neighboring Province of Quebec a bounty of $15 for the destruction of bears in municipalities only where these animals were causing damage to herds of sheep was provided by Order-in-Council of August 1st, 1929. The number of bounties paid in all was 4,445, amounting to $66,675. On November 11th, 1931, the Order was repealed, so that the law in Ontario and Quebec at the present time is much the same. The recent short experience of Quebec in regard to the bear bounty is significant. It emphasizes a lesson which appears to have been learned generally in the United States, not to offer incentive, either by bounty or special hunt, to take bears unless it can be determined they are directly responsible for losses among livestock or protected fauna. The statement made to this Committee, that bears are particularly destructive predatory animals, was advanced to support the demand for the spring hunt! The information was offered by park rangers, guides, outfitters and others interested in the attraction of hunters to the Province. Indicted as* a Predator In this regard the bear was declared by many witnesses to be a menace to the deer and moose, to beavers and other wild life. It was urged that he should be controlled like the wolf. Of many statements the following are characteristic: Mark Robinson, Chief Ranger, Algonquin Park: "I can truly say you will receive a great many different opinions based on the personal experience of many persons, and, as far as that experience extends, no doubt quite true, regarding the bear. Had I not seen Bruin in action, stalking a pair of fawns several years before the war, I would have been hard to convince that the bear would kill fawns. However, as the act was seen by several persons there was no doubt about it. The patient, moving bear crawled closer, watched the doe come to her fawns, and let them have their nurse, then leave them. As soon as the doe was gone, Bruin crawled closer and closer. The manner in which this silent stalker could take time to crawl up gave us an idea how deadly a hunter the bear could be. As you no doubt know, fawns will lie close to the ground and almost let you step on them before they .will move. The bear appeared to know this and when he drew close his huge paw came down on the fawns. After all his slow movement, the action of the bear at the moment of the killing of the fawn was speed itself. We watched him devour the fawn, then move away, apparently satisfied. Later, after the big fire that swept from Brule Lake to Opeongo, on the 14th and 15th of May, 1914, we saw dozens of young fawns on the burnt area. It was quite easy to locate them, and the tracks of bears were everywhere, feeding off the carcasses of the deer ON THE GAME SITUATION 45 killed by the fire, and doing their best to capture young fawns born after the fire had passed by. We found where several fawns had been destroyed by bears. Several men had told me they believe bear killed as many deer as wolves when food is scarce." Andrew Grant, Daventry: "By all means destroy bears the same as wolves. The bear is a hunter and a good one. You will never see many fawns where the bear is. The moose is the only animal that can bring up the young where the bear hangs out. When I was a young lad, in Pontiac County, P.Q., and Gatineau District, the farmers were always connecting the lack of deer with the large number of bears. I never heard of a lot of wolves down there. Around the farms it was the bear destroyed so many deer. The doe with her fawns hears a noise, jumps up and flashes off. The bear sees the doe and knows he cannot catch her. He sniffs around till he locates her young. That is the fawns' finish." S. A. Nadon, Park Ranger, Radiant: "Bears destroy fawns and beaver. The bear is a scavenger and quite bold in seeking food." James Shields, Whitney: "I have seen a bear in the act of killing a good sized young deer. They also create havoc amongst the beaver. I have found beaver carcasses killed by bear." Thomas McCormick, Chief Fire Ranger, Brule Lake: "Bears are very destructive to young deer and moose, birds' nests and domestic animals." A. E. Way, Lowbush: "I have taken the names and addresses of over a score of trappers who will testify under oath where they have seen, or seen the results of, bears killing moose. One of the most experienced trappers I have known in my life of over forty years north of Parry Sound District, states that bears are more destructive to moose than wolves; that where one bear can destroy a moose it takes a number of wolves. Between the bears and owls the muskrats are not only being kept from increasing in number, but are decreasing." Defended by Official Observeks Dr. R. M. Anderson, Chief, Biological Division, National Museum of Canada, supplies the following, carrying the authority of the Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington: "The importation of bears has shown a marked increase during recent years. Most of the arrivals are black bears, but occasionally grizzlies, Alaskan brown bears, or polar bears are brought in. Black bear cubs from Canada have proved unusually attractive during the past year, as shown by the issue of permits for more than 95 shipments authorizing the entry of 170. Some of these cubs were only a few months old, and were brought in for exhibition purposes. Most of them are shipped from Winnipeg, Manitoba, and cross the line at Noyes, Minn., en route to eastern States, chiefly New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. "These entries emphasize a marked change in the attitude of the public towards bears during the past century. In 1830 Maine began the payment of bounties to encourage the destruction of black bears, and was followed shortly by New Hampshire and New York. These bounties continued with some interruption for many years. Apparently the first protection given black bears by a close season was in New York in 1904; and last year similar protection was in effect in 19 States, two of them, Mississippi and Wisconsin, protecting bears throughout the year. The importance of the black bear as a game animal, as an exhibit in zoological gardens, or as a pet, has caused an almost complete 46 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 reversal in legislation, and instead of bounties being paid generally for its destruction, the species is now not only protected in many States, but is being increased in numbers by importations." Dr. Anderson makes the following comment: "The above statements seem to be of importance from two angles: First, the apparently spontaneous growth of sentiment in favor of the black bear in many widely separated States where "States' rights" sentiment is strong and opposed to Federal interference. Second, the apparent endorsement of the same by the Biological Survey; as the Biological Survey is becoming very chary of giving a clean bill of health to any species of animal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is very susceptible to political pressure, and serious complaints from agricultural and stock-raising (interests) against any species would soon call for control measures or a poison squad." James H. Burns, Senneterre, Que.: "During the past twenty-five years I have shot a few bear and know their habits pretty well. The bear is one of the least destructive animals in the north country. One weasel will destroy more game in a month than all the bear in fifty years. I never heard of a bear killing a rabbit. There never was and never will be an authentic case of a bear killing an unwounded moose. They might eat him if he was dead, or dying, though I never heard of a case like that. The only time a bear could possibly kill a moose is when they are in their yards (February and March), and that is the only time wolves can get them." There is not, in our opinion, a case made out in favor of a spring bear hunt. For early fall hunting of the bear there is precedent. This hunt need not conflict with the present policy of the Department in placing the bear pelt subject to the provisions of Section 25 of the Game and Fisheries Act. ON THE GAME SITUATION 47 WATERFOWL Bad Practices of Long Standing One of the earliest problems to arise in the records of the Department was spring shooting of waterfowl, principally ducks. This practice was the cause of keen controversy prior to the establishment of the Ontario Game and Fish Commission. While illegal in Ontario, it was then permitted in the United States. Protection for migratory waterfowl has made notable international advance in the meantime. This advance is being steadily consolidated in the United States. From the roots of past disputes a good deal of suspicion has persisted to the present. The bald question has been pressed at many of our public meetings: "Why have a curtailed duck season in Ontario and a smaller bag limit when the gun clubs across the border and in the southern wintering grounds kill without much regard for conservation and true sportsmanship?" For years before the Migratory Birds Protection Act had begun to change conditions for the better on both sides of the border, birds kept for seven or eight months in Ontario were slaughtered on the American side during spring when pairing. This bad practice had been quite ineffectually exposed at the International Fish and Game Conference of 1892. A few years later, however, the spring shooters began to give way before public condemnation. Other abuses did not abate. Shooting far into the night continued on both sides of the lakes, as also the use of electric and steam yachts to facilitate moonlight shooting. Punting for ducks' eggs went on continuously and justified none too soon prohibition of their sale. Red heads in 1894 had been practically driven out of the western bays of Lake Erie by hunters who pursued them in steam yachts to the middle of the lake or river. Ontario Sportsmen Give Example Thomas Beath, one of the Directors of the Anderdon Shooting Club, was prominent in denouncing these practices. Walter Schweikart, a noted sportsman, called spring shooting "murder in its worst form." Warden Gill, of Dunnville, recommended that the shooting be put back to sunrise-to-sunset, it being impossible to control shooting in the half hour before sunrise and after sunset. He also asked for prohibition of all shooting of waterfowl from hides and covers of any description, either movable or fixed in the water, confining all manner of hides, covers and deceptions to dry ground, and all shooting of birds on any waters restricted to ordinary rowboats and canoes. A shorter season for ducks was urged, whilst outcry arose against skegs and sailboats. The practice of hunting waterfowl with steam tugs and sailboats received full measure of public opprobrium, because it not only destroyed birds in large numbers but drove them from their haunts and feeding grounds. Perhaps no State on the other side at least allowed this barbarous mode of hunting waterfowl. The Ontario Commission needed long urging to prevent it. Measures of protection finally crystallized into law in 1896, when steam vessels, sailboats or skegs were prohibited for pursuit of waterfowl, and protection was afforded between the hours of sunset and sunrise. Restriction of blinds and hides to 50 or 100 yards from the shore of any point of land or natural bed of rushes was introduced into the game laws. The Ontario law continued to be more or less abused by citizens of the Province on the pretext that hunters across the border came over the international boundary between the mouth of Lake Erie and the mouth of Lake Huron, about ninety miles in all, as well as along the channel of the St. Lawrence. 48 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Michigan Led the Way Spring shooting and shooting from steam yachts was first prohibited in the State of Michigan.. Ontario waters along Kent County saw a concentration of spring shooting for some time after that. The Michigan Game Warden offered Warden Quallins his assistance. The former, himself, had already prosecuted parties for shooting from steam yachts. Nevertheless, the general belief continued to prevail in Ontario that the cause for a notably fast decrease of all species of ducks was the relentless pursuit of them all the year round in American waters and swamps. When the Committee began its investigation it encountered the same opinion. Bearing in mind the history of a long misunderstanding between sportsmen of both countries, this Committee in Novem-^ ber, 1931, placed before Mr. Paul G. Redington, Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington, the substance of the representations heard in the preceding part of the year. Some examples of such representations may be cited: H. S. Osier, Toronto: "I submit that Canadian sportsmen are entitled to a reasonable right to take game bred in this country and that this right should not necessarily be limited to the extent that the United States may find it necessary to limit sporting rights by reason of the large population and the enormous number of automatic and repeating shotguns in use. Further, I think that we in Canada may reasonably take into consideration the well-known and admitted fact that there is a very great and general disregard for law throughout the United States." Forest H. Conover, Leamington, President, Essex Co. Game Protective Association: "For some time public sentiment has strongly advocated support from sportsmen for maintaining the waterfowl heritage of the Province. Waterfowl, principally the ducks, have been dwindling for many years. Their diminution in the last two seasons has been internationally disastrous. In the same years, hunters have largely increased in number. Sportsmen complain that waterfowl areas for the number of hunters are much too small. In the waters and marshes of Essex, this is notably the case. Marshes infested with hunters cannot retain the waterfowl or allow the birds to find rest in them. Sportsmen are seeking to have larger territory for waterfowl taken in, where any areas in primitive condition afford resting and breeding space with native foods. There is an expanse of such natural area north-east and at the base of Point Pelee, adjoining the Point Pelee National Park. The small remains of watered marsh left in the Park is fast filling in with bog soils and losing its attraction for canvas-back, red heads and greater scaup." F. A. Robertson, Perth: "For a great many years I have kept in touch with the situation in Ontario and Eastern Canada, and also in the United States, where it would appear the only State in the Union to have a decent game protection law is that of Pennsylvania. The majority of the ducks are bred in Canada and have been slaughtered in the United States." J. H. Sinclair, Perth: "The duck hunters of the United States shoot from battery and baited blinds, and 75 per cent of the ducks raised here are shot over there." Paul G. Redington, Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington, said in reply to the Committee: "Your remarks fall upon sympathetic ears here. As the converse of criticisms and complaints to you, we have the like with reference to the killing of wild fowl in Canada. We have discounted much of the complaints reaching us. We have been satisfied that there is considerable exaggeration in the allegations of slaughter of the birds in Canada, and we ON THE GAME SITUATION 49 believe in like measure that there are abuses here and there in both countries. Without doubt there are abuses of the practice of feeding or baiting wild fowl in the United States, but those abuses ought not to be taken as a general characterization of a practice that, in the opinion of many thoughtful and conscientious men, is unobjectionable, and in fact is only fair to those so geographically situated that, were it not for this means of attraction, they would have to forego the privilege of taking some of the waterfowl passing from Canada and the northern States to their winter quarters in the South and beyond. These abuses of baiting are receiving our very earnest consideration at this time, and we are hopeful that a practical remedy will be forthcoming at no distant date. As a drastic measure in behalf of the protection of waterfowl, this Government, as you know, cut the open season throughout the United States this year to one month, thus giving an earnest of other measures we may be expected to take when the situation demands. We are keenly alert as to the situation of the waterfowl under recent disastrous conditions, and we are watching every factor that has any part in the diminution of the birds. Our experts are constantly gathering information throughout the United States, and we may confidently be expected to take whatever measures shall appear to be necessary for the conservation of the waterfowl." The tenor of Mr. Redington's communication, and our own examination of the Ontario records through the years since administration of the Game Laws passed under ministerial control, justify the general conclusion that much of the present discontent has survived from a former more lawless state of things. Sufficient attention has not been given by the public to the influence of the Migratory Birds Protection Act in its international aspect. This Act does not diminish any Provincial right. In 1900, when the Game Act was revised by Mr. H. S. Osier, then a member of the Commission, and again at the revision of 1913, the conditions created by rapid increase of shooters in the Province, and by more destructive guns, were squarely faced. The years succeeding the change to ministerial charge witnessed greater armies of duck hunters, means of more rapid water transportation, more destructive weapons and methods of hunting. A Far-reaching Problem This Committee cannot regard its reference upon waterfowl as limited to local problems. It has not been found practical to limit the enquiry in this way, or to limit it very much in any way. It must be quite obvious to all who have considered waterfowl conservation in its essential aspects that regional conservation cannot be confined in terms of districts within the Province of Ontario, or to our side of the international boundary. Seasons and the shooting regulations for the Province cannot be profitably studied from the single angle of north and south flight of ducks and geese. The east and west range of the birds is hardly of less importance. Both angles present themselves in the broad meaning of the reference given us. Water conditions far and near, water plant growth, taking one year or cycle of years with another in the far-extending migration ranges of all species of waterfowl, variation of natural conditions in forested and more open breeding grounds, must, however, necessarily affect scarcity or plenty of ducks in Ontario regional shooting districts, as throughout the continent. A report of the Michigan Department of Conservation tells of the east and west migration, of black duck broods from the Munuskong Marsh, a 50 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 model refuge, where abundance of both natural food and heavy baiting with absolute protection are provided. Michigan and Ontario Banding Records "From Munuskong some ducks went east through Ontario, others went west into Wisconsin, but the majority evidently remained in Michigan through most of October. During November and December a definite southern migration took place over a wide area along the Mississippi valley, but a few of the ducks apparently followed the Atlantic coast. Some of the banded birds went as far east as New York, and others as far south as Louisiana and Florida." The banding records made by Mr. H. S. Osier at Lake Scugog are of the highest value to Ontario duck hunters. His famous waterfowl fesort is primarily a preserve and comparatively little shooting is done upon it�none upon the sanctuary part. The lake is said to have been formed in the uncertain past by dammed water, and the Indians planted the rice. As long as these fine rice beds remain as they are, the wild ducks of different varieties will always be seen there in great numbers. Artificial feeding is not required, except in most infrequent seasons when the rice is thin. Mr. Osier has only spread out the artificial food once, and then not in a large quantity. The history of the place would support an opinion urged upon the Committee by many duck hunters, viz., that artificial feeding on any large or general scale is not required in most of the Ontario duck marshes, when full attention is given to the natural plant food. Mr. Osier is an authority on the habits of the black duck, of which the Supervisor of Wild Life Protection in the National Parks of Canada says: Black Duck and Wood Duck "The black duck nests largely in a part of Canada which will not at any time be closely invaded by agriculture, but even where it does nest in contact with agriculture, it seems to be able to get along better right next door to civilization than almost any other duck we have. ... It is apt to persist even after other kinds of ducks have disappeared in North America from the agricultural regions." The black duck, when taken in its northern home, is a recognized table delicacy among the duck family. The Canard Noir du Nord, when it migrates to Louisiana, is called a Northern Black Mallard. Its northern diet of wild rice, celery and other vegetable matter, is varied in the South, where it favors snails, clams, oysters, shrimp, crabs and crayfish. The flesh during the winter months is quite "fishy." The Committee, though pleased to find wood duck reported more numerous in Ontario than they expected, cannot approve at the present time an open season for this beautiful species. Migratory Birds Protected in United States The enquiry prosecuted by this Committee regarding protection of migrating waterfowl in their flights to and from the southern swamps of the United States, both by the Federal Government at Washington by virtue of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act, and by the different States by virtue of their rights, has by no means justified the apprehension voiced at practically all our meetings held in duck hunting districts throughout the Province. Both Federal and State authorities in the United States favor with practical tm- ON THE GAME SITUATION 51 animity the same length of open season as Canada, with such variations in the dates of those seasons as may be dictated by the regional difference in southern flight of the birds. Concerning the allegation of less regard for conservation law in the United States than in Canada we do not find the State authority lax. Observance of the laws is as a rule enforced by adequate staffs of wardens, and prosecution of offenders is both prompt and vigorous. The 5,000,000 acres of marshes and swamps of Louisiana have constituted for centuries the winter home and feeding grounds of approximately 75 per cent of the waterfowl of North America. There they fly from the breeding grounds of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and the Arctic wastes. There are now four great wild life refuges in Louisiana, the Rockefeller Tract, Marsh Island, the Ward-Mcllhenny Tract, and the Louisiana State Game Refuge, a total extent of 234,300 acres, forming veritably the southern asylum of the waterfowl of the continent. A Southern Jack Miner Like Jack Miner in our own Province, there was fortunately in Louisiana one conservationist to the manner born, whose inspiration and initiative were given to the State. Mr. Edward Avery Mcllhenny knew the unique natural advantages for migratory waterfowl of his native State, because he was familiar with it as a boy, when, prior to the first invasion of shooters, the birds swarmed on Avery Island. The famous egrets of the Island seemed doomed in a short time to be practically exterminated. These birds Mr. Mcllhenny has restored by years of patient effort. Like Jack Miner, he always controlled his private bird refuge for the public good, and the State was gratified to accept 13,000 acres of his land for sanctuary purposes. Mr. Mcllhenny and other well-known conservationists of the United States are to be thanked by sportsmen everywhere for the adoption in the neighboring Republic of protective measures, in addition to stopping the cruel practice of spring shooting along the flight-way used by the waterfowl on their northern migration. The sale of waterfowl in the States of Louisiana and Arkansas was put an end to. Less than twenty years ago, as many as 80,000 ducks were killed on one preserve alone near New Orleans, and the birds were sold and marketed at 25c. to 50c. a pair. Much of the misunderstanding prevailing in Ontario as to present conditions may have persisted from Canadian knowledge of indiscriminate and disregarded slaughter of ducks within the memory of the present generation. Provincial Interests in Sport Something further in the way of remark upon the co-operative spirit of Mr. Paul Redington's statement to this Committee is called for in the interest of Canadian sport. Canada was unable to meet the United States in 1931 in cutting the open season, mainly for local considerations based on the interests of the different Provinces, which stretch across the continent and therefore are not subject to equal or even similar drought conditions. The Migratory Birds Convention is an international instrument affecting Great Britain, the United States and Canada. The authorities at Ottawa considered it essential in 1931, in face of unusual drought conditions in the West, to secure co-operation between all the Provinces as a preliminary to following the action of President Hoover, who proclaimed a thirty-day open season throughout the United States. The Province of Ontario offered to co-operate to the extent of shortening the open season to two months, i.e., October and November, providing the other 52 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Provinces would do likewise. But the Federal authorities at Ottawa found it difficult to get all the Provinces to see eye to eye as to the necessity of such action. And from the Provincial standpoint, the necessity was not as obvious in Canada as across the border. It is supposed that drought on the more remote breeding grounds of the North-west diverted more pintail and greenwinged teal to the watered areas of Ontario and the St. Lawrence Valley. Down in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia the favored spaces of these Provinces gave refuge to many more ducks, geese and brant until the freeze-up. Conditions of 1931 It is to be remembered that no other part of the continent compares with Western Canada, in normal periods, in point of favorable duck breeding conditions. In the spring, summer and fall of 1931 unusual drought, which was not characteristic of a single year, but which had existed in less marked degree for almost a decade, affected these western breeding grounds to an extent that produced an officially recognized depletion of wild ducks laying and hatching beside the sloughs, lakes and water courses of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as the western States of North America. An official report from the Biological Survey, Ottawa, declared that "marked shortage of breeding ducks and young was noted in the Great Delta region of the Peace and Athabasca Rivers. In tours of several thousand miles the investigators saw only a few dozen small broods of young ducks in an area that in normal years has produced many millions of mallards, pintails, red heads, canvasbacks, blue-bills and teals/' Fairly similar reports came from the United States, and, as a result, early in the spring of the year (March 17th), President Hoover took action. In short, the dry season involved continent-wide change in breeding ranges, the extent of which, in localities between Manitoba and the Atlantic, could not be even estimated without better information based on banding returns. The comparative plenty reported here in the east should not perhaps afford any more latitude to eastern than to western duck hunters in their shooting practices. All parts of the continent are concerned together in preventing depletion of the ducks and geese. The black and mallard ducks are more familiar in Ontario, accommodating themselves, especially the former, with less alarm to the close-up signs of human presence. These species were numerous throughout this Province. The 1932 Season The official apprehensions of 1931 concerning grave drought effects in the bird breeding areas of the North-west were largely removed by different weather conditions in 1932. But the critical season of 1931 nevertheless showed why every avenue of co-operative effort with the United States for better protection of migratory waterfowl should be pursued in Canada. In an especial manner it showed remarkable responsiveness of the nesting regions of the North-western States and our Western Provinces to a succession of dry seasons. That the effects of such drought extend to waterfowl all over the continent is certain, however difficult it may be to ascertain the regional proportion of such effects, or indeed to determine how widespread are the effects of drought in any particular locality. But it is not natural drought alone that is the only danger in the West. There is throughout the Prairie Provinces and the North-western States a ON THE GAME SITUATION 53 man-made drought on both sides of the international boundary. This condition is produced by the reclamation and drainage projects for use or cultivation of tremendous areas of lakes, sloughs and marshes, which have been the natural reservoirs and breeding grounds of waterfowl and shore birds. H. L. Betten, member of California's Advisory Committee on Waterfowl Sanctuaries, reasons that this problem may be influenced through co-operation of Canadian sportsmen. The sportsmen of the Eastern Provinces, judging by the representations made by them to this Committee, do not delude themselves in this regard. They realize that sooner or later the destruction of breeding facilities in the western areas must produce continent-wide results. Furthermore, they see in Ontario and Quebec a continuous clearing of swamps which increases the tendency to diminution of the duck breeding Provincial areas. At the Sudbury meeting, Mr. C. C. Schreiber brought up the whole subject, showing how beaver conservation and preservation of swamps are together needed to attract the flight ducks. Planting of natural food, reducing the bag limit, and contracting the season are regarded by the majority of Ontario sportsmen among the best means of conservation to be pursued in co-operation with the United States. At the same time, tremendous increase in the practice of baiting private duck shooting grounds, along the international border and more southern areas, discourages some of the most devoted conservationists. Live Decoys Upon one method of luring wild ducks and geese within range of their hunters, public opinion has concentrated in recent years. This is the use of live decoys, more often in privately-owned marshes, and where sunken hides are the rule. These practices have been largely copied from the United States. They came into general favor when other objectionable ways of taking waterfowl were prohibited by law on both sides of the boundary. The live decoy is unsportsmanlike and will soon go the way of all unfair means of shooting. It is questionable whether from the conservation angle the live decoy alone would bring large numbers of ducks and geese to slaughter without the heavy feeding which accompanies their use. Neither rest days in each week nor bag limits would bring that slaughter within reasonable limits. As long as practices of the kind are allowed in the United States, Canadian hunters will see a grievance in further restriction here. Canada, however, should not be a moment behindhand, when the authorities on the other side have completed their observation of destructive methods and prepare to stop them. Duck Season Rest Days The argument in favor of rest days in each week during the duck shooting season was strongly urged upon the Committee at meetings along the St. Lawrence front. As with other proposals for sparing the birds, it was put forward as a suggestion for hunters on both sides of the boundary to consider. On submitting it to the Bureau of Biological Survey at Washington, we found that it already had been under consideration. Mr. W. C. Henderson, Acting Chief, reported: "Answering your letter relative to the adoption of rest days during the ducking season, I would say that this has been the subject of much discussion in this country in recent years, and there have been many arguments presented on both sides of the question. It is believed to be the concensus of opinion 54 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 among conservative sportsmen, and conservationists generally, that rest days, in this country, are not effective as a means of conserving the waterfowl supply, but serve to lull the birds into a false sense of security and hold them on the shooting grounds, thus affording better shooting opportunities on those areas of concentration. Inasmuch as the birds do not remain long in Canada after the shooting season begins, and because of different shooting practices prevailing there, it is believed that rest days might effect greater savings in Canada than in the United States, and that their adoption by Provincial authorities would be regarded with favor by duck hunters in this country." All over the Continent similar conditions have affected the breeding and wintering habits of ducks and geese. Southern Ontario reaches far across the migration ways of these birds. More and more is this section becoming the "sportsmen's paradise" of the Continent. Flats and marshes border lakes Huron, Erie, St. Clair and Ontario, and extend eastwards along the St. Lawrence from the Bay of Quinte to the international boundary. Every known destructive method of taking ducks in their southern migration is practised in these marshes. Hides, baiting, live decoys, speed boats, pump guns, are outstanding features of a system which is commercialization rather than sport. Michigan State Experiments The Michigan Department of Conservation notes that planting of duck foods has been widely advertised as the remedy for poor duck shooting. There is widespread belief that any absence or shortage of ducks is generally due to a lack of suitable foods. While it is often desirable to increase the food supply, it is nevertheless poor policy to put into a lake or marsh expensive plantings of plant species which are already present in abundance, or to try to start rice and other aquatic plants where water and soil conditions are unfavorable, or where a plentiful supply of other foods is now available. In 1928 an investigation was begun to find out what duck foods are most plentiful in lakes and marshes and to discover if possible the food preferences of each important duck species. The Michigan State owned marshes at Wildfowl and Munuskong Bays were the first areas examined, attention being given to the bottom soils, depths of water and the kind of plants in the different weed beds. During 1929 and 1930 these field observations were extended to cover many other lakes and marshes, especially where local sportsmen's organizations requested advice concerning proposed plantings of rice, celery, sago and other aquatic vegetation. In numerous lakes and marshes it was found that many of the better known duck foods were growing in abundance, but had not been recognized as suitable duck foods. Many people know arrow leaf, but do not know that the plant is the one commonly advertised as "duck potato." In many of the places where the planting of rice has been urged and tried the water and soil conditions were found to be unsatisfactory, and most of the experimental rice plantings made in 1929 at Wildfowl and Munuskong Bays failed. Plantings of sago, celery and musk-grass were more successful. Remarkable Results in Northern Ontario By way of comparison with Michigan State experiments, this Committee found remarkable evidence of satisfactory wild celery plantings in Northern Ontario, carried out by Mr. A. Hoffman Smith, Sudbury, in association with Mr. G. R. Mickle, Mine Assessor, Sudbury. We were informed that, prior to the plantings reported by Mr. Hoffman Smith, the duck species familiar ON THE GAME SITUATION 55 to Northern Ontario sportsmen were almost confined to the black duck, whistlers, hooded mergansers and occasional green and blue winged teal. Since the planting of wild celery on White Water Lake in 1909, the following varieties, all edible ducks, have been identified by these sportsmen: Black Duck (red leg) Canvasback Black Duck (green leg) Ruddy Duck Blue Wing Teal Bluebill (Marsh) Green Wing Teal Bluebill (Lesser Scaup) Gadwell Bluebill (Ringed) Pintail Whistler (Am. Goldeneye) Mallard Bufflehead Redhead Wood Duck Hooded Merganser (edible when celery fed) Mr. Hoffman Smith has made the following report to the Committee: Sudbury, Ont., June 15th, 1932. Secretary, Special Game Committee, Toronto, Ont. Sir: I am submitting to your Committee my experience in the planting of food for wild duck. I wish to point out that it is just possible that methods used up here might not be suitable for southern Ontario. In the planting of wTild celery I have found that the warmer lakes give the best results. It should not be planted at a greater depth than ten feet nor less than four; in bays, sloping shores, around islands, and other sheltered places with fairly soft bottom, and where the strong winds cannot stir up the bottom of the lake. If planted out in the open as we have in White Water lake, where it is in some places a mile or more from shore, another plant should be introduced to protect it from the undertow caused by strong winds. This plant is the Potamogeton perfoliatus, or Clasping-leaved Pond Weed, one of the best, the top of the plant reaches the surface, it also has several long branches, its leaves are very tender, and form a good part of the feed for duck. The seed may be gathered in September and October. Celery pods are gathered in September or October according to locality; up here they ripen about the middle of October. In 1909 when we started planting in White Water we scattered five bushels, in 1912 one bushel, in 1913 four bushels, and in 1914 two bushels supplied by the Ont. Govt., the only lot ever received from them. We did not plant any more until 1920, a small lot then. After 1920 the sulphur smoke from the Roast yards at O'Donnell, seven miles south from the lake, practically killed most of the plant life in the lake. In 1929 it was reported that International Nickel Co. were about to abandon the roasting of ore at O'Donnell, so I planted three bushels that fall and in 1930 five more bushels. In 1931 five more bushels. Area covered in White Water was the whole of the east end of the lake, roughly, about one mile by two; one could touch bottom in most of it with a ten foot pole. A small quantity planted in two small lakes nearby gave very good results; a few miles further west Vermillion lake three bushels, good results; Cloche lake, south of Massey Station, C.P. Ry., 2 bushels, splendid results; also on Georgian Bay south of Cloche lake. Key river and Cranberry lake, very good. From west branch of the French to Grondines Point small lots planted; I visited this place last fall and found that it had spread remarkably. On the C.N. Ry. north of here we planted small lots at various places, one of them was in Esther Lake, a widening of the Wahnapitae river, very good results there. We planted some at Groundhog lake, but a storage dam built there later drowned it out. Ten miles west of Folyet I planted both celery and rice in Frog lakes two years after my son went there and good results from both (Frog lakes are well suited for rice). About fifteen years ago we sent some to Kenora but never heard with what results. I planted some in Rice lake midway between Biscotasing on the C.P. Ry. and Kakatush, C. N. Ry., in 1930, have not been there since. There are large areas of wild rice growing there, probably a hundred acres. A small lot planted east of Ruel on the C. N. Ry., also a small lot in Hartley Bay, good results. All kinds of ducks eat the celery, but the non-divers do not get very much of it except what they can steal from the divers as they come to the surface. Black duck, Gadwell, Wood-duck, Teal and marsh Bluebill seem to like the Lemna minor above all others. It grows at its best in drowned lands where the protection given by trees, shrubs and grasses prevents it from being blown ashore. Beaver dams make ideal places. I have in mind a very good place that would make a^nice sanctuary; it is situate in the Tp. of Dryden about 56 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 nine miles from here by road^ It was a large dry marsh until the Wahnapitae Power Co. built a dam a short distance below it and flooded the whole marsh; it is full of small floating islands. About 10 years ago I received a tomato can full of Lemna minor from Grenadier Pond in Toronto. I scattered this around and now the whole marsh is covered with it. It is a great resort for black ducks; they are quite safe there as it is impossible to get in any distance with a canoe; I think it would cover three or four lots. Lemna trisulca is a very fine duck food. It grows in about six to twelve inches of water. We had a large quantity growing in White Water lake but lost it from the sulphur. I do not pretend to know much about rice because most of my efforts in planting have resulted in failures, but I have found out a few things about the grain: it must never be allowed to get dry as it loses germination very fast; for a good many years past I have tried in a small way to get it to grow. I could never get more than a few grains out of pounds. Two years ago I got five pounds from Rice lake (up north) and tried another plan which has produced the best result so far. I dropped small handfuls without scattering in about two feet of water with a space of about 2 ft. between handfuls, on a fairly soft bottom; the roots spread out and mixed with other little piles and gradually collected their own mud, the several little handfuls formed little clumps that protected one another. Scattered grains produced about 1%, clumps over 5%. (A. Hoffman Smith, Sudbury) Hunters' Rights After the attraction of ducks by planting their natural food in lakes and marshes comes the vexed question of the hunter and his rights, both in preserved areas and in public shooting grounds. The development of this problem in Ontario is easily stated. Just as soon as restrictions about shooting from behind blinds or hides was first mooted, sportsmen of financial position, both resident and non-resident, sought to gain exclusive rights in the duck marshes of Ontario. Owners of marsh lands on their side lost no time about improving the opportunity thus presented to them. Speculation presently began in the business of selling shooting marshes. The following are the facts of a typical case: Twenty years ago some land was bought by a farmer who planted wild rice and spread out artificial food. Tens of thousands of ducks and thousands of geese stopped there. The owner did little or no shooting himself. He sought an attractive offer from Americans, who formed a club. The condition today is that instead of one man shooting once a week, or allowing the ducks to enjoy entire sanctuary, ten or more clubmen with their friends shoot from dawn till dark. Wild Celery A feature of Mr. Hoffman Smith's report is the success he has had from wild celery seed. The Department, according to its Reports, relies upon the method of dropping the plant itself. A great deal of failure heretofore reported with seed may have been due to wrong methods. The following report in this connection was made by the Department: "The information requested by us of our various District Superintendents having been received, it is now possible to reply to your inquiry of June 21st, regarding wild celery. "Generally speaking, our work in connection with wild celery has been restricted involving, for the most part, distribution of plants on a limited scale in the spring of the year, though on occasion distribution of seed in the fall has also been undertaken. District Superintendents who have had experience with both plants and seed express a preference for the plants for the . reason that, from observation, better results are obtained from the setting of plants. "The method of planting which is generally adopted is to enclose the bulbs in clay, weigh them and place in suitable localities in from two to four feet of water, depending on local conditions. Results which have followed our plantings in this manner have been most favourable in practically every section of the Province, though District Superintendent Ward, whose jurisdiction covers the section west of the Algoma District and north of the main transcontinental line of the Canadian National Railways, reports negligible results from the limited plantings undertaken by him. Favourable results have been obtained and observed in the most southerly counties of the Province, and as far north as the shores of Lake Superior." ON THE GAME SITUATION 57 Lake St. Clair Section Mr. R. H. Carscallen, Wallaceburg, makes the following representations of the situation existing in his neighborhood: "We wish to call your attention to a serious situation. Enclosed herewith is a map of Lake St. Clair. We have marked on this map the marshes now leased to private clubs as well as Indian Reservations. The part marked 'A' is the only territory for the hunter, who is not a member of a private club. It is a strip of marsh, about two or three miles in length. We also call your attention to the close proximity of the City of Detroit and the St. Clair Flats, the American shore of which is lined with summer homes and hotels. The best shooting ground on the American side is Anchor Bay. Owing to the fact that the City of Detroit is close by, this ground has become congested, and during the last few years the American hunter has been looking for new fields to conquer. He has succeeded in finding them in the marshes on the Canadian side of Lake St. Clair, with the result that the Canadian hunter is being speedily crowded out. Our shooting grounds are inaccessible by land, and the majority of the invaders come from Detroit and the St. Clair Flats in powerful speed boats. They buy nothing in Canada, but load their boats with supplies of ammunition and other necessities before they leave their homes. They do not therefore come within the classification of tourists. These men plow through the channels in fast boats, regardless of where the flocks of ducks are, and in recent years the game warden has complained bitterly of the chasing of ducks by Americans in speed boats. Owing to the speed of their boats the game warden is powerless to check them, and the ducks are being slaughtered in increasing numbers year by year. In addition, the warden is unable to examine their daily bag, and it is common knowledge that whole boatloads of wild ducks are being taken to the United States every year from these waters. Let us give some instances of their activities. During the past year one wealthy American hunter and several of his friends came to this territory with a speed boat, a houseboat and a great number of small duck boats. They anchored their equipment in a deep, narrow channel, which is frequently used in fishing, and in going from one point to another. So great was the number of these boats that they completely blocked the channel, and it was found necessary to send for the game warden to compel them to remove the boats and allow free passage through the channel. In another case, a hunter from Detroit brought with him a servant whose duty it was to take possession of a choice hunting ground about 3 a.m. every morning, and hold it against all comers until his master arrived. One morning some Canadian hunters arrived on the spot first, and when the hunter appeared he set out his ducks immediately in front of them. It might be mentioned in addition that the decoys were placed beyond the legal limit, and it was found necessary in this instance as well to send for the game warden. These are but two examples of what the Canadian hunter has been forced to contend with." Similar representations were made at our meetings along the Lake Ontario front and as far east as Cornwall on the St. Lawrence. Remedies Suggested The remedies suggested to us can more easily be stated than carried out. A shorter season than three months (Sept. 15th-Dec. 15th) would not be considered fair by sportsmen. At the same time, representative sportsmen in every part of the Province favor shortening the open season in practice by 58 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 forbidding shooting on two days of each week, within these three months, in addition to Sunday prohibition. This would afford the birds some rest from incessant disturbance. Whether restriction of the bag limit would save any ducks is another question. In public shooting grounds the limit cannot be attained. In preserved grounds the limit cannot be enforced. Other proposed remedies are more uncertain than these. Mr. H. S. Osier, Toronto, says: "As the Province must necessarily be divided into two zones, I suggest that the dividing line should be one which leaves to the northern and earlier season those shooting grounds which are substantially above the levels of Lakes Ontario, Erie and St. Clair; and I suggest the main line of the Canadian National, Montreal to Sarnia, as a line which passes through very few shooting grounds and is perhaps less open to objection than any other. As to the zone north of this line, I suggest September 1st as the latest reasonable opening date. This was the opening date for many years, and was reasonably satisfactory. The birds are all fully grown and have begun to collect from the breeding grounds as early as the 15th of August. During the first half of September, however, many birds move to the south with every northerly wind. A later date is always favored by owners of preserves and by those who take a holiday in October to be devoted to duck shooting. But the result is to deprive the young men of the country and the towns and villages of their best chance to get a few duck, which otherwise have gone before the present season opens. The important point in this regard seems to me to be not only the question of a reasonable right to sport, but that it touches the fundamental question of the respect for a law which if unreasonable will not be respected and cannot be enforced. "Speaking of the Rice Lake district, the season is already short enough, if opened on September 1st, as before the end of October in ordinary years the majority of the ducks have already gone south. This year (1932), owing probably to the lack of feed and a north wind, about October 12th most of the ducks left this district about that date. "In considering the question of the length of the season, I suggest that it should be taken into consideration that Sunday shooting is not allowed in Ontario, whereas it is allowed in Quebec, and as I am informed over a considerable part of the United States. It may be almost said that this doubles the length of the season, owing to the greater number of shooters who are able to go out on Sundays. "I suggest that, as a means of preserving duck, this is most unsatisfactory and has been wished on us by propaganda from the United States. I suggest the following considerations with regard to it: "(a) It is unsatisfactory from a sporting point of view, because a duck shooter accepts many unsatisfactory days when he can hardly kill a duck, in the hope of getting one good day. This, of course, is not important if restriction is necessary, but may be mentioned. "(b) It is unenforceable and is not in fact enforced. "(c) To the extent that it is in any way enforced, it leads inevitably to picking out the better class of ducks and to the survival of the least valuable species. "It must be remembered that there are many species of ducks with different habits, some of them leaving for the south much earlier than others, and that in general the ducks do not go away all at one time, but drift continually to the south, although, as the season advances, a cold north wind takes away ON THE GAME SITUATION 59 larger quantities. In my opinion, the only effective way to allow reasonable sport to duck shooters and to preserve and increase the numbers of all varieties of ducks would be to allow shooting only during certain days of the week. This method would have the advantage of enabling an additional closed day to be added if necessary. My suggestion at present would be that shooting should be forbidden on Mondays and Tuesdays, thus leaving the ducks three days of rest in each week. This method would have several advantages. It could be enforced and would be enforced not only by game wardens, but by other duck shooters waiting to shoot during the open part of the week. Further, so far as Canadian sportsmen are concerned, it would tend to delay migration, as birds constantly shot at tend to go south with every north wind, whereas if not disturbed for a day or two they would be less likely to go." Other Suggestions Suggestion received in the Department in November, 1931: "I believe the only way to give the general public a fair opportunity to shoot ducks is to compel all hides to be placed on the shore line or natural rush bed and give no person the opportunity to place hides out in the water; and decoys should not be placed more than 50 yards from the shore line or natural rush bed; and all shooters should occupy a point on the shore line and give every person an even break to obtain good shooting. In my opinion, the feeding of ducks should be absolutely prohibited, and all waters suitable for the feeding of ducks should be planted with wild rice, celery and aquatic foods, the natural feed of the ducks." Suggestion by W. F. Inman, 1075 King St., Westdale, Hamilton, to the Department: ". . . to see that they (American shooters) obey our laws, particularly as to the day's limit in . . . ducks and also as to chasing the ducks and shooting them from fast motor-boats, or chasing the bay or deep water ducks from their feeding or resting grounds, and lastly see to the stopping of their shooting at night when the ducks come into the ponds to feed. "Abolish and prevent all feeding of wild ducks, except on preserves where shooting is prohibited. "The present slaughtering of ducks would be prevented by this and more accomplished in their preservation by enacting such a law than by all the present law provisions together. "The feeding of ducks is now practiced at all of our chief shooting grounds by American sportsmen (?) chiefly, and this is only too well known to other shooters who may not have the dollars to spend thus and so lavishly. "These men not only slaughter the corn or wheat fed ducks but practically monopolize the shooting in that particular locality. "I have had the privilege of shooting for years at St. Clair Flats, Wallace-burg, Rondeau, Long Point, Port Rowan, Big Bay, The Rideau, along the St. Lawrence River, Wolfe Island, and Burlington Bay, so that my experience has not been too limited, and, in exchanging views as to angling and shooting with other sportsmen from many localities such as Hay Bay, Rice Lake, etc., I found these men's experience only confirmed my own observations�all pointed to the conclusions already suggested." 60 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Open Season in United States, 1932 When the season in Ontario for ducks and geese stopped in 1931 on December 15th, it stopped all over the United States as well. The President's Proclamation for one month in 1931 ordered that the month had to be before December 15th in every State except Florida, where the season was one month, not later than December 31st. The conditions that rendered these dates advisable did not continue in 1932, when shooting of ducks and geese in New York and Connecticut was allowed from October 16th to December 15th. In Long Island and New Jersey the season opened in 1932 on November 1st. These new dates across the border are in accordance with amendments to the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. The earliest open season in any State was October 1st, and the latest opening date was November 16th, except Florida, where it was November 20th. In Alaska the season started September 1st. The longer season was made feasible by a general improvement over the drought conditions of the preceding year. In all the nearby States to the Canadian Provinces, south and west of Ontario, the ducks, geese, brant and coot dates were from October 1st to November 30th, that is, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada. The daily bag limit in all these States is 15 on ducks for all species, of which number not more than five may be eider ducks, and not more than 10 of each, or in the aggregate, may be canvas-backs, redheads, greater or lesser scaups, ringnecks, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, cinnamon teal, gadwells or shovellers. This additional protection has been given to these species, the Biological Survey Chief explained, because they did not recover from the effects of the drought on their breeding grounds to the same degree as other species. Mallards, black ducks, geese, brant, and some other species were not so seriously affected, because the greater part of their breeding grounds in the United States and Canada are not so closely limited to the region most affected by the drought. The United States make a possession limit on all species of ducks and geese double the daily bag limit. The ruddy and buffle head ducks are protected continuously. Their protection was made necessary by a serious diminution in their numbers. Duck Disease and Water Pollution No special study has been made in Ontario of the problem of duck disease Occasion for it has never been pressed. Witnesses before this Committee, in a general way, have observed some poisonous effects of pollution in waterfowl. All attribute the poison origin to industrial waste collecting around river mouths, in lakes, marshes, flats, and to stagnation in artificial ponds of gun clubs. One of the conclusions of Dr. Hofmaier in his report on botulism is that poisonous conditions produced by modern uses of natural flowing waters are not so marked after the month of October. The general theory of these conditions is alkali poisoning. Diseased birds in passing to northern breeding grounds are said to recover from the effects of absorbed poison. But in the south-western feeding grounds under the influence of hot temperature, loss is heavy. Research concerning duck disease and suggestions for its control should interest the owners of ponds and marshes, to the end of keeping all water clean where ducks are lured. ON THE GAME SITUATION 61 Various Club Requests A variety of problems concerning ducks and geese brought to the attention of the Committee may be mentioned. Col. R. Emmerton, District Superintendent, London, mentioned a rapid increase in recent years of undertakings to domesticate wild ducks. He says this is going on in practically all the marsh areas, particularly along the shores of Lake St. Clair, where many farmers now keep flocks of domesticated wild ducks. It is not a difficult undertaking. In the Miner Sanctuary, during the last three or four winters, ducks as well as geese stay on because they are fed. The only condition to make the friendly geese go would be the freezing over of Lake Erie. The lake in January will hold thousands of geese that come for feed as regularly as boarders at the Miner Sanctuary. The Department has been trying to control the handling of domesticated wild ducks, but its officers find many of them offered for sale on the markets. Bruce Bradley, Paincourt, controls a marsh of 1,300 acres which, until three years ago, was all farm land, but is now enclosed. By pumping water on the land an artificial marsh is maintained, about three feet above the level of the Thames River and Lake St. Clair. No matter how dry the season, mother ducks can hatch out and care for their young. In 1931 they hatched out about 4,000 wild ducks. Non-resident duck hunters pay the Club $200 annual dues for duck shooting only. Mr. Bradley submits that because a duck hunter is permitted to kill 150 ducks in the season the non-resident should not be limited to exporting only 100 (Sec. 34). He asks that the non-resident be permitted to export 150. Mr. G. T. Clarkson asks permission in the Act for members of hunting clubs maintaining inviolate a bird sanctuary satisfactory to the Department, on club property, owned or leased by them, to take 25 ducks in the aggregate in one day of all species, but not to exceed the present limit of 150 for the one season. Geese The big Canada Goose, "the" wild goose, most intelligent of migratory birds, knows its human enemies, and, on even terms, takes care of itself. It Canada geese sojourning in Jack Miner's Sanctuary. These birds call at one sanctuary after another. One carried Jack Miner's tag fourteen years before being shot. 62 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Jack Miner liberates a tagged Canada goose. >* - * � Where Jack Miner catches the Canada geese, tags them, and studies their migration routes. ON THE GAME SITUATION 63 is most dutiful of all birds, as mate and parent, and holds the deep respect of true sportsmen. Its existence, habits and flights have been made familiar to Canadians by Jack Miner. The geese stay the winter through in increasing numbers in the Miner Sanctuary, always seeking the open lake for night security. The live decoys and baited waters of shooting clubs in Ontario and the United States defeat the vigilance of the Canada Goose, Snow Goose and Blue Goose. Still, the Miner Sanctuary records show the migration of all species not less heavy; and the reports of the Louisiana Department of Conservation back up this evidence. The visitation of the three varieties to those southern marshes continues wonderfully abundant. In the South the Canada Goose is sometimes called the "French Goose," possibly by the same association of ideas. How it came to give special distinction to Canada is not known. The biggest flights are straight between Labrador and the southern wintering marshes. We present a picture of a line-up of automobiles in front of the Miner Sanctuary. The crowds that come to see the birds in the migration periods are about as numerous on average days as the honkers. Jack Miner has grown accustomed to ask: "How many would come to my place to see twice the number of dead geese?" Swans on the Niagara River No other aspect of migratory life on this Continent is more interesting than the flight of the swans between the south and the Arctic, unless perhaps it be the long swim of the seal herds of the Pribilofs. Swans in great number, like geese and ducks, take their route over the narrow section of the international waterway, and each migration witnesses the destruction of numbers of them, when, seeking rest on the flowing current of the Niagara River, they go over the great cataract, perhaps in weariness or inability to rise from the water in the brief consciousness of danger. The Governments of the United States and Canada maintain staffs of observers of the migratory birds of the Continent. On each side of the Niagara River during the spring and fall migrations it might be practical to keep a few guards to rouse, with blank gun fire, swans coming to rest in the dangerous parts of the river. From the humane point of view some action has long been demanded. Many of the swans, incredible though it may appear, are not killed outright in the river gorge, but float below, broken and maimed. Their capture is prohibited, and this on the whole is wise. Special permission to take and retain some badly injured birds was extended by the Canadian authorities to Jack Miner. The appearance of these restored specimens at the Miner Sanctuary must move thousands of people every year to consideration of some effective means of curtailing the disasters incidental to the swan flights.* *"As long as there have been any records, there have been swans and ducks going over Niagara Falls during spring months. "The present system, no matter under whose management it comes, has proved a failure in stopping this condition from occurring, whereas all that is required to prevent its happening is to have the Provincial Police, Game Wardens, or Mounted Police discharge firearms or use any other means that will frighten the swans and ducks out of the river above the Falls. ''Should any birds alight in the river after dark and go over the Falls, it would be better, rather than let them die a starving, lingering death, to have them rescued and expressed to a place where they will receive attention, and to have the dead specimens, if any, given over to the public museums or to the schools."�Jack Miner. 64_______________REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE___________No. 32 UPLAND GAME Pheasants The Department in recent years has been much concerned in distribution of ring-necked pheasants. The work done, in our opinion, has proved that suitable pheasant districts in Ontario are limited. Hope that the birds can be successfully stocked in all parts of the Province is not entertained. In Eastern Ontario many efforts have been made; but we learn that few or none have been productive. In Algoma and Thunder Bay the pheasant was introduced fifteen years ago; but the members of local game conservation clubs acknowledge failure. The pheasant is not a bud-eating bird. The most suitable areas of the Province for pheasant raising are in the Niagara and Lake Erie peninsulas. Conclusions must continue to be based more upon results of releases than comparisons of conditions seen at Mount Pleasant and Codrington farms. The practice at both farms is to use the domestic hen for hatching and brooding. Some disappointment was expressed at these farms that the Department had not definitely adopted the mechanical method of rearing pheasants. We made investigation concerning desirability for a change to incubators and brooders, and found that results elsewhere would not justify such a change in view of widespread failure of modern poultry practice with pheasant eggs for causes that require investigation. The old method is slow and limited for the labor demanded. The cover crops both at the Codrington and Mount Pleasant farms are carefully chosen. At our instance the spittle beetle formed on ordinary cover crops has been made the subject of scientific investigation. The value of individual experiments in pheasant raising cannot be discounted. For this reason we agree that permission should be granted by the Department to raise English ring-necked pheasants by persons prepared to undertake the work, for commercial purposes. We agree that the pheasants reared at the game farms should be distributed on the recommendation of the District Superintendents, who are in the best position to allot the birds for the most suitable release, looking both to the need for breeding stock and the cover available. The Department cannot possibly supply all the requests that are made. The ring-necked pheasant will never become a wild game bird in large areas of this Province. We learn that it has failed in Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maine, Vermont. Even in Louisiana, where advanced conservation is in evidence, the "ring neck" has not succeeded. There is little reason, however, to fear that the raising of this exotic game bird in Ontario, or anywhere else, is in the way of declining. The pheasant was transplanted from beyond the Black Sea into Europe in the time of Alexander the Great, and pheasant raising there has never been neglected since. Pheasant breeding in America has been most successful in private preserves. The Oregon pheasantries have stocked many areas of North America. Lincoln County has furnished a notable example of success in this Province. But intensive shooting has been telling recently upon the stock, to such a degree that local sportsmen able to observe pheasant propagation closely, fear depletion of the supply and advocate a close season for a few years. Ruffed Grouse It will be seen from the presentation of votes taken at our meetings that opinion among sportsmen turned overwhelmingly in the past year or longer in favor of a short open season for ruffed grouse (partridge) in 1932. We made ON THE GAME SITUATION 65 a timely recommendation to this effect to the Department and the Minister, which was acted upon. These native birds have, within the memory of sportsmen, undergone periodic attacks of some undiscovered, or little understood, parasite.* In cycles the birds become very scarce, and it has been a wise precaution to declare a close season to prevent their disappearance. It has been suggested to us in several sections of the country that disease associations may obtain between the rabbit and the ruffed grouse. No dependable observations have, however, been produced to us by hunters and rangers who make the suggestion.! It has been suggested sometimes that the long disturbance of a hunting season may account to some extent for the disappearance of the birds from the Ontario bush. That they perish in severe seasons is quite certain.^ Mr. Andrew Grant (Daventry) says: "Partridges are plentiful this year (1932). As with the deer, they require the evergreen shelter to let them bury themselves in the snow without being frozen. They are not strong enough to break through if frozen in. I have found several under the crust while snow-shoeing through the bush in the spring. A lot of them were dead in their holes in the snow in the spring of 1924 and also in 1925. When a storm hits them they light on the snow, which soon covers them up. They come out after the storm clears. In a big snowstorm, lasting three days, in 1924, spring, followed by heavy rain and freezing conditions, the crust formed nearly an inch in thickness. In the morning after the freeze-up I could walk with snowshoes in open places till 10.30 a.m. I am no lightweight, being around 196 lbs. What chance had a partridge to break that crust? It is common walking through valleys and old main roads in the bush, to see the partridge flying up out of the snow after a storm." The following letter was received from Professor Dymond, Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology: "I have your letter of August 17th with reference to the advisability of permitting an open season on grouse this fall. I have made no first-hand study of the grouse situation and so hesitate to offer an opinion on this point. I would suggest that you communicate with Dr. A. D. Gross, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, who has been conducting an investigation of the ruffed grouse for a number of years past, under the auspices of the New England Ruffed Grouse Association, 77 Mt. Vernon St., Boston. *"There is another phenomenon as characteristic of the northern sections of the globe as the migration of birds. This is the periodic fluctuations in the numbers of resident animals. The ten-year rabbit cycle of Canada is universally familiar. It occurs also in the case of numerous other mammals and of many resident birds. The animals concerned slowly increase in numbers till they reach a maximum. This may involve actual crowding and keen competition for food as in rabbits, or it may not, as in the fisher and marten: Then, suddenly, there comes an epidemic of diseases, resulting in almost complete extermination. Again, there comes a slow recovery, the attainment of a peak, another break, and so on. Thus, in the thirty years that Alberta has been a province and has had game laws, there has been a closed season on grouse in the years 1907, 1917, 1927 and 1928. The closed seasons have followed on the heels of years of maxima. The same years have seen minima of rabbits and many other mammals, The cycles, in fact, with a few exceptions, are synchronous. They appear to bear no direct relation to precipitation; the periodicity does not agree with that of the sunspot changes; yet the fact that many species unrelated and of dissimilar feeding habits, subject to a variety of diseases, come and go together' indicates some fundamental underlying influences."�William Rowan, Department of Zoology* University of Alberta, "The Riddle of Migration," Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins Company, 1931' f"Ten years have passed since the last decline. I would not be surprised if the cycle were closer to fourteen years. In 1898-90 partridges were very numerous. In 1902-06 they were very scarce, practically no hunting. The years 1918-22 marked another increase to peak. In the present year (1932) they are. again very plentiful."�F. E. Hollingsworth. ^'Pennsylvania has been putting these birds out for ten years, and took a census last winter. They counted fewer than were planted."�F. E. Hollingsworth. 66 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 "In conversation with Dr. Gross at Matamek he expressed the wish that work of a similar nature to his could be done in Ontario. He has received some material from Ontario, but he is not in a position to handle enough to secure any adequate data on the Ontario situation. If your Committee could secure financial support for a student who could undertake such a study in Ontario in co-operation with Dr. Gross, I am sure it would be very much worth while, and especially during the next few years, while grouse are increasing and when in all probability they will again disappear. In fact, research on all game birds and animals is urgently needed to furnish facts as a basis for intelligent action in their conservation and management. I feel that it would be a great advance towards solving our game problems if, during the next few years, we could have a series of researches instituted on a number of game animals similar to work now being carried on in the United States on quail, ruffed grouse, Hungarian partridge, etc." We were unable to get help from Dr. Gross. The recommendation made, after patient enquiry, was of a two-week open season, one week preceding and one week within the deer hunting season. This should cause the least disturbance of the birds and allow the maximum number of town hunters who could not take more than a few birds to get an opportunity for their sport. As a further precaution, the bag limit was cut. Vote on Open Season for Partridge, 1932 For Against North Bay Timmins Richard's Landing Sturgeon Falls Cochrane Thessalon Pembroke Kapuskasing Blind River Arnprior Fort Frances (1932, 1933) Smith's Falls Schreiber Ottawa Chapleau Cornwall Sault Ste. Marie Practically all meetings favored a Gananoque Wilberforce bag limit of 10 to 15 Kingston Gravenhurst Napanee Peterborough Belleville Owen Sound Marmora Wiarton Kitchener Gore Bay New Liskeard Raising Birds in Captivity The question has been brought up of granting permission to private individuals to raise ruffed grouse in captivity for commercial purposes. As far as the Committee can see, the difference between granting permission to raise ruffed grouse, and to raise ring-necked pheasants, in captivity, is that the ruffed grouse being a native bird, it would be impossible for Departmental officers to tell what game was raised in captivity and what was illegally-taken and wild. The following request has for a long time been held in suspense by the Department: Parry Sound, Ont., March 5th, 1932. The Game Commission, Toronto. Gentlemen: I have with you in file a request to be permitted to breed or attempt to breed ruffed grouse in captivity. I am asking you to give this matter some re-consideration, as it seems to me that the game breeder is one sure source of supply and a means of importance to assist a very hard-pressed bird, and would say include quail. ON THE GAME SITUATION 67 I wish I had had with me one of your Commission on a recent trip to Pennsylvania and N. Carolina to see what is being done. Quail is bred in back yards like domestic fowls and as easily. I was in over twenty places where trials were being run by breeders on partridges, assisted by the State, and it is expected they will soon succeed with this bird as has been done with quail. Is this depletion or increase? Again, do I get a permit to experiment with grouse? Sincerely, W. O. Burgess. Hungarian Partridge Up to a certain point this species has been providing more consistently encouraging results than ring-necked pheasants. The point is reached at which they take wing. They are not to be held and are hard to check. Their hatching and rearing meets a fair measure of success. At Normandale the Committee saw many reasons for encouragement. There is as yet admittedly much to learn about their propagation. Therefore the work of the Department remains essentially in the experimental stage. Misunderstandings are apt, accordingly, to arise between game protective associations about the provision of their requests for birds. The Committee has been satisfied that for the next half dozen years distribution will continue to fall short of demands upon the Department, which has not itself been more fortunate than other Provinces and States in securing desired supplies. So that until more extensive experiments after release can be checked up�and that is not at all a certain business� it may be too soon to say with certainty that the species should find a place for themselves everywhere in Ontario. In Algoma the Committee was told it is rather soon to make a definite statement about the adaptability of the Hun. Some observers there do not concede that it is a bud-eating bird. In Eastern Ontario the Committee was generally assured that the birds from local releases have spread with good success. As in the case of ring-necked pheasants the recommendation of District Superintendents should decide all local applications for plantings. The results of these plantings, as far as they can be ascertained, should appear in the Departmental reports for general public information. The Wild Turkey In 1904 the Chief Game Warden reported his belief that there -could not then be found in Ontario a single specimen of wild turkey in its natural state. He was probably correct. Wild turkey have not since been reported. The records show that they persisted in this Province for some years after they had vanished from many of the nearby States. The last wild turkey was seen in Minnesota in 1871; South Wisconsin, 1872; in the lower peninsula of Michigan, 1886; South Indiana, 1900; and in Ohio, 1903. The same causes of their extermination, no doubt, operated in Ontario as in these Northern States. In every section of North America, where the wild turkey was originally found, it has constantly been in retreat before the white man. It is waging a losing fight wherever it exists at the present time in the original range. We learn that attempts are being made in different places to breed good wild stock and turn the young out in the depleted covers. The results are not wholly satisfactory. Unless some such attempts succeed the noblest of North American wild game birds must become extinct. Bob White Quail Mr. Burgess is to be encouraged in his efforts to breed quail in captivity. Itcan be done in Ontario as well as in North Carolina. Jack Miner has done it at Kingsville, where the bob white can be seen in his back yard. He has 68 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Family of bob-white quail, 22 from a setting of 23 eggs, raised in Jack Miner's back yard at The Jack Miner Bird Sanctuary. Bob-white quail can be raised in captivity in Canada. not done it for commercial purposes. He has hopes, on the contrary, of augmenting the thin coveys that persist in a few fence corners of Essex by creating a sanctuary connected with his farm, supplied with suitable cover, and ultimately giving the community the benefit of the overflow from it. It is not impossible to bring the quail back in some southern covers, with full protection and by such means. How far the proposal to breed in captivity for commercial purposes might in course of some years clash with the purpose of restoring the quail to wild cover is a matter of consideration. At the present time there is not much prospect of wild quail being marketed in Ontario disguised as quail raised in captivity. Ultimately the quail may again find a home in the well-watered soil of different counties of Old Ontario, where grasses are abundant and seeds, berries and small fruits plentiful enough for its needs. It is an amazingly competent weed seed destroyer, favoring insects by way of variety. It was the cheeriest bird the early settler knew; and, because it was also a sporty game bird, the shooter was not content with a few birds from a single covey. The Mourning Dove This beautiful bird, almost as large as the quail and surprisingly graceful in the air, is not specifically mentioned among the wild species, molestation of which is forbidden by law. In the United States more attention is paid to it, and records are kept in the majority of States of the numbers of mourning doves shot. In New York State the bag limit in 1931 was reduced from 25 to 18 per day. Jack Miner, who has a special affection for the mourning dove, did not think its presence was known further north than the south eastern tier of lakeside townships, and he feared for its continuance. The mourning dove comes foremost among the farmer's friends that co-operate with him out of the circumambient air. Jack Miner says a single bird eats twenty thousand ON THE GAME SITUATION 69 weed seeds in a day, and does not incur by its habits the smallest injury to crops. Members of this Committee visiting the western areas of the Province saw a considerable number of these birds up in the Bruce Peninsula, and heard that they are well known throughout Algoma. It is therefore certain that the mourning dove may spread throughout the whole of Ontario. This Committee would recommend that its beauty and its usefulness be particularly brought to the attention of farmers and bird societies, and that it be mentioned in the game law with quail as a bird that shall not be destroyed or hunted. Interest in Native Birds No other field covered by our enquiry has presented stronger proof of the public interest than that which promises to make the well settled sections of the Province attractive to native birds. Sportsmen strive to arouse interest in the restoration of the feathered game, once so plentiful. Meetings in such central cities as London called for co-operation to this purpose between farmers and game protective associations. Observations by many informants support the belief that conditions in extensive sections of Ontario are as suitable for prairie chickens as those that obtain in Manitoba. These birds have been seen in north-western areas, and the opinion is entertained that more of them are moving east. During our northern visit we saw the bird at Hearst and heard of his presence at Kapus-kasing.* The prairie chicken was one of the native birds protected by the earliest game laws of Upper Canada. The prairie chicken, the quail, the mourning dove, the ruffed grouse, from the sportsman's or the farmer's point of view, are not less attractive than the pheasant and Hungarian partridge. With regard to them, we may well apply the axiom of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists: "Any action is desirable that will emphasize the dangers of indiscriminate importation and minimize the chance of catastrophe to Ontario wild life.,> *"Prairie chickens are increasing here the last few years, many large flocks being reported as capable of protecting themselves on the wing."�F. E. Hollingsworth. 70 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 INDIANS Treaty Position Before any programme looking towards effective preservation and management of the valuable fauna of the Province can be carried out, the treaty position of the Indian must first be faced. It is too late to ask whether the Indian is by nature improvident, or whether the competition of the white trapper has rendered him less provident than he might show himself if sole claimant of the food supply from forest and stream. As long as his habits have been noted, in periods when animal life was quite abundant, it was his custom to waste most of his immediate food and then come to the missionary for a share of that part which shortly before he had freely presented, and which the missionary had cured and laid by. The earliest laws of the white man were framed to check the propensity in him to live from hand to mouth without giving much apparent thought to the vital habits of beasts, birds and fish. His status as a ward of the white man's government is established. Some legal aspects of his status under government impede the Provincial authority in carrying out the game laws, in regard particularly to the big game and fur bearers of the northern and western areas. The Department of Indian Affairs at Ottawa acts as guardian of Indian rights in the process of the country's occupation and settlement. As between the Federal and Provincial authorities there has always subsisted a balanced appreciation alike of the treaty obligation and of the factual situation. The problem has been presented to the courts, but has never come to a decision. The Department of Indian Affairs, having arrived at a mutually satisfactory settlement with the Province of Quebec, by which trapping is left to the Indians alone in the northern region of the neighboring Province, proposed to this Committee and to the Department similar exclusion of white trappers from Northern Ontario. The views of the Department of Indian Affairs with regard to the desirability of making Northern Ontario a game preserve in which Indians only would be allowed to hunt and trap are explained in the following statement by Mr. T. R. L. Maclnnes (June 10th, 1932), and were fully set forth at meetings of the Committee with representatives of the Federal Department in 1931. {See Verbatim Report, Appendix No. 3.) "Formerly that part of Ontario lying north of the main line of the Canadian National Transcontinental Railway was not frequented to any extent by white trappers, and hunting and trapping was, therefore, restricted practically to Indians. During the past five or six years, however, white trappers have been entering upon Indian hunting grounds in increasing numbers, with the result that a serious situation has developed, both with respect to the economic welfare of the hunting Indians and the conservation of wild life. In view of these developments, representatives of this department at a Conference of Dominion and Provincial Game Officials in 1928, urged that action be taken by the various provinces to set aside adequate hunting preserves for the exclusive use of Indians. As you are aware, this policy has been followed by the Dominion Government in the Northwest Territories. As a result of the discussion that occurred at the Conference, a resolution was passed unanimously approving the principle. Following this, the Province of Quebec in the same year, 1928, set aside Great Lake Victoria and Abitibi Preserves for the exclusive use of Indians. No action, however, has as yet been taken by the Province of Ontario. "In 1931, however, the Province of Ontario appointed a Special Game Committee, membership of which was composed chiefly of the members of the Legislature under the chairmanship of the Hon. W. D. Black. This Committee travelled throughout the Province and investigated all questions pertaining to hunting and fishing. Representatives of the department gave evidence before the Committee at Toronto and at various other points during their investigation and advocated the exclusion of white trappers entirely from Northern Ontario. The report of this Committee is not yet available, but it is hoped that it will contain recommendations favourable to our contention. "The arguments advanced by the department in support of this policy, briefly, are as follows: "First, from the Dominion viewpoint which is concerned with the welfare of the Indians ON THE GAME SITUATION 71 as wards; hunting and trapping are the aboriginal vocations of the Indians, and as there are no other gainful employments available for the Indians in the Northern districts, it is necessary that they should be protected in their pursuits of hunting and trapping, if they are to be saved from indigency. "From the viewpoint of the Province, which is concerned with wild life conservation, there are strong arguments to show that the exclusion of white trappers is a desirable, in fact, a necessary measure. The Northern parts of Ontario and Quebec comprise the richest remaining area in the Dominion in which fur-bearers have not been exploited to the point of depletion. The supply of fur-bearers is not more than sufficient to provide a livelihood for the Indian hunters and trappers who are now located in these districts. Obviously, therefore, the interests of conservation would suffer by the operations of additional white trappers in any numbers. It is well known, moreover, that the Indians, when undisturbed, conserve the game, as the same families use the same hunting grounds from generation to generation. The white trapper, on the other hand, is usually a fur-miner whose object is to clear out the fur in a given district as rapidly as possible and then move elsewhere. The use of poison is a common practice among white trappers. This is especially so in the case of foreign trappers, particularly Finns, of whom there are a large number. The use of poison, carried on to any extent, means the extinction of the fur-bearers. The Indians scrupulously avoid the use of poison and, indeed, the department has not been able to discover a single case where an Indian trapper has resorted to the use of poison. The itinerant white trapper is often of the most undesirable character. Upon frequent occasions white trappers have driven Indians from hunting grounds by threatening them with guns. In some instances the Indians have retaliated and there have been some cases of fatal shootings. "In the fall of 1931 there were certain developments which have tended to bring the issue to a head. A certain commercial aeroplane company was employed by a Syrian merchant of Kapuskasing for the purpose of taking parties of trappers into Northern Ontario and Quebec. Following this, the department received reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and from missionaries, as well as from our own agents, pointing out that this new factor of the use of the aeroplane had greatly aggravated the situation, as it was now possible to take parties in a few hours to remote points that formerly could only be reached by a journey of several weeks by canoe and portage. Obviously, aviation put to this use would soon clear the fur out of the country. Correspondence was entered into between this department and the Province of Quebec, with the result that that Province, by an Order-in-Council, dated the 15th of January, 1932, excluded white trappers from the greater portion of the northern part of the Province. Copy of this Order-in-Council is enclosed herewith, together with a map showing the boundaries of the new preserve in which Indians only may hunt. It will be noted that the southern boundary of the Indian hunting area in Quebec fits in well with this department's proposal for complementary action with respect to that part of Ontario lying north of the Transcontinental line, as it would continue on in an almost direct route. "The proposal of the department is strongly supported by the Hudson's Bay Company The department is in receipt of a letter dated the 21st ultimo from the office of the Fur Trade Commissioner for the Hudson's Bay Company at Winnipeg, enclosing copy of a letter which the Company had sent to the various provinces on the subject. A copy of this letter is appended hereto. I may add that this action was taken by the Company quite independently and without consultation with the department." T. R. L. MacInnes. From the Hudson's Bay Company: Winnipeg, Man., March 2nd, 1932. Sir:� By a recent order, the Department of Game and Fisheries of the Province of Quebec has set aside the trapping rights of practically the whole of the unsettled area of the Province for the exclusive benefit of the Eskimos and Indians. Trapping by "whites" within that area is totally prohibited. In our opinion, this is one of the most advanced steps yet taken by any Government in Canada for the conservation of fur-bearing animals and for the protection of the native population. Having carefully observed the effects of the various game laws throughout the Dominion, over a long period, we have been forced to the conclusion that they are doing practically nothing towards conserving the fur resources of the country. As everybody in the fur trade knows, the game laws of all the Provinces are being openly flouted every day, to the detriment of the Governments which lose their royalties, the trappers who are "fleeced" on their illegally-caught fur, and the reputable traders who dare not participate in the illegal trade and, as a consequence, get practically no trade at all. The only ones to derive benefit from the game laws are the "bootleg" traders who have come into being as a result of them. In the matter of trapping, it is commonly admitted that the Indians, if left alone, will not exterminate the game, or fur-bearing animals, in their territory. They are not the intensive trappers that the white men are, and, being restricted to small areas, they have every incentive to conserve the resources in them. The white trapper, on the other hand, enters the country with the fixed purpose of taking everything he can out of it, regardless of game laws, or the con- 72 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 sequences of his acts. When he has cleaned up one territory, he moves to another and so the unrestricted slaughter has been going on until today we are faced with huge territories, formerly prolific with wild life, which are now almost barren. The depletion of the wild life of the Provinces is serious enough in itself, but the consequences, insofar as the Indian population is concerned, are much more serious. These people are, for the most part, entirely dependent for their food and livelihood on the animal life of the country and, if that fails them, they must immediately become a charge on the Government. ^ Although the welfare of the Indians may not be a matter which directly concerns the Provinces, it does concern the country as a whole and is one which should be of interest to every Canadian. After very carefully considering the whole situation in Canada today, we are firmly of the opinion that the only hope of conserving the fur bearers of the country is to confine the right of hunting and trapping them in the unsettled areas to the Indians. These are the only pursuits to which these natives are adaptable and it is only just that they should be given whatever protection lies in the power of any Government to grant. The action of the Quebec Government is a decided step in the right direction and we would recommend it to the other Provinces, for their very careful consideration. Among the violators of the game laws, the travelling fur buyer is the greatest source of trouble. He not only evades the law himself, but he incites and makes it possible for others to do the same. As we have already said, the resident trader has an interest to protect and does not usually jeopardize it by breaking the laws. The itinerant fur buyer, however, like the itinerant trapper, has no interest in the country, other than what he can immediately get out of it and is, consequently, most undesirable from every standpoint. In the Northwest Territories, no travelling buyers are allowed to operate. Every person trading in furs must be resident in the Territories and trade only at his licensed place of business. This regulation has been the means of checking many abuses and is one which might be adopted by all the Provinces to advantage. If trading permits were issued only to reliable parties who have been a reasonable time in residence in the province and if such permits prohibited the buying of furs at any place other than the licensed place of business of the holder, the enforcement of the game laws would be a much simpler problem than it is at present. On the 21st March last year, we wrote to you suggesting that, in view of the declines that had taken place in fur values, adjustment should be made by the Provinces in the royalties levied. At that time, the opinions of the various Departments seem to have been that the declines were to be of only a temporary nature, and that a change in the scale was not necessary. The fur market conditions of the past year and the outlook for the future, however, now preclude any hope of an early return to former price levels and we would earnestly urge you to again give this matter your further consideration. These matters are submitted to you in the belief that they are of vital importance to those engaged in the legitimate fur trade of the Provinces and that they are worthy of the very careful consideration of the Departments concerned. If we can assist you further, in any way, in your consideration of them we shall be very happy indeed to do so. Yours faithfully, For the Hudson's Bay Company For Fur Trade Commissioner. Occupied and Unoccupied Territory It was shown by the map supplied that the proposals of the Department of Indian Affairs would extend the line of exclusion of white trappers so far as Quebec is concerned, across Ontario to the Manitoba boundary. Though much of this territory may become settled the greater part of it is destined always to be employed most economically as forest reserve and for attraction of hunters and anglers. The question of constitutional law involved under the so-called Robinson Treaties (1850) vanishes from all "occupied" territory when the Treaty rights cease. That is to say, the proposal contemplates closing all of the territory north of the extended Quebec line from the head of Lake Abitibi to the Manitoba boundary to white settlers for trapping purposes. Indians in Ontario The whole Indian population of Ontario is 26,000, but there would not be 8,000 under the Robinson Treaties. The number of Indians around Port Arthur and Fort William is 1,540. At Sault Ste. Marie there are about 2,500. Dr. Stone is authority for the statement that all these Indians would rather ON THE GAME SITUATION 73 hunt than farm. The Indian is a trapper and each year comes back with a smaller catch. The present low price of furs serves to make his condition more depressed. Remarks made upon the pitiful situation of the Indian in the House of Commons on August 3rd, 1931, when the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs were being discussed may well be quoted. Mr. George B. Nicholson, Algoma, on that occasion, said: "I know some of the conditions of the Indian throughout Northern Ontario, and unless a very definite step is taken in the near future to provide some means of livelihood for the Indian a serious condition will develop. The Indians have virtually been deprived of the means of maintaining themselves by trapping and hunting, because these privileges have been taken away from them by the white trapper. I would Indian Family in Northern Ontario, guardians of game; visit of Special Oame Committee. urge that the Government, in co-operation with the Provincial authorities, try to evolve a scheme by which fur-bearing animals will be preserved for the Indians. I am speaking of that part of the country of which I have some knowledge, and I believe the same condition applies right across Canada." The Fur Industry Canada holds a foremost place among the fur-producing countries of the world. Ontario ranks first of the Provinces and Territories of the Dominion in point of fur production. The same position is held by this Province in the fur goods manufacturing industry. It must be obvious on economic grounds, therefore, that our great reservoir of prized fur-bearing animal life calls for vigilant guardianship, if we are to maintain both the value and high character of manufactured fur goods by a sustained supply of distinctive raw furs from Northern Ontario. The fur trade is the oldest of all our industries and goes back to the earliest exploration of the territory that is now within Provincial 74 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 boundaries. And, in connection with the fur trade of the past, it may be observed that at every step the recurring question of depletion sticks out. Our research of the past two years, much of the evidence we have gathered, and the personal knowledge of several amongst our own membership, do not allow us to agree altogether with the presentation of the Indian's attitude to the fur bearers and to wild life in general set forth in the communications from the Federal Department and the Hudson's Bay Company. Perhaps the most sympathetic evidence that can be cited for the Indian is that of the early missionaries. Le Jeune's Relation, (1636) for instance, told of the abundance of geese and ducks of various kinds, game and fur bearers. He mentioned elks, beavers, boeuf sauvage (name applied alike to the moose and the buffalo), red deer and many other species; and he foretold that the time must come when some species would be protected and even reared in captivity. He saw the chase mainly indulged in by the savages. Wild life had been driven off, in places, and threatened with extermination. The Relation of 1652-3 described a company of Iroquois going to hunt the beaver about Lake Ontario, and mentioned certain regions traversed as "having been hunted bare." Beaver were then, as they are today, the easiest prey of the Indians. Township Boundaries Proposed This Committee is in unanimous agreement, however, with the officers of the Department of Indian Affairs and the Hudson's Bay Company that this long standing question must be settled in fairness to the Indian population of Northern Ontario. At our Sudbury meeting, Mr. H. M. Endleman, who has been a fur-buyer in that district for a number of years, presented the difficulties that beset the white trappers under present conditions. He said: The Trapper, under the present game laws of the Province, buys a general Trapping License which gives him the right to trap any place within the boundaries of the Province, with the exception of owned or leased land. The outcome of this condition has been the cause of many infringements of the so-called "Trapper's Unwritten Laws" in that certain parties jump or trespass on another party's trap line, thereby causing considerable trouble among trappers, along with raising havoc with the animals, as it has caused, in many parts of the Province, the trappers to run race with another in getting the larger catch, thereby practically wiping out the fur-bearing animals in that section. Further, at the present rate of trapping, especially among foreigners, who are using all kinds of illegal methods such as dynamiting, netting, etc., the writer thinks that before many years there will be a scarcity of beaver and other water animals. . . . The following suggestions are made: 1. That no man should be allowed to trap or kill, in any manner, any fur-bearing animal within the boundaries of the Province, unless he is a bona fide resident British Subject. 2. That all applications for Trapping License be made through the District Game Warden. 3. That a trapper applying for a Trapping License must declare his trapping ground, giving the boundaries of same on the map as near as it is possible. This trapping ground should be limited to the equivalent of a township) area. 4. That a trapper, after declaring his trapping ground, will receive from the Province the full right to trap on same during the open season, and that he will not be liable to disturbance from others; further, that the Province will protect his rights by the punishment of trespassing. 5. That a trapper agrees to the understanding that the ground declared by him and allotted to him will be the only trapping ground he may obtain whilst he remains a trapper. My reasons for the above five suggestions are as follows: 1. That a large percentage of the contraventions of the game laws are committed by foreigners whose main object is in getting a large catch, quickly. 2. The District Game Warden and his Overseers are, in most cases, acquainted with practically all the bona fide trappers within their districts and will see that only responsible British Subject residents are allowed licenses. 3-4-5. That the trapper, knowing that the allotted ground is his own trapping ground and that while thereon he is protected by the Province from trespassers, etc., will conserve the fur-bearing animals thereon. It stands to reason that he would not destroy or trap out of season, but would use the ground in the same manner as a farmer his farmland. ON THE GAME SITUATION 75 Settlement Must be Permanent In the opinion of this Committee it should be feasible to entertain at once both the substance of the plan stated by Mr. Endleman, which seems to have general support of residents throughout the district, and the proposal of the Department of Indian Affairs, confining white trappers who are resident British subjects to townships east of Patricia, and set aside the whole of the unoccupied area of Patricia for the exclusive benefit of Indians. In the District of Patricia there are over 4,000 Indians. It would also assist towards better conditions in all trapping grounds if the itinerant fur-buyers were eliminated. Refusal of licenses to non-residents and to residents who are not British subjects is a general demand. The Department must find means to control white trappers who use aeroplanes, are believed to distribute poison, and often carry their furs out of the Province illegally. The adoption of a comprehensive scheme with permanent features of settlement is rendered all the more necessary by the fact which our investigation in the North has proved, that for several years past there has been a serious diminution of fur bearers. The extensive trapping of former years has contributed greatly towards depletion. Fur prices were high, and practices were controlled with little concern about animal life. The question has been presented on several occasions that elimination of the travelling fur-buyer would take competition out of the market. This contingency would to some extent depend upon the character of resident buyers. It would make for stability in the business if the Department took a substantial bond from each fur store in addition to the fee. This would help not only in the direction of stopping illegal fur dealing but would be welcomed by men of substance and standing. Illegal purchases by dealers should incur not only the penalty of forfeit but cancellation of the license. A great deal more discretionary power should reside in the Department. Provisions in Manitoba Law Whatever the result may be of our proposal that the authorities at Toronto and Ottawa confer anew upon the basis of settlement of the Indian difficulty presented in our Report, this Committee feels it incumbent to submit additional recommendations looking to better control of Indian trappers and hunters. The following provisions of the Manitoba Game Law, if applied to Ontario, would meet some at least of the phases of the Indian problem, both in the northern and southern parts of the Province. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful for any Indian to hunt and take game for food for his own use at all seasons of the year on all unoccupied provincial lands and on any other lands to which said Indian may have the right of access. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to enter into any contract or agreement with or employ an Indian to kill or take game, except fur-bearing animals, for such person. (3) It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase from any Indian by any means whatsoever the flesh of any game bird or animal or the pelt of any fur-bearing animal during the close season. Wild Fur Supplies It may be said of Mr. Endleman's plan that it proposes a system of licensed fur farms of township size, under which the licensees for selfish reasons, if no other, would have a protective interest in wild animal life. The diminution of 76 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 the fur animals in recent years has, however, convinced other witnesses who appeared before the Committee that if the fur resources are to continue full protection of them has now become necessary. Mr. C. W. Burns, Sault Ste. Marie, takes the position that trappers' licenses should be dispensed with for five or ten years in Ontario. Trapping areas," and especially game preserves, in his opinion, are almost trapped bare. With a close season of 5 or 10 years for fur bearers these animals would have a chance to multiply. All issuing of trappers' licenses, he urges, encourages illegal trapping of beaver and other fur bearers in and out of season. The manner in which fur-bearing animals have been dealt with in the past has been most injurious to the breeding stocks. For the public benefit as well as for all private business concerned in the trade, there is need of legal protection of the surviving wild supply. If breeding stocks had been protected as they should have been, the Ontario catch of trappers' fur would have held its own more conspicuously in the market. Fur animals propagated in captivity, along with diminution of wild supplies and poor markets, have been changing the trade conditions in Ontario and practically in all fur-producing countries. That the best pelts will always find demand is in no doubt, so that the scope of fur-trapping in the near future is not menaced. This is the strongest reason for protection. Conservation of our wild fur supplies constitutes the best form of aid that can be given to the fur industry of the Province. Other Fur Supplies In between the supply of trappers' fur and the production of furs from animals propagated in captivity, there comes the not inconsiderable quantity trapped on farms. In the opinion of Mr. Burns, farmers living on and cultivating deeded farms should have the right to trap, thereon, only such animals as weasel, mink, skunk, fox and wolves, with a permitted right to sell the pelts of such animals upon proof that they were taken on their own land. Mr. Burns also submits that red fox breeders should be granted the same privilege to sell or dispose of those animals and their pelts as in the case of silver fox breeders, viz., a free permit. The law at present fixes 75c. royalty to be paid by the licensed fur farmer on one red fox pelt if sold or tanned. Ontario came first among the Provinces in 1930-31 season in order of value of raw fur production. The margin over Quebec grows smaller. In the last season Ontario production was $2,188,586. The pelts sold from the fur farms now represent about 25 per cent of the total value. Silver fox occupies first place among the furs produced, muskrat, white fox, mink, red fox, ermine, marten, cross fox, otter, badger, fisher and skunk. There are two methods of propagating fur-bearing animals�in captivity, a pair in a pen; and in semi-captivity, where muskrats or beaver are kept in their natural state in a marsh enclosure. Shooting Licenses on James Bay Representations were made at meetings in the North to the effect that migratory birds in their nesting and rearing time have been disturbed, shot and sent out of the Province in large quantities. The Department in Toronto had no records or data, and the matter was referred for information to the Chairman of the Dominion Lands Board. From him it was learned that all islands in Hudson Bay and James Bay are part of the North-West Territories. Section 4 of the North-West Game Regulations provides for the issue of a resi- ON THE GAME SITUATION 77 dent hunting and trapping license upon payment of a fee of $2.00. The license entitles the holder to hunt and trap game and birds in season in accordance with the provisions of the regulations. In the case of non-residents (all other than British subjects who have resided in the North-West Territories for a period of four years) provision is made for the issue of a license to shoot game birds during the open season upon payment of a fee of $5. Licenses may be obtained from the representative of the R.C.M. Police at Moose Factory. Enforcement of law for the protection of migratory birds must be attended, necessarily, with extreme difficulty in the territory indicated by the Dominion Lands Board. We are of the opinion, accordingly, that the issue of hunting and trapping licenses effective in the coastal waters of James Bay should be especially limited and safeguarded.* Water Pollution Complaints arising from permitted pollution of waterways have been pressed upon the Committee. Stream and lakeside conditions in many areas are harmful to aquatic and bird life, to public health and recreational use. This problem has received a good deal of attention in the Department. Bad conditions have been developing during the past two or three decades, but no general plan to diminish or prevent the danger has yet resulted from investigations made. In the scope of the present investigation and Report it has not been possible to explore questions of municipal sewage disposal and treatment of waste from thousands of private plants. As the problem is viewed by us, it appears probable that improvement may be effected by co-operation. An officer of the Department of Game and Fisheries, or of the Department of Public Health, might be told off to give direction to co-operative purpose between municipal authorities and factory managements. Faced with the need for economy in these times, the Committee must stop short of recommending the creation of a Pollution Control branch of the Fish and Game Department. Burlington Bay furnishes an example of such conditions as have been made the subject of complaint. The Anglers' Association and offshore shooters have long been endeavoring to enlarge their opportunities in and on the waters of the Bay and the Dundas Marsh. The Dundas Marsh has been a game preserve for five years. It does not, however, promise to become a breeding ground for migratory birds. The Department of Game and Fisheries has for years been receiving petitions asking that the abounding carp be cleared out of the Marsh and bass stocked instead. Under present conditions large numbers of farmers and others have the privilege of spearing pike and carp in the spring, thus obtaining food fish from the Marsh when other coarse fish are scarce. Out in Burlington Bay, where the poachers spread their nets for Jumbo herring and what they can get, the water is much polluted. Nets seized by the officers of the Department have been found rotted by the action of acids. Under present conditions, the Marsh is no more than an inviting home for blackbirds, swallows, hawks, cranes and gulls. The active Bird Society and Anglers' Association in Hamilton might well direct their intelligent propaganda to showing the prospective benefits of co-operation. *"James Bay and Hudson Bay are nesting grounds of ducks and geese for Ontario. There is enough territory to hunt on without going upon that great nesting ground. I recommend prohibition of others than permanent residents taking firearms of any description on these tidal waters. It is easier to secure this regulation before hunting clubs are formed or private rights secured."�Jack Miner. 78 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 The danger of contamination of waters in the northern and western country from the wastes of paper plants, pulp operations and mines should receive more careful investigation than this Committee was in a position to give to a problem that applies throughout a far-extending area. Bass Depletion All accounts presented to the Committee disparage restocking of bass, even in suitable waters, by other methods than planting adult fish. Departmental research is gradually getting together a body of satisfactory evidence concerning the number and location of the lakes suitable for bass propagation. Even were such information at hand, it would be utterly impossible to produce an adequate number of fish to satisfy the demand either for adult fish or finger-lings of size for planting. The special difficulties about bass propagation are acknowledged throughout the Continent. It has been asserted that political influence obtains the success of applications for bass in this Province. The fact is that no possible development of its activities could reasonably be expected to satisfy the general demand made upon the Department. The Department of Game and Fisheries appears to be handling this problem as well as present knowledge and facilities can be employed. Our emphatic opinion is that more protection by way of careful regulation of seasons and creel limits must be depended upon in remedying bass depletion. The Department has the co-operation of local organizations in a measure not excelled in any of the neighboring States. This local co-operation has been of striking benefit in controlling destructive species of fish. The Smiths Falls Fish and Game Protective Association in a favorite recreational area has grappled with the menace of noxious fish in Rideau waters. A campaign to clear ling out of the fishing reaches of the district has given promising results. Remarkable indeed are some of the records of weight and stomach capacity of the ling netted. Reports supplied the Committee are printed in the Appendix. One ling weighed 1134 pounds. So voracious are these predators that the stomach of a female fish weighing 634 pounds was found to contain another ling 16 inches long. The Smiths Falls Association has done a double service to the district, in the first place by improving the fishing for summer tourists, and in the second by the free distribution of many thousands of pounds of edible fish. The Committee has been urged by anglers, who have attended the meetings called by the usual form of public notice, to make some sort of effective representation concerning the absence of fishways in dams constructed along streams, of which the Grand River may be taken as a notable example. It has been pointed out to such complainants that Dominion law requires the construction of fish chutes or ladders in all the dams in question. This fact they were, of course, already aware of. What aroused their ire was the complete indifference of whatever authorities are concerned to the fact that the law has been ignored to the prevention of fish ascending and descending the stream, the depletion of fishing, and the denial of anglers' rights on rivers that present many natural advantages for angling. Keen local feeling continues to find expression at Peterborough and other points affected by the Trent water levels, and along the Rideau system. Whatever it may have been in the past, the attitude of canal engineers now, however, is in our opinion quite above criticism. It is their plain desire to be accommodating to the utmost towards local interests, including sport and angling. In canals, logging streams, and rivers upon which dams were constructed years ON THE GAME SITUATION 79 ago, all such local problems vary very much in character and consequence. Sportsmen and anglers are perplexed about getting rid of disused dams in one place, securing fish passes in another, and diminishing various incidental sources of damage to fish and game in many places. There is, or was at one time, advantage accruing from all these industrial activities. Nor is it possible to devise any one remedy over the large area that must be included within the list of our principal watersheds, for difficulties resulting from their neglect, decay or disuse. As we have said already, development of a co-operative attitude is possible, and the Provincial authority may be usefully invoked to bring it into play. It cannot be overlooked also that the development of fish rearing and fish planting has already gone a long way towards meeting local difficulties in streams where trout cannot now pass up and down. It is practical today to plant the fish in any river reach above an objectionable dam. It is an open question, perhaps, whether this is all that is required to suit the spawning habits of trout. But the planting is certainly a feasible recourse. Rod License We have not found a definite and general demand for a rod license. We have met a general opinion, in view of the large Departmental expenditure on rearing and distributing fish, that fishing facilities of the Province should contribute more direct revenue. Careful consideration of license or other means of revenue is recommended to the Minister in Charge of the Department. 80 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 ADMINISTRATION The Game Wardens and Game Laws Administration of game laws demands efficient service on the part of the district Superintendents and Overseers. No other class of law enforcement officers meet more criticism than the game wardens. Because they are few in number, none stand more in need of co-operation, not only from all citizens with whom they come in contact but from the public generally. As a rule, sportsmen do co-operate cordially with the officers of the Game and Fisheries Department. The majority of sportsmen fully appreciate the fact that these officials represent not the sportsmen's interest solely, though they serve it most. There are some, however, inclined to criticize the Department for not employing more wardens, or for having the district Superintendent's territory too large. If knowledge of a lawless act were communicated more frequently to the local Superintendent, an immediate warning to the offender, based on definite knowledge, would prove salutary. Even in unorganized areas there exists public opinion. The man who allows an abuse of the game laws to go unreported disregards this fact. The Committee heard on many occasions the excuse: "Why expect me to inform on a man whose situation is well known to his neighbors and whose punishment would appeal to their sympathy?'' The sportsmen concerned for protection of the game could very well convey to the district Superintendent what the actual condition of the offender is, and the impossibility of paying a fine. The public insists on law in the interests of conservation. The officials paid to protect the game are desirous of hearing all the circumstances of particular cases. More confident co-operation is desirable. It must operate in public education regarding conservation. The need for co-operation and education is pressing. The Committee in this connection would recommend that twice each year an advertisement be inserted in all newspapers throughout the Province, setting forth the benefits of conservation and the necessity for law observance, the harm done by illegal killing of game and fish, and the resultant injury to every citizen of the Province. A district Superintendent mentions the following case: "A cow moose was killed July 6th, 1931, near South River. The animal was seen by a party driving into the town, who talked about it instead of reporting to the game Overseer. In two hours the moose was dead. So close was the Overseer on the heels of the poacher that the animal was left where it had been shot." Newspapers provide the best medium for carrying a better understanding of the game situation to the public. In Pennsylvania and other States interesting monthly official publications have proved beneficial to conservation. Their circulation is necessarily restricted to sportsmen's organizations, to the bodies interested in game and the game laws. The newspapers of the Province cover all the territory, and reach practically all the citizens. Province-wide Gun License The Committee found the great majority of sportsmen in favor of a Province-wide gun license. There was some difference of opinion about the cost of the license. The concensus of opinion, however, supported the present fee in certain counties, viz., $2, although in view of the depression many would prefer to see the license placed at $1. This license should issue only to residents of Ontario over the age of fifteen. At several meetings it was considered ON THE GAME SITUATION 81 necessary to suggest that the money received, from the issue of gun licenses be earmarked for game conservation. In view of present expenditures of the Department of Game and Fisheries, and the general demand for increased protection, there can be no doubt that additional revenue is required for law enforcement. Many of the game protection associations passed resolutions on the subject. 82 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE � No. 32 EDUCATION Place in Public Education No serious public effort to conserve wild life can ignore the place of the teaching of conservation in the schools. We have encountered the belief that in the schools of Ontario this subject is too much neglected. We have been requested in many centres to direct attention to the fact that the natural interest of children in the wild things of the fields and coverts and of the lakes and streams should be taken hold of and encouraged from the junior grades upward. In the United States, consideration is being given to comprehensive plans to the same end. In the Public and Separate Schools of Ontario, provision is made for a compulsory elementary course in nature study. This course includes as a minimum observational study of the life history of a few common insects, and of some common animals and birds, such as the rabbit and the woodpecker; lessons in how animals prepare for winter (migration, hibernation, food�storing); and observation and identification of the common birds as they return in spring, noting their color, song, food, habits; lessons in bird protection. The Committee suggests that these lessons might be made to bear more on the knowledge of the various species of wild animals and birds native to Canada, their importance economically and to tourists and sportsmen, the need for everyone to co-operate in conservation in order that the species may be preserved, the need for game laws and the part that every citizen can play in having these laws observed. Incidentally, the Committee would like to congratulate the Humane Society on the beautiful calendar which they issued last year, containing pictures in colors of some of our most valuable and interesting wild animals in their natural environment. It should help greatly in making the general public more familiar with the fauna of Ontario, and in creating interest in wild life. Every means of helping young and old to understand that the birds belong to all, that they serve the best interests of mankind, and that the living birds, especially the song birds, are as valuable as they are beautiful in form and plumage, must necessarily serve towards the better protection of our feathered friends. ON THE GAME SITUATION s:? FARMERS PROBLEMS Predators and Vermin The gun license would not issue before September. Farmers must control vermin upon their land in summer. Groundhogs make their holes in summer. The only way of controlling them when beside these holes in late spring or early summer is to shoot them. Crows, hawks and owls must be controlled also in summer. A farmer may not himself possess a gun, and should have the right to ask his neighbor's assistance in ridding his farm of pests. Permits might be available to rifle enthusiasts for vermin hunting by groups or clubs in summer, the permission of the land-owner being first obtained. The Committee has received a large number of communications from the farm against protection by any means of hawks and owls. The hawks and owls are chicken thieves, and the crow is a nuisance to the farmer. The Committee are satisfied, one Jack Miner's saw tooth starling trap. At the bottom of each V is a small opening where birds go down in. It is Uncle Jack's invention. and all, that these predatory birds destroy insectivorous birds and song birds, that their number in Ontario is large, and that their destruction should be encouraged. The blackbirds and starlings, by reason of their numbers, are on a special black list.* Wherever the starlings favor plantations in fall evenings as they flock together from the fields, their power of destruction seems incredible Pennsylvania Game News, December, 1931. *The European starling is generally looked upon with disfavour, especially by persons who have known it to appropriate the nesting sites of native species and to inflict damage in orchards and elsewhere. The starling does destroy cherries and other fruits and at times is destructive to garden truck. On the other hand, it is one of the most effective bird enemies of ground-insect pests in the eastern United States, and up to the present time its food habits in this respect have been all that could be desired. The bird is not protected in any of the States where it is abundant. Local control is recommended to meet complaints of damage. Unfortunately, practically no experimental work has been done other than at roosts. The highly insectivorous character of the starling's food during spring and early summer militates against the successful use of poisoned baits at that time. The smaller native species can be protected against the encroachments'of starlings by the provision of nest boxes having entrances of V/i inches or less in diameter. 84 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 to those who have not observed it closely. The Committee witnessed it at the Miner Sanctuary. Guesses were made about the number of birds collected in the stricken plantation. All guesses made were in millions. Jack Miner is hardly less than an inspired genius in the way of inventing traps for destructive animals and birds. So far, the starlings and blackbirds have the better of it on his territory. The inventor of any device for trapping these birds in flocks would deserve public recognition. Rabbits Rabbits, rated because of their numbers, as vermin, in some of the eastern districts, are considered worthy of protection in south-western areas such as Essex County. Where hunters are able to show that conditions call for regional protection of the rabbit, the Department of Game and Fisheries should reserve authority to prohibit hunting with ferrets, other rodents, and contrivances other than shot guns and dogs. In some areas, however, such provision would be considered insufficient by landowners whose farms are frequently trespassed upon. The owner of posted land is often told by the trespasser carrying a shot gun that the notice was not observed. There is even occasion for guarding the farm flock from a type of trespasser whose excuse is rabbit hunting, but who is not a sportsman. Difficulty of this kind does not strictly arise out of game regulation. It is altogether a question of trespass. But the landowner takes the view that it could be obviated by a close season for rabbits, covering the months, of December, January and February. We refer the request to the Department, which we believe might well assume the responsibility, upon the request of the County Council, of declaring a close season for rabbits where trespassers are known deliberately to kill domestic fowl, weed seed eating birds, or to abuse the ordinary privileges of true sportsmen. Shot Guns for Tramp Cats The menace of the cat is known in every city and town. In every section of the Province night prowling cats are the worst of all enemies to beneficial birds, including some game birds. In States across the line the uncontrolled cat is an outlaw, and the demand is spreading that the controlled cat shall be licensed. Breeding colonies of partridge, pheasants, prairie hens, quail, cannot succeed where the cat preys. The domesticity of the cat, apart from its agency in the spread of human disease, is a dangerous fallacy. Away from the house the best of cats deserve no better consideration than the worst. . ON THE GAME SITUATION 85 CLOSED AREAS Wild Life Sanctuaries What may be called a public wish throughout the Province is to have more areas closed to hunting and trapping and designated as wild life sanctuaries, under Provincial law. A single landowner or several'owners in agreement, expressing this desire, appeared at many of our meetings, in counties or districts where such purposes have not already gone forward. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists point out in this connection that they are in agreement with the sportsmen who have repeatedly gone on record favoring the creation of additional sanctuaries as the most effective means of dealing with the present situation, which witnesses a serious reduction in numbers of birds and animals. That public efforts to establish sanctuaries express growing realization of the tremendous value of birds, in the prosperity of the community, goes without saying. There are already designated throughout Ontario the following Crown Game Preserves: Algoma..................�................ Mississauga�White River ".................................. Hiawatha Park "..............................----- Goulais River�Ranger Lake Bruce................................... Hughes Carleton................................. Nopiming " ................................. Gloucester "................................. Shirley Bay Cochrane................................ Abitibi Durham................................. Darlington " ................................. Hope Elgin.................................... Southwold ".................................... Caverly Essex.................................... Anderdon " ..................................... Miner Frontenac................................ Abbey Dawn Glengarry................................ Loch Garry Grey............'........................ Mallard Lake " .................................... Peasemarsh "..................................... Proton " .................................... Wilder Lake Grenville�Carleton�Lanark............... Rideau Halton.................................. Glen Elm " .................................. Woodlands Huron.......................,........... Huron Kenora..........,....................... Falcon Leeds.................................... Newboro (The Bog) Manitoulin............................... Iroquois Middlesex............................... Masonville Muskoka................................ Medora and Wood Nipissing................................ Nipissing Norfolk................................. Silver Lake Northumberland.......................... Cobourg Parry Sound............................. Richmond Peel..................................... Meadowvale "..................................... Peel " ..................................... Township of Toronto Renfrew................................. Conroy Marsh Simcoe.................................. Innisf ree " .................................. Nottawasaga Sudbury................................. Chapleau " ................................. Sudbury " ................................. Township 82 Thunder Bay............................. Chippewa " "............................. Superior 86 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Victoria�Peterborough.................... Superior " " .................... Bobcaygeon Waterloo�Brant......................... Dumfries Wellington............................... Puslinch ............................... Eden Wentworth............................... Dundas Marsh ............................... Glendale York..........:......................... Boyd " .................................... York It has become evident to game conservation associations interested in these sanctuaries that control of vermin therein is a responsibility that cannot be denied if the closed areas are to assist agriculture and increase the joy of naturalists as they should. The outstanding success of the Miner Sanctuary is due largely to the fact that control of destructive creatures within its bounds is maintained as close as possible to 100 per cent. Various plans may be adopted for keeping down the predatory animals and birds. The game conservation association of the county or municipality would be well advised to hold close contacts with the sanctuary and offer suggestions for control. We endorse the recommendations laid before the Department of Game and Fisheries to establish game preserves in the eastern area of the Lake of the Woods, north of Sioux Lookout, and on Eighteen Mile Island in the Sturgeon Falls vicinity, and at Hannah Bay, for the geese that congregate there before flying south. Our carefully considered opinion, however, is that nothing less than a great sanctuary region, taking in all the islands in James Bay and at least equal areas of Ontario and Quebec coastal territory, will be adequate to meet future plans for rigid regulation of hunting and shooting over these nesting grounds of the north. If our children and our children's children are to be ensured the knowledge and enjoyment of bird life which is their birthright and the inheritance of mankind, Canada must lead in conservation. The designation of such a sanctuary would prove to the world that Canada is awake to the call of conservation, and prepared to extend timely protection to a rich heritage of wild life. Firearms in Automobiles There appears to be a widespread practice among automobile tourists and other drivers of cars of carrying .22 rifles, air guns or other arms when travelling through the Province. The gun license for residents, proposed in another paragraph, would provide a safeguard so far as outside cars and trucks may be concerned. Summer tourists could be warned that all vehicles from outside were subject to search at the border, or any point in the Province. The pleasure visitor has no excuse for carrying any description of firearm open and ready for use during the closed season. The practice is not only a menace to wild life, but is an incentive to considerable actual slaughter. The Dominion Government, concerned as it is with the protection of migratory birds, nevertheless advises in holiday literature how guns may be brought legally into Canada. Visitors having summer cottages in lake districts are thus invited to carry small arms in their cars or keep them at their places. The .22 rifle in the hands of a small boy is a danger at all times. A gun license is best calculated to stop the practice. ON THE GAME SITUATION 87 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE Tourist Business Stimulation of tourist traffic is one of the most evident effects of well-directed activities of the Department of Game and Fisheries. Holiday-seekers in the Province may be classified according to their spending capacity. The class that spends most is that coming to hunt and fish. To this class the ocean ports contribute a proportion having an estimated spending capacity of $50 for every $1 left in the country by the average automobile tourist. The nonresident hunter and angler may spend $20 for every automobile tourist dollar, in addition to the license. Resident hunters leave a large sum of money annually in the northern sections of the Province. The follower of sport travels farthest and buys most supplies. Ontario, by reason of its scenic attractions and fine road system, makes strong appeal to automobile tourists from the United States, who more than supply in numbers what they lose in the way of compared expenditure. More of these visitors are making longer stay in districts where fishing is to be had. Wild life in its manifold phases possesses widespread attraction for visitors from abroad. A featured number of the National Geographic Magazine in the spring of 1932 resulted from the interest taken in the migration routes of birds that pass over Ontario. It has been estimated that tourists who spend approximately $200,000,000 in Canada do the larger part of their purchasing in Ontario. Tourist travel between the United States and Canada involves a larger total expenditure than between any other two countries in the world. Over 5,400,000 automobiles visited Canada in 1930. Direction and information of these tourists from the Provincial Bureau would best be attended to in closer connection with the Department of Game and Fisheries. The Tourist and Publicity Bureau should, in our opinion, be associated directly with the Department of Game and Fisheries. From such an alliance greater encouragement of the tourist traffic is likely to proceed. This Committee has received this suggestion in most parts of the Province. All tourist centres endorse it heartily. In France, a central direction for tourist publicity has been considered of such importance that a special Minister of Tourism has been appointed some two years ago. Even more than in France, the tourist trade is one of the great industries of our Province.* A higher ratio of encouragement of our tourist business in general would, we feel convinced, result from close co-operation between the Tourist and Publicity Bureau and the Department of Game and Fisheries, f Status of the Department Increasing costs of conservation and research, the necessity for creating additional revenue, and the possibilities of future developments in pleasure and sport-seeking travel, call attention to the need for a Department that shall possess the power and perform the complete duties of a Department of *A Big Business with Big Dividends. "A grand total of $16,504,365.00 is the value of Pennsylvania's hunting business derived from an annual investment of a little better than $1,000,000."�Ernest E. Harwood, Executive Secretary, Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners. t"Hundreds of wealthy mothers, and principals of girls7 schools, would be glad to take canoe trips and fishing excursions, camping out the same as men. They are not now able to employ women guides. I suggest that through Indian schools and other schools in Northern Ontario, we have a Women's Guide Association. The woman guide would have the same responsibility as the man."�Jack Miner 88 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 the Government of the Province in charge of a Minister with Portfolio. Only slight differences of opinion have been encountered concerning this matter of administration of the resources of the Province, in game and fisheries and recreational resources. Some sportsmen would favor a Commission of Conservation, on the general state plan adopted in the United States, for the reason that these Commissions are everywhere responsible for marked development of the facilities for outdoor recreation. We are of the opinion that the history of the Ontario Game and Fish Commission warns definitely against such a manner of providing for the management and control of this special Department of the natural resources of the Province. In order to advance successfully an adequate programme for the future, the status of the Department of Game and Fisheries cannot be inferior. Under the Chairmanship of Mr. H. S. Osier, who possessed marked ability and fitness, the Ontario Game Commission in 1905 made a report and shaped a policy calculated to provide for the better protection of fish, game and fur-bearing animals. The recommendations contained in the Osier Report were not acted upon, for the reason no doubt that the Government of the time had more concern about other policies. The forward policy of conservation, in order to be handled with adequate determination, must find in the Department itself all the responsibility that one Minister can take on. The new duties will certainly be enough for one Minister to discharge. ON THE GAME SITUATION 89 BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH In Appendix 8 will be found a summary of eight representations made to the Committee by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, through its President and Secretary, who offered the resources of the organization and cordial help. In reference to the representation concerning the place of scientific research in conservation and the role of the biologist in all branches of science pertaining to living things, the Committee desires to recognize the important character of the investigational work being done at the Experimental Fur Farm, which we were pleased to find acknowledged by Major Grant Dunkin, an expert of international reputation, enjoying the confidence of the Medical Research Council of Great Britain. After a visit to Kirkfield in 1931, shortly before the visit of the Special Game Committee, Major Dunkin wrote to Col. J. A. Campbell, Toronto, concerning his observations at the Experimental Fur Farm, and said among other things: ". . .1 have . . . sent in the report of my tour of the United States and Canada, to my Council, and it contains, among other items, a full description of the Kirkfield fur farm. The report is, of course, a private one to my Council, and I am therefore prevented from sending you a copy or even an abstract. . . . I consider Dr. Law to be eminently fitted for the duties he is expected to perform. He is extremely keen on his work and the farm is his hobby. His knowledge of the habits and customs of fur-bearing and other animals of that type is amazing and must be an invaluable asset to him in his present work. The animals I saw all looked perfectly healthy and well cared for, and the living houses and runs were a model of cleanliness and hygienic arrangement. I had much conversation with Dr. Law concerning the various diets which are indicated for the different species of animals under his control, and this is another phase of his work of which he is master. ... "One incident which occurred during my visit pleased me mightily. When examining the nature of the fox sleeping box we found a man working vigorously with a painters lamp, and I was informed on enquiry that this method was regularly adopted in all sleeping quarters. The method is an excellent one for places where the use of liquid disinfectant is difficult or, in these cases, contra-indicated. The man who was making use of the lamp had a first-class knowledge of his duties engendered, I imagine, either as a result of much experience or adequate tuition from his superiors. ... "I would-suggest, with all humility, that there is at the farm itself a host of materials on which valuable work could be done. The grading and classifying of naturally occurring and non-contagious diseases and their treatment. The collection and description of post mortem specimens, and the preparation of permanent histological specimens. The collection of parasites and their classification. Dr. Law himself has been responsible for the detection and naming of many previously unrecorded parasites, and his associate is, I am informed, an able clinician. The information which I suggest it would be possible to obtain at Kirkfield would be invaluable to fox breeders and, of course, to zoos and other similar institutions." The Committee wishes to record every satisfaction with all that was to be seen and learned concerning the biological and fish culture activities of the 90 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Department, the interest created thereby in the subject among the game and fish protective associations, and the co-operation regarding research problems within the Province, afforded by other interested bodies, including the Department of Biology of the University of Toronto and the Ontario Research Laboratory. The Department is to be specially congratulated on the excellence of the trout rearing stations at Sault Ste. Marie and Dorion. ON THE GAME SITUATION 91 RECOMMENDATIONS Law and Regulations Bear�Close season, May 15th-September 15th, inclusive. Bears doing damage on farms (to livestock, bees, etc.) liable to be destroyed at any time without permit by property-owners suffering injury. All pelts subject to provisions of Section 25. Deer and Moose�Present divisions, to which open seasons apply, are approved, with recommendation that islands north and west of the French River shall lie within Division C, unless the desire is declared for shorter season, to the satisfaction of the Department, in which event such islands shall be placed in Division D. Islands in the Georgian Bay south and east of the French River shall lie within Division E. That the following open season shall apply in said Divisions: A: October 1st to November 25th, inclusive. B: October 25th to November 25th, inclusive. C: November 1st to November 25th, inclusive. D: November 10th to November 25th, inclusive. E: November 10th to November 25th, inclusive. In all instances where Regulations referring to the above hunting Divisions mention the main line of any railway passing through the Province, such demarcation shall be taken to include railway right of way. Under no circumstances should deer and moose be shot or pursued in the water, or by means of any conveyance. Practically every part of the Province and all hunters demand this recommendation as essential. One-buck law in all Divisions, with penalty by Departmental Regulation for killing of does and fawns. Coupons attached to deer and moose hunter's license shall be completed and returned to the Department with report of take, and weight of take. Coupon shall set forth penalty for failure to make return, and time limit allowed. Appropriate penalty by Departmental Regulation for concealment of carcass, of deer or moose, in transportation by motor vehicle or conveyance of any description. Caribou�Killing or hunting caribou, or having in possession the carcass of caribou, or any part thereof, shall continue to be unlawful under special penalty. Selection, after thorough investigation, of a permanent caribou sanctuary. Reindeer�Proposal laid before the Committee concerning importation, raising and distribution of reindeer products deals with an industry that is regarded as on private basis. Proposal does not furnish claim for privilege in respect to grazing rights on crown lands. Wolves�Pending adoption of more effective plans for trapping wolves on crown lands, parks and game preserves, the use of poison by permit issued by the Department shall be allowable only in'the hands of experienced and 92 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 responsible persons. No poison except for wolves. Poison is most earnestly objected to by the public. Wolf bounty should be in the amount paid in the adjoining Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. Inter-provincial conferences suggested to fix bounty on the Ontario level. Vermin�By research and co-operation with interested organizations, plans for controlling vermin in sanctuaries should be adopted. Waterfowl Ducks and Geese�No change considered necessary at present in the open season. The last month of shooting is not a menace to wild species usually migrating before the beginning of November. Continuance of restrictions regarding wood and eider duck is necessary. Extensive practice of baiting and use of live decoys, on shooting preserves and public shooting grounds, is condemned. Provincial cooperation is recommended, through the National Parks Branch, in a factfinding investigation of all phases of the practice in the United States and Canada. Prohibition of feeding and of use of live decoys in both countries after adequate investigation is recommended also. Co-operation with Province of Quebec to arrange identical open season in inter-provincial waters. Artificial Feeding�Artificial feeding should not be resorted to on shooting grounds. Plant Food�Planting of rice and celery in lakes and marshes of Ontario, especially in the North, is recommended as the best means of attracting and keeping waterfowl throughout the Province. Permits to raise wild ducks, quail and English ring-necked pheasants in captivity for breeding purposes only is recommended. Birds raised in captivity should carry a metallic band, obtainable only from the Department, attached above one knee. Strict law enforcement is recommended, respecting the use of blinds and decoys, their distance from shore, rush bed or water line, their placing and removal. Upland Game Partridge�A future open season for partridge in the discretion of the Department, as conditions justify. Mourning Doves�This bird should be mentioned with bob-white quail as a species not to be hunted or shot in any part of the Province. Pheasants�Closed season on pheasants in any county, left to the judgment of the Department. Destructive Birds�No protection for birds of prey. Bird Dogs�That it is desirable to prohibit the field training of bird dogs in the months of May, June, July and August. ON THE GAME SITUATION 93 Gun License�A Province-wide gun license, no licenses to issue in the months of May, June, July and August, except for farmers. The gun license to issue only to residents over 15 years of age. Trapping Otter�An open season on otter in the discretion of the Department, having regard to conservation of fish in such parts of the Province, except Algoma, as conditions justify., Muskrats�No traps for muskrats shall be placed prior to the opening of the season. That discretionary power shall reside in the Department to alter the season in certain districts, having regard to climatic considerations. Indians�-That the Department confer with Federal authorities concerning plans suggested in this Report for allowing Indians to trap exclusively over Patricia, all crown land areas south and east of Patricia being treated as "occupied" lands in terms of the Robinson Treaties. As an alternative to a close season on all fur bearers on crown lands other than Patricia, that trapping be regulated in exclusive areas of township size, one area only made available to an individual trapper. That every fur buyer be called upon to furnish a bond to ten times the amount of license fee. On conviction of purchasing illegal furs, that such bond be forfeited, plus fines and costs, and license of convicted party permanently cancelled. Resident fur buyers not to be restricted to a specified territory. Open season November lst-February 28th, inclusive. The request of the Hudson Bay Company (letter, March 2nd, 1932) for readjustment of royalties to present fur values is essentially a question for the Department. A name tag on each trap, deadfall or snare. That traps be visited regularly, at set times. All traps, deadfalls or snares to be lifted or destroyed at end of trapping season. Fine for each snare, deadfall or trap left active. That it be unlawful by contract, agreement or purchase of any kind to obtain from any Indian, game, the flesh of game, or the pelts of fur-bearing animals during the close season. Educational�That advertisements be inserted once each year in every newspaper of the Province, calling public attention to the conservation of wild life. That the Department of Education enforce the study in the Public and Separate Schools of wild life conservation, and that the courses in nature study deal with this aspect of the problem. The part that boys especially play in the guardianship of wild life is particularly important and requires emphasis. Administration�To afford conservation a chance in Ontario: (1) That the Department of Game and Fisheries be brought under a separate member of the Cabinet, with portfolio; (2) That the Tourist and Publicity Bureau be allocated to the Department of Game and Fisheries; (3) That the Game and Fisheries Act be codified, and extricated from misunderstanding; (4) That power be reserved to the Department to regulate regionally as the condition of game or fish in any district may demand, restriction, open season or lengthening or shortening trapping seasons. 94 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Enforcement�That more part-time wardens be employed on the advice of District Superintendents, and in the discretion of the Department, between the dates of October 25th and December 25th. That enforcement officers of the Department of Game and Fisheries have the right to enter upon and search without warrant the premises of hunting camps, lumber camps, mining camps and automobiles. That all places of business selling ammunition be required to keep sales records, including .22 shells and shot shells, and to produce these records to the officers of the Department. That the uniformed enforcement officers of the Department of Game and Fisheries should, by co-operative agreement with the Department of Lands and Forests, have the right to patrol park boundaries and penetrate into the park in performance of law enforcement duties. Guides�To provide by Departmental Regulation: (a) standard of qualifications for guides; (b) specification of work in which employment of guides shall be compulsory. Qualifications shall recognize age, residence in Ontario, experience in the territory where they are engaged, first aid. Collusion with outfitters should be guarded against. Crown Game Preserves�Increase of penalty for violations of Crown Game Preserves, and imprisonment for repeating offenders. Where application has been made for any sanctuary, the Department should examine ground, cover, water and other features of area involved before designating same. Establishment of game preserves in the eastern area of the Lake of the Woods, north of Sioux Lookout, and on Eighteen Mile Island in the Sturgeon Falls vicinity, and at Hannah Bay, for the geese that congregate there before flying south. General�Co-operation with the adjoining Province of Quebec in regard (a) to prohibiting sale of wild duck and partridge in the open market; (b) more uniformity in the game laws of the two Provinces; (c) definite marking of inter-Provincial boundary upon waters of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers. That the Department submit a case to the proper authority, showing in the light of existing conditions the danger to conservation of waterfowl consequent upon the leasing of Indian lands for shooting purposes; also that privileges of this kind already permitted should be checked over and restricted by every feasible means. (Signed) W. D. Black, M.P.P., (Chairman) T. P. Lancaster, M.P.P. Coulter McLean, M.P.P. Frank Spence, M.P.P. A. Z. Aubin, M.P.P. William Newman, M.P.P. D. J. Taylor, M.P.P. Jack Miner F. E. Hollingsworth P. F. Cronin, Secretary ON THE GAME SITUATION 95 APPENDIX 1 LIST OF MEETINGS HELD BY THE SPECIAL GAME COMMITTEE Parry Sound Dunchurch Ahmic Harbor Magnetawan McKellar Sundridge Powassan Sputh River Earnstein Bracebridge Huntsville Gravenhurst Lindsay Haliburton Wilberforce Fenelon Falls Sault Ste. Marie Richard's Landing Thessalon Blind River Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances Minaki Sioux Lookout Kapuskasing Cochrane Timmins New Liskeard Kingsville Leamington Windsor London Hamilton Kitchener Guelph Sudbury North Bay Sturgeon Falls Mattawa Pembroke Renfrew Arnprior Perth Smith's Falls Ottawa Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Gananoque Kingston Napanee Belleville Marmora Peterborough Owen Sound Wiarton Gore Bay APPENDIX 2 RECAPITULATION OF VOTES TAKEN AT MEETINGS OF SPECIAL GAME COMMITTEE 1. Deer (a) Proposal of Close Season FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE Parry Sound Haliburton Sundridge Huntsville Dunchurch Fenelon Falls Powassan Ahmic Harbor Thessalon South River Magnetawan Blind River Bracebridge McKellar Ottawa Lindsay Earnstein (for county) Sault Ste. Marie Gravenhurst Owen Sound Richard's Landing Wilberforce (for counties) Chapleau Wiarton Schreiber (for county) Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances Minaki Sioux Lookout Kapuskasing Cochrane 96 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 FOR AGAINST NO VOTE Timmins New Liskeard Kingsville Leamington Windsor London Hamilton Kitchener Guelph Sudbury North Bay Sturgeon Falls Mattawa Pembroke Renfrew Arnprior Perth Smith's Falls Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Gananoque Kingston Napanee Belleville Marmora Peterborough Gore Bay (b) The Running of Dogs TIE FOR AGAINST NO VOTE Haliburton Dunchurch Richard's Landing Thessalon Blind River Windsor London Hamilton Kitchener TIE Parry Sound Ahmic Harbor Magnetawan (but general opposition) McKellar Sundridge Powassan South River Earnstein Bracebridge Lindsay Wilberforce Sault Ste. Marie Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances (but general opposition) Minaki Sioux Lookout North Bay voted that dogs be prohibited or permitted all over the Province, not by sections ON THE GAME SITUATION 97 FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE Kapuskasing Cochrane Timmins New Liskeard Kingsville Leamington Guelph Sudbury Sturgeon Falls Mattawa Pembroke Renfrew Arnprior Perth Ottawa Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Gananoque Kingston Napanee Belleville Marmora Peterborough Owen Sound Wiarton Gore Bay Smith's Falls (c) Proposal for One-Buck Law FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE Bracebridge Richard's Landing Parry Sound Haliburton Thessalon Dunchurch Ottawa Blind River Ahmic Harbor New Liskeard Magnetawan Sudbury McKellar Mattawa Sundridge Marmora Powassan Wiarton South River Earnstein Huntsville Gravenhurst Lindsay Wilberforce Fenelon Falls Sault Ste. Marie Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora 98 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE Fort Frances (but general opposition) Minaki Sioux Lookout Kapuskasing Cochrane Timmins Kingsville Leamington Windsor London Hamilton Kitchener Guelph North Bay Sturgeon Falls Pembroke Renfrew Arnprior Perth Smith's Falls Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Gananoque Kingston Napanee Belleville Peterborough Owen Sound Gore Bay (d) The Killing of Fawns FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE * Richard's Landing Parry Sound *Thessalon Dunchurch *Sudbury Ahmic Harbor Pembroke Magnetawan Kingston McKellar *Marmora Sundridge Peterborough Powassan Owen Sound South River Earnstein fBracebridge Huntsville Gravenhurst Lindsay fHaliburton Wilberforce Fenelon Falls Sault Ste. Marie ON THE GAME SITUATION 99 FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE *Blind River Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances t Voted for Buck Law. Minaki *Voted against Buck Law. Sioux Lookout Kapuskasing Cochrane Timmins *New Liskeard Kingsville Leamington Windsor London Hamilton Kitchener Guelph North Bay Sturgeon Falls *Mattawa Renfrew Arnprior Perth Smith's Falls fOttawa Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Gananoque Napanee Belleville *Wiarton Gore Bay (e) Killing of Deer in Water FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE Haliburton * Richard's Landing Parry Sound Cochrane Dunchurch Timmins Ahmic Harbor Owen Sound Magnetawan Gore Bay McKellar Sundridge Powassan South River Earnstein Bracebridge Gravenhurst Lindsay 100 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 FOR AGAINST NO VOTE TIE Wilberforce Fenelon Falls Sault Ste. Marie Thessalon Blind River Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances (but general opposition) Minaki Sioux Lookout Kapuskasing New Liskeard Kingsville Leamington Windsor London Hamilton Kitchener Guelph Sudbury North Bay Sturgeon Falls Mattawa Pembroke Renfrew Arnprior Perth Smiths Falls Ottawa Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Gananoque Kingston Napanee Belleville Marmora Peterborough Wiarton (/) Time and Length of Deer Season FOR LATER FOR SHORTER OPPOSED TO SEASON SEASON CHANGE NO VOTE Kapuskasing London Gananoque Parry Sound Cochrane Owen Sound Dunchurch Leamington Ahmic Harbor (5 days) Magnetawan London McKellar ON THE GAME SITUATION 101 FOR LATER SEASON Pembroke (5 days) Smith's Falls (10 days) Ottawa (2 weeks) Kingston (5 days) Napanee (10 days) Belleville (from Nov. 5) Marmora (from 10th) Peterborough (from 10th) Gore Bay (5-10 days) FOR SHORTER SEASON OPPOSED TO CHANGE NO VOTE Sundridge Powassan South River Earnstein Bracebridge Gravenhurst Lindsay Wilberforce Fenelon Falls Sault Ste. Marie Thessalon Richard's Landing Haliburton Blind River Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances Minaki Sioux Lookout New Liskeard Timmins Kingsville Windsor Hamilton Kitchener Guelph Sudbury North Bay Sturgeon Falls Mattawa Renfrew Arnprior Perth Cornwall Morrisburg Brockville Wiarton FOR Wilberforce Richard's Landing Blind River Port Arthur Pembroke Kingston Napanee (g) Exposure of Deer in Transport REFUSED TO DECIDE AGAINST Owen Sound Sault Ste. Marie Other Places did not Vote. 102 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 FOR Marmora Peterborough Wiarton FOR Richard's Landing FOR AMERICANS against: Wiarton FOR London REFUSED TO DECIDE AGAINST (h) Wearing of Cap by Hunters (i) Special License for Deer FOR DEER AND NOT MOOSE for: Haliburton (j) Certificate for Deer Carcass 2. (a) Killing in Water. (b) Close Season. (c) Shorter Season. Moose tie: Cochrane for: Richard's Landing against: Chapleau 3. for higher bounty Gravenhurst Wilberforce Fort Frances London FOR Richard's Landing Wolves (a) The Bounty FOR LOWER BOUNTY AGAINST CHANGE (b) The Use of Poison AGAINST 4. Fur-Bearers (a) Protection for Otter FOR Huntsville Haliburton Cochrane (b) Penalizing of Fur-Buyers Who Encourage Illegal Trapping for: Fenelon Falls (c) Close Season on Fur-Bearers for: Sault Ste. Marie (d) Elimination of Travelling Buyers for: Renfrew Perth Marmora (e) Trapping to be Confined to Indians It was urged at Chapleau, but no vote. ON THE GAME SITUATION 103 (/) Bonding of Fur-Buyers It was urged at Cochrane, but no vote. (g) Napanee voted that no traps be placed on the ground, set or unset, before the opening of the season. (h) Trapping Season Napanee voted satisfaction with present season. for: Timmins (i) Longer Season for Muskrat FOR Partridge (a) Open Season for Partridge, 19S2 AGAINST North Bay Sturgeon Falls Pembroke Arnprior Smith's Falls Ottawa Cornwall Gananoque Kingston Napanee Belleville Marmora Kitchener New Liskeard Timmins Cochrane Kapuskasing Fort Frances (1932, 1933) Schreiber Chapleau Sault Ste. Marie Wilberforce Gravenhurst Peterborough Owen Sound Wiarton Gore Bay 6. FOR SHORTER SEASON Smith's Falls Gananoque Napanee Kingsville Windsor Richard's Landing Thessalon Blind River Practically all meetings favored a bag limit of 10 to 15 Duck (a) Length of Season AGAINST SHORTER SEASON FOR LATER SEASON Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Thessalon Kingston Blind River Belleville Perth Gore Bay Wiarton Port Arthur Pembroke Fort Frances Timmins 104 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 (6) Curtailment of Bag Limit for : Arnprior Renfrew 7. Gun License Proposal for $1.00 license for permission to carry a gun, excluding boys and non-British subjects, and not to obtain in June, July and August. FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL Wilberforce Thessalon Sturgeon Falls Fenelon Falls Pembroke Ottawa Sault Ste. Marie Gananoque Richard's Landing Peterborough Blind River Wiarton Chapleau Schreiber Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances Minaki Sioux Lookout Kapuskasing Cochrane Timmins New Liskeard Hamilton Kitchener Gore Bay Owen Sound Marmora Belleville North Bay Mattawa Renfrew Arnprior Perth Smith's Falls Cornwall Brockville Kingston Napanee Guns Kingsville wanted all rifles of calibre greater than .22, including .22 high power, prohibited. Voted accordingly. Leamington voted unanimously against foreigners being permitted license. Windsor voted that high-powered rifles be prohibited, but was against prohibition of carrying rifles or other firearms between January 2nd and October 1st. Windsor voted in favor of Pump Gun. ON THE GAME SITUATION 105 8. Geese Season for Taking Geese FOR SHORTER AND LATER SEASON Kingsville Windsor 9. Quail Open Season for Quail FOR AGAINST Kingsville Kingsville also voted that Hungarians and Quail be developed in that section. 10. Game Wardens for more wardens Huntsville Wilberforce Thessalon Timmins New Liskeard 11. Algonquin Park (a) Censure of Algonquin Park for: Huntsville (b) Proposal that Park be Placed Under Department of Game and Fisheries FOR Haliburton Wilberforce Fenelon Falls North Bay-Renfrew Smiths Falls 12. Department of Game and Fisheries Proposal that the Department be Placed Under a Separate Minister for Haliburton Wilberforce Fenelon Falls Sault Ste. Marie Richard's Landing Blind River Chapleau Port Arthur Kenora Fort Frances Cochrane (recommendation but no vote) New Liskeard North Bay Renfrew Smith's Falls 106 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 13. Fish Cochrane voted for fish ladders to be provided in all streams flowing into James Bay, and that pulp and paper companies be prohibited from dumping waste. Also that the northern lakes and streams be stocked. Pembroke voted against conservation of pike as a game fish. Belleville voted approval of list of recommendations from Anglers' Association of Belleville. 14. Miscellaneous Windsor voted for bounty on Hawks and Owls. Also that ferrets, rodents and contrivances be prohibited in hunting rabbits. Blind River voted that tourists in the preserves should be compelled to have a guide. Port Arthur voted the closing of the district 30 miles north. APPENDIX 3 MINUTES OF MEETING OF SPECIAL GAME COMMITTEE, August 10th, 1931 MINUTES of meeting of Special Game Committee held in Room 322, Parliament Buildings, 10th August, 1931, at 11 a.m. PRESENT:�Hon. W. D. Black, M.P.P.; Chairman. T. P. Lancaster, M.P.P. Coulter McLean, M.P.P. Lynn Hollingsworth, Sault Ste. Marie. A. Z. Aubin, M.P.P. William Newman, M.P.P. D. J. Taylor, M.P.P. Jack Miner, Esq. Frank McCarthy, K.C., and J. B. Matthews, Esq., representing the Hudson's Bay Company. Dr. E. L. Stone, C.M.G., and T. R. L. Maclnnes, representing the Department of Indian Affairs, Ottawa. D. McDonald, Esq., Deputy Minister of Game and Fisheries Department, � Toronto. THE CHAIRMAN:�We are very glad to have with us today Mr. Maclnnes and Dr. Stone, representing the Department of Indian Affairs at Ottawa, and Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Matthews, representing the Hudson's Bay Company. This Committee have travelled rather extensively the three districts of Parry Sound, Muskoka and Haliburton, and during the past three weeks we have held from four to nine meetings a week. We have been in touch directly with the trader, the settler, and all classes of people in these districts. On account of going further north we are at the present time concerned with Indian Affairs. We have had a great many complaints as to the method by which the Indians take the fur. We have heard some stories that are startling if true, and our object in asking you, Mr. Maclnnes, and Dr Stone to be with us this morning was to try and find out what steps have been taken by your Department by way of instructing the Indians as to the proper taking of fur, ON THE GAME SITUATION 107 and to avoid abuses. Anything you may be able to tell us along that line will be of great assistance to us when we come in contact with the Indians. I will be glad to have any information that you have available. MR. MacINNES*�We do not issue specific instructions on the taking of fur because that is not a matter that comes within our jurisdiction. We have always encouraged the Indians, and we have instructed them to follow methods of conservation, and to co-operate with game officials. We are ready at all times to forward to the Indians, through our agents, instructions or advice that the Department at Toronto might care to formulate and send to us for that purpose. We have done something along these lines from time to time in the past. I take it that it is the North country you are speaking of more particularly. We have made certain proposals to Mr. McCrea, and I have brought with me a copy of our letter to Mr. McCrea on the subject, which sets forth fully what we have in mind. That letter also gives information concerning what is being done in other Provinces and Territories. Speaking of methods of taking fur, I do not know just what you have done, or what you have found, but there is one point that has always been brought to our attention, and that is that the white trapper uses poison extensively, whereas we have never had a case reported of an Indian using poison in catching fur. The Indian does not use poison because he does not want to exterminate the fur. The Indian is not like the white trapper who comes in and traps out a whole area. We have had a plan in the Northwest Territories of setting aside large areas where only Indians can hunt. That is in effect now in the Northwest Territories, and it is operating very well. The proposal that Dr. Stone, our Deputy Minister, discussed with Mr. McCrea, for Ontario, was that all the districts north of the Trans-Continental Railway, and certain areas in the Lake of the Woods, and Rainy River, south of the Trans-Continental, should be closed to white trappers, at least to itinerant white trappers from outside. We would not contemplate closing the territory to residents of the country. We feel that we should control the Indian and educate him, or perhaps I might say, "Lead him back to his old habits of conservation, which he may have fallen away from owing to competition during recent years with white trappers." When the Indian sees white trappers are better trappers than the Indian, and more aggressive, and that they are commercializing the business to such an extent that they are going to clean everything out, then the Indian will*take what he can get while he may. THE CHAIRMAN:�That bears out some of the arguments that have been placed before us. MR. MacINNES:�If, on the other hand, we can have protection for the Indian, we will be able to handle the situation. We have not had any trouble in the Northwest Territories, and the plan is working well. We have a report from our Claim Officer to the effect that two Swedes from York Factory trapped or shot fourteen hundred white foxes. No two men could take fourteen hundred white foxes with traps. They must have used poison. The situation of the Indians is becoming very precarious. You may think our own agents would be prejudiced in favor of the Indians, but we have a report from the Hudson's Bay Company and from the Reveillon people, and from missionaries and other responsible persons in the North Country, to the effect that competition by the whites coming into areas formerly left to the Indians alone, has not only tended to exterminate fur, but it has reduced the Indians to conditions 108 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 of privation, where formerly prosperous on account of the hunt. In fact we have had to increase the amount provided for these Indians very much on account of the hunting situation. THE CHAIRMAN:�The old theory was that the Indian never trapped ground without leaving sufficient breeding stock. Some of the evidence that has been produced before us is to the effect that the Indian is now cutting beaver dams, and exterminating the beaver just as fast as possible. One point on which we would like to have some information, Mr. Maclnnes, is as to what the Indian rights are as regards the taking of fur and fish. MR. MacINNES:�That is a very complicated subject, and it varies territorially. I have brought with me a map in the hope that it may assist you in this matter. The Dominion has treaties with various groups of Indians, a,nd these two tracts shown on this map represent the Robinson Treaties, which were made in 1850 by the Honourable Benjamin Robinson, who was representing the Government of the Province of Upper Canada. Under that Treaty the right to hunt fur on all unoccupied land was reserved absolutely to the Indians. At that time the need for conservation legislation was not contemplated. We never opposed that right of the Department for many years, but we told the Indians that they must, in the interest of conservation, comply with the regulations. Recently a case arose which got into the courts on the Treaty question. That was the case of Rex vs. Wilson, which was tried at Port Arthur. The Department was not concerned with that case at the outset. The Indians were arrested for taking fur out of season, and on their own responsibility they engaged legal Counsel, Mr. McComber of Port Arthur. An appeal was entered against the conviction, which was upheld by Judge McKay, and it was then that our Department was asked to take a stand. We thought the Indian rights, whatever they were, should be settled, and we stood behind the Indians, but we tried to keep it out of court. That case was appealed by the Province, but the whole matter fizzled out by reason of the fact that it was found that the furs in question were trapped outside the Treaty territory. The question is still in the air. The Indians do possess rights there, and absolute rights, to hunt and fish, which would have to be extinguished in some satisfactory manner. Our Department, of course, would not want to see the Indians clean all the game out of that area; in their own interest we would not want to see that done. Treaty No. 9 was entered into between the Indians and the Province and the Dominion, and provided that the Indians should have the right to hunt and trap subject to regulation. MR. NEWMAN:�What regulations does it refer to, Provincial or Federal? MR. MacINNES:�Regulations of the Government of the country, "such regulations as Her Majesty's Government may make." In the absence of any regulations by the Dominion, I take it that the Province would be the regulating authority, and regulations made by the Province would apply under the terms of the Treaty. There is a special section of the Indian Act which provides for the application of the Dominion Game Laws in each Province. Recently the natural resources were returned to the Provinces, and the Provinces agreed that the Indians should have the right to take game or fish for food at any time of the year, and that is the law today. THE CHAIRMAN:�It has been reported to the Committee that the Indian is taking fish by illegal methods, and that he is not taking it purely for food, but is selling the fish. ON THE GAME SITUATION 109 MR. MacINNES:�There are areas in the North in which the Indians would like to go in for commercial fishing, but we found difficulty in getting licenses for them. Dr. Stone was at Toronto a year ago, and he succeeded in getting large increases in the amount that could be used by Indians in the Kenora District. We would like to have the Indians permitted to operate in commercial fishing. We think they should be given a fair chance in that regard. THE CHAIRMAN:�If the Government of the Province restocks these waters, and if the Indian is allowed to go on and take the fish by every method, there would be very little use in restocking the waters. MR. MacINNES:�That is a legal question that would have to be settled by the Courts, and our hands are tied in that regard. We have to see what the Indians' rights are and uphold them. THE CHAIRMAN:�In other words you are not prepared to act unless a case is taken through the Courts. MR. MacINNES:�The only way to settle it is by a test case, and we would welcome a test case to settle the Robinson Treaty. For the last twenty years it has been a constant source of trouble and embarrassment to your Department and ours. THE CHAIRMAN:�If we are to retain the benefit of the summer tourist traffic we will have to do something to conserve the fishing. MR. McDONALD:�Do you contend that the Indians have exclusive trapping rights? MR. MacINNES:�Not exclusive, but they have the right to fish and trap at any time on public land or water. MR. McDONALD:�In 1923 a settlement was made with the Indians, and they surrendered all their rights? MR. MacINNES:�They were Chippewas and Mississaugas; they were not Robinson Treaty Indians. THE CHAIRMAN:�There has been no surrender of these treaty rights? MR. MacINNES:�No, the Robinson Treaty Indians have never surrendered. MR. McLEAN:�Does that give the Robinson Treaty Indians the right tq trap in Algonquin Park? MR. MacINNES:�Unless that is termed "territory" that is occupied. MR. TAYLOR:�Take a timber limit that is occupied for the purpose of taking off the timber, would that be termed occupation? The Indians come in there and abuse their privilege. I have known them to tear down beaver dams, and kill the beaver with clubs when they tried to escape from the dam# MR. McCARTHY:�My opinion is that on occupied territory the Indians' right ceases. MR. MacINNES:�We had that discussed with the Department of Justice as to whether a game sanctuary was occupied territory. MR. McCARTHY:�I think there would be no question that it would be held to be occupied territory. MR. MacINNES :�The opinion of the Department of Justice was that if it were actually occupied and being administered as a game sanctuary it would be occupied territory, but if the Province just wanted to square off a big piece and say, "This is a game sanctuary by Order-in-Council," and if 110 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 they did not put anybody in to look after it or use it as a game sanctuary, that would not be occupied land. MR. HOLLINGSWORTH:�How would it operate in connection with a pulp lease? MR. McCARTHY:�Where you have white men coming in to carry on business in a territory it has to be subject to control, and I think the Indian rights in such a territory cease, but where you are up in open country where the white man is not occupying in any sense, then the Indian rights exist. MR. TAYLOR:�Without occupation of that kind it is absolutely useless to control under the game laws. We have found cases where the Indians were shooting deer and selling the venison to tourists. MR. McCARTHY:�That raises a point of constitutional law. I tried to raise that point in 1912-13, when Sir William Meredith was sitting as Chief Justice, and it was so neat a point that he said, "Stop it/' and he never delivered judgment, and he told me he never intended.to. MR. MacINNES:�I suppose Judge MacKay's judgment is the highest authority we have? MR. McCARTHY:�It is the highest we have, but that point was never taken before him, because everyone thought these Indians were trapping on Treaty ground. If the point is settled and the Indians have a club put in their hands they will certainly use it. MR. TAYLOR:�I can show you places where there were twenty and forty colonies of beaver, and there are now only six colonies left. MR. MacINNES:�We haven't had any trouble in Quebec since the Government have reserved to the Indians the Abitibi section. MR. McLEAN:�The fur buyers come down into the restricted area and find trouble in buying fur from the white trappers, and they say as long as the Indians can trap they cannot control it. MR. McDONALD:�At the present time it is illegal for a white man to trap beaver at certain seasons, and the trapping of beaver is left entirely to the Indians during those seasons. MR. NEWMAN:�Do I understand that the Indian has the right to trap beaver in Southern Ontario? MR. McCARTHY:�No, that is north of the Trans-Continental Railway. The Indian has been put to sleep down here. MR. TAYLOR:�Are the Indians that are settled on the Reservations entitled to trapping privileges? MR. MacINNES�I have the treaty and I will look up that point. MR. AUBIN:�Have the Indians the right to sell under that Treaty? MR. McCARTHY:�There is no use giving them the right to take if they have not the right to sell. MR. TAYLOR:�The Indian is entitled to come into this territory and take beaver at the present time? MR. MacINNES":�I would not say he has the right to market it. MR. TAYLOR:�We feel that we have control of our forests, and we say by Statute that only north of the Trans-Continental can Indians take beaver, but south of that for both Indian and white man there is a closed season. Under this Treaty can they come into this southern territory and take beaver contrary to the Provincial law? ON THE GAME SITUATION 111 MR. MacINNES:�If he is a Robinson Treaty Indian. MR. MCCARTHY:�That Treaty was not made by the Government of Ontario. It was made by the Province of Upper Canada in 1850, and the Provincial Government is as much a party to it as is the Dominion Government. MR. HOLLINGSWORTH:�They are unable to hunt on any land that has been sold by the Provincial Government, but they can trap on all Crown lands? MR. McCARTHY:�A lot of Crown land is subject to timber leases. MR. NEWMAN:�The land is not leased. THE CHAIRMAN:�They have control of the land for lumbering and other purposes, it is leased land for the time being. MR. McCARTHY:�They have the right to oust trespassers. MR. McDONALD:�The leases prevent hunting? MR. NEWMAN:�I think a lumber lease does not stop hunting. THE CHAIRMAN:�You can stop the construction of roads. MR. McCARTHY:�It would be impossible to express an opinion without having the lease before you. I think any Court will put a broad interpretation on that section of the Treaty. MR. McDonald:�We must save the Indian from himself or he will destroy all the fur. MR. TAYLOR:�One of the finest territories I know of is this Robinson Treaty territory. It is the best game country that is left in Ontario. Due to the decrease in the Indian population it might be easy to settle with the Indians. MR, MacINNES:�The whole Indian population in Ontario is 26,000, and it is remaining stationary. There would be at least 8,000 Indians affected by the Robinson Treaty. DR. STONE:�The number of Indians around Port Arthur and Fort William is 1,540, and at Sault Ste. Marie there are about 2,500. MR. McCARTHY:�The Indian question is something that has got to be faced. MR. JACK MINER:�I have had considerable opportunity to observe, in connection with these matters, and I really believe the Ontario Government is taking a very wise step for the betterment of the most people in the Province by having this Committee investigate and find out where we are and what we are doing. It is estimated that over $150,000,000 was brought into Ontario by the tourist traffic last year. We have 400,000 square miles of wide open territory, and I see no reason why in ten years from today, if the matter is properly managed, we should not have billions of dollars coming into the country. For the last fifteen years I have been keeping wild geese and sending them into the northern country, and I got tags from the Indians saying they had killed the goose at James Bay, and I also got tags from the Eskimos in Baffin Land. I have sent $5.00 to Indians who sent down the tags, but the time came when they were sending down so many tags that I had to stop sending up the money, but yet the Indians sent down the tags. I have hunted for eighteen years, and I have trapped a few beaver, and I have seen the Indians trap the beaver unlawfully. One Indian told me he had taken one hundred and fifty beaver before the 28th of October. They had three dogs and they tore down the dams, and I counted sixteen sets of beaver 112 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 in one big dam, and I have seen a wagon box full of immature beaver skins covered with flies and rotting, and I told Mr. McDonald about that wanton waste. I would like to ask how we can best work together for the benefit of the people of this Province, and for the people who come here during the summer season. I know of places where the Indian has taken away all the beaver and broken up the dam, and I would like to know some way by which we can control the trapping and hunting of our wild animals, so that the people who come here to visit us will be able to see some of our game. DR. STONE:�Possibly I am the only one who has lived with the Indian in his own neighbourhood. I lived among them for four or five years. I knew not only the trapper and his work, but I knew his wife and children, and the grandmother. I might as well tell you at once that I am prejudiced in favour of the Indian, because I like and esteem him. For the past four years since I have returned to Ottawa I have watched this controversy, and I have a quite unofficial capacity in the matter. It seems to me that both our Department and the Provincial Game Department have always failed to come to any common ground because they start off from different standpoints. I want to preserve the Indians, because that is my duty, and I want to do that without allowing him to come to the state where he will have to live on Government bounty or charity. That stage has already arrived in certain areas in this Province, and it has been the fact in one Province for twenty or thirty years. The Indian population of this Province is about 10,000 Indians in the hunting area in the north, and whatever affects these people is bound to affect the Province and the Dominion. The story Mr. Miner told you is a very familiar one and has been brought to me at different times by the Indians. There is no use my saying that the Indian is guiltless, and there is no use anyone saying that the white trapper is guiltless, and unless the white trapper is controlled he will get all the fur he can and any way he can. If the Indian is deprived of the game and fish, the Indian will starve and the white trapper will have no occupation. If the game is to be preserved it is a matter of co-operation all around. We all know that there are territories in which there is no fur at the present time. There was no use talking about beaver in Manitoba, because there is no beaver there. I do not say it was the white trapper that cleaned it out, because the Indians did it, and it was done under the influence of high prices paid by the fur companies. I think as long as the two old fur companies exist and if they had no opposition, there would be no trouble in these districts. But everybody knows there are two kinds of fur buyers, and some of them are not responsible. The Hudson's Bay Company will bear me out in what I say, that if I had my own way I would make a monopoly to run traps and deal in furs. The Indian looks at it in this way. He says: "This was my old trapping grounds, and my father's and grandfather's before me. I trapped along this side of the lake and on this stream, and I did not go outside of that territory. Now I go out on my old trapping grounds and I find a man there before me. The game is disappearing but I did not take the game," and now he cannot make a living. I do not know whether the Indian is more virtuous than the white man, but I do know that it is a little easier to control him. I also know that if we said to the Indian, "You can do so and so, but you cannot do thus and so," the Indian is very controllable, more so than the white man. The Indian has a great respect for the majesty of the law. Everybody will agree ON THE GAME SITUATION 113 that in the long run it would be bad business to sacrifice the economic possibilities of making a living in any area for the sake of keeping it for outside people. The resident of a territory should have an opportunity of fishing and trapping. The Indians in Northern Ontario are progressively getting poorer each year, and we have put out more money to keep them alive. They are not high grade economic people, but I think everybody will agree that they have a certain claim to our consideration, on account of their having originally inhabited the land. The land that we occupy was originally Indian land. There is a Treaty that guarantees the Indian the right to catch and kill game at any time for food. That Treaty was made seventy-five or eighty years ago, and as long as it stands without modification I think it is the business of the Indian Department to secure for the Indian his rights. Whether it might be modified for the good of everybody is hard to say, and whether a modification is possible is hard to say. I should say it would be possible, and that the residents of the country should have the first consideration. I think it would be possible for the two Departments to get together and formulate some system by which the Indians within a certain limit would be able to live in the way that he has always lived, and I think residents of the country should have the same right. I think the last person to be considered is the person who does not live in the country, and who goes into it for the purpose of making a living by trapping, and whose only claim to the privilege is the license he buys. There is no use making the extreme claim that the Indian should be the only person entitled to take game in the Province of Ontario, nor, on the other hand, because he has on certain occasions been guilty of doing certain things, we should not consider the Indians as a whole. The point I want to be certain about is that these Indians in Northern Ontario have no other way of making a living except by hunting and trapping. I should judge that a small committee of representatives from both Departments would be able to get together and formulate some scheme that would be acceptable. THE CHAIRMAN:�That would be a great stroke if it could be done. MR. LANCASTER:�Do you pay the Indians treaty money in Northern Ontario? DR. STONE:�They are paid, but it was not all treaty money. It is remuneration or compensation, and the money is supplied by the Government of Ontario. MR. NEWMAN:�In cash or goods? DR. STONE:�In cash and blankets and other articles. In the Western Provinces the meat is supplied by the settlers. Our Department looks after the poor people and the old people. MR. LANCASTER:�Do you find the Indians in Northern Ontario becoming less self-supporting? DR. STONE:�In Northern Ontario, but not in Southern Ontario. MR. HOLLINGSWORTH:�There are some Indians that have no hunting rights, and other Indians that have hunting rights? DR. STONE:�I think you can take it for granted that the Indian would rather hunt than farm. We have to give some families support, and we have to help the old men. The Indian now goes out trapping and comes back with 114 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 very little. The game situation at the present time is very precarious, and the returns for fur for the last two years have been sagging. MR. MINER:�I look upon the tourist trade as a great opportunity for the people who live back there, because the American in every case will have an Indian for a guide, if he can get one, and if he can get game. I look on the tourist trade as the ripened wheat ready for the harvest for the people of Northern Ontario. MR. MacINNES:�I think it would be interesting for you to read the remark made by Mr. Nicholson in the House of Commons when he was speaking on August 3rd, when the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs were being discussed. He said: "I know some of the conditions of the Indians throughout Northern Ontario, and unless a very definite step is taken in the near future to provide means of livelihood for the Indian a serious condition will develop. The Indians have virtually been deprived of the means of maintaining themselves by trapping and hunting because these privileges have been taken away from him by the white trapper. I would urge that the Government, in co-operation with the Provincial authorities, try to evolve a scheme by which fur-bearing animals will be preserved for the Indians. I am speaking of that part of the country of which I have some knowledge, and I believe the same condition applies right across Canada." Mr; Nicholson is at Chapleau. "The situation in Northern Ontario is such that if something is not done the Indians will have to be taken care of." His remarks bear out what we have found, and what we have stated in our own representations. Mr. Nicholson does not hesitate to advocate that the white trapper be kept out. I think Mr. McDonald will bear me out when I say that for the most part the itinerant foreign trapper is the man who probably does not vote at all. He is not a man who has any interest in political organizations, and therefore it cannot be said that this is a political question. The point has been raised that the Indian has no vote, and that the white man has a vote, and that therefore you cannot do too much for the Indian as opposed to the white man. I think it will be agreed on that the class of white people involved is not a political class. I will leave this copy of Hansard with you so that you may read the whole context. MR. MCCARTHY:�Gentlemen of the Committee, we are dealing with the Indian, and before I speak of the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, I might say something as to the rights of the Indian. My experience dates back to 1910, and in 1912 there was a crisis, and the Indian was prohibited from taking any fur-bearing animal outside the closed season. The result was that the Indian took fur outside the closed season, and the Hudson's Bay Company bought fur from them, and as a result the Hudson's Bay Post Masters were all arrested, and I think sentenced to some hundreds of years' imprisonment and to $30,000 or $40,000 in fines. That resulted in a case being stated which raised many other questions. The first question was�the rights of the Indians; the second question was�the rights of the Hudson's Bay Fur Company. The case was argued before the Court of Appeal, and Chief Justice Sir William Meredith intimated that it would be better for all concerned if an attempt were made to get together. The Hudson's Bay Company, being interested in the game and in the conservation of game, and also interested in the maintenance and support of the ON THE GAME SITUATION 115 Indians, were willing that the game laws should be made a little easier and the Indian given an opportunity of making a living by carrying on his trade. The Hudson's Bay Company was not permitted to buy fur from the Indians. The third question was that the Indians and their forefathers have been in the habit of hunting animals of the kind in question in the territory in question. The Indian, from what I can learn, in Northern Ontario at least, has been just as good, if not better, than the white man. Much better than the white trapper as far as observation of the game laws is concerned. The Indian by degrees is losing his rights. Dealing with the views of the Hudson's Bay Company, I have been in touch with the Department for a long time with regard to this Company, and I knew they would be vitally interested in this Committee. They are interested in the conservation of game, and I would like to submit this memorandum: Conservation "The Company's experience in the past many years has shown that, without any question, white trappers are mainly responsible for the depletion of fur-bearing animals in every province. Generally, such trappers have little or no interest in the country or its future, and endeavor by every means possible to kill every fur-bearing animal. They take no thought of leaving a stock to take care of the future. "It is, we appreciate, a most difficult matter to regulate or keep a check on the trappers, and, in our opinion a regulation prohibiting white men from trapping at all in that part of the Province north of the Canadian National Railway (Transcontinental Line), extending from the Manitoba to the Quebec border, is the only means to effect real conservation. This territory would thus be preserved for the Indians, and they, knowing this and that the white man would not be allowed to clear the country of fur bearers, would see that a sufficient stock would be left for breeding. This had always been done by the Indians in the Company's experience before the white man took possession and entered the trapping field. The Indians would under such conditions, also act as their game guardians and would report infringement of the regulations by the white man. "If such a regulation were adopted, we are of opinion that fur bearers in that section of the country would rapidly increase, and thereafter would spread and do much to replenish the depleted stocks in the southern part of the Province. "Further, we feel that if the Province were to set aside that part of the Province lying between the north shore of Lake Superior and the Canadian National Railway (Transcontinental Line) on the north, as a hunting and trapping reserve for Indians exclusively, it would be a decided and effective aid to such conservation. Licenses "Trapping licenses are now issued to residents of the Province only. We suggest that to constitute a bona fide resident the applicant for a license should prove that he has resided for at least three years immediately previous to his application in the Province, and is a British subject. Use of Poison "At present poison can be used legally for killing wolves. In our opinion, its use should be prohibited altogether. The trapper who uses it for wolves is 116 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 tempted to use it for killing other fur bearers, and we fear frequently does so. Since the bounty for wolves killed in the unsettled part of the country was recently increased, poison has been used indiscriminately. The result has been that large numbers of other fur-bearing animals have been destroyed. "We also suggest that game guardians should have the right to examine the books and records of those dealing in poisons. Royalties "The present scale of royalties was fixed when fur values were double what they are today. The need for revision is very obvious, and we recommend such revision. Statistics "We submit herewith a statement compiled from our records showing comparative numbers of furs purchased at the Company's posts since 1916. As shown by this the number of pelts of fur-bearing animals taken under the wilder conditions is decreasing." With this report they submit a table of statistics showing the ratio of furs purchased at Company's posts in the Province of Ontario for each trade year since 1916, as compared with the trade year 1916-1917, as follows: Statement Showing Ratio of Furs Purchased at Company's Posts in the Province of Ontario for Each Trade Year Since 1916, as Compared with Trade Year 1916-1917 FOX POST BEAR BEAVER ERMINE FISHER SILVER CROSS RED 1916-17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1917-18 136 118 291 98 95 86 87 1918-19 83 122 285 60 44 43 43 1919-20 55 154 107 32 10 10 10 1920-21 69 167 338 21 15 12 10 1921-22 70 164 770 21 15 17 31 1922-23 68 155 514 22 74 68 74 1923-24 70 111 289 22 56 67 67 1924-25 108 103 181 21 38 50 53 1925-26 78 77 280 31 285 285 282 1926-27 61 63 453 49 236 246 270 1927-28 64 49 458 48 189 184 204 1928-29 59 37 569 32 44 47 60 1929-30 62 20 536 18 69 44 53 ON THE GAME SITUATION 117 POST LYNX MARTEN MINK MUSQUASH OTTER WOLF 1916-17 100 100 100 100 100 100 1917-18 45 98 78 88 97 71 1918-19 . 14 65 56 103 92 94 1919-20 6 56 77 149 97 117 1920-21 6 86 150 267 115 106 1921-22 9 107 308 310 121 141 1922-23 15 82 218 245 111 186 1923-24 31 68 362 290 137 179 1924-25 27 56 277 271 115 434 1925-26 48 67 251 153 130 373 1926-27 61 75 149 153 116 601 1927-28 37 50 98 112 120 520 1928-29 15 33 98 110 136 334 1929-30 12 28 89 121 95 238 It is the intention of the Fur Trade Commissioner to have men available at any time if you want further information or if the Company wants to put forth further views, and when you get into the Northern Section these men will be available. THE CHAIRMAN:�You will receive the itinerary for Northern Ontario very soon. We will leave Toronto the last day of this month and will be away for one month. MR. MacINNES:�Are you coming to the City of Ottawa? THE CHAIRMAN:�Yes, we intend to cover every part of the Province. Our object in calling you here today was to get this information before making our Northern trip. Some time later we will hold meetings in the eastern part of the Province. MR. McDONALD:�I would like to give you the Department's side of the situation, and tell you what we have been up against with the Treaty Indians. Mr. Miner said he drew my attention years ago to the slaughter of beaver, and today I am in the same position as I was at that time. I was for fifteen years with the Hudson's Bay Company and for seven years with Reveillon Freres. I have dealt with the Indians in the Interior and established posts for Reveillon Freres two hundred miles north of the railway. I found the Indians in that country lived a real hard life. There were some five hundred Indians in that district, and all the flour that was taken in there was 250 bags, and no vegetables of any kind grown by the natives, with the result that it was a matter of taking game and fish at any time of the year or starving. Up until the year 1916 the Hudson's Bay Company could not see their way clear to acknowledge the authority of the Province as far as the control of the taking of fur-bearing animals was concerned. In the year 1916 I had the pleasure of sitting on a Committee where it was agreed that it was necessary to regulate the taking of fur-bearing animals in order to conserve, with the result that the Hudson's Bay Company agreed to purchase licenses and comply with the provisions of the Game and Fisheries Laws. In the same year it was decided to open the beaver and otter season under what was known as the coupon system, whereby the Treaty Indians were given 118 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 so many coupons to legalize the taking of beaver and otter. The system worked out very nicely for the first year, but for the second year the Department was accused of discriminating against the balance of the fur trade of the Province, with the result that an extension was made and finally the coupon system became worthless; therefore, the Department found it necessary to apply for a closed season on beaver and otter in that portion of the Province lying south of the main line of the Canadian National Railway. North of the said line the season is open annually from December 15th to March 31st next following, and the trapping of beaver and otter in that part of Ontario is prohibited by law to all persons except Indians. I doubt if there is any other province in the Dominion of Canada today which has given so many privileges to the natives. In reference to the remarks made by Mr. Maclnnes re politics: I can assure you that I am not aware of politics being used in connection with the granting or refusing of trappers' licenses to white or Indian trappers during my term of office. In reference to giving the Indians exclusive trapping rights: It is very difficult for the Department, under the present regulations, to refuse a resident of the Province the privilege of trapping when he has been trapping for the last thirty or forty years. There is no restriction placed against the issuing of licenses to residents. You will find many Indians just the same class of men as you find many white trappers�they will trap to the extreme. MR. MCCARTHY:�They are worse than bootleggers. MR. McDONALD:�Yes, and the slaughter still goes on. I am glad you have taken an interest in the Treaty conditions, because you will realize what the Department is up against when its officials are accused of not enforcing the Act. There are many sportsmen who would welcome the day when the Indian would be forced to recognize the various closed seasons on game, especially deer, moose and caribou. In the North country the Indians have nothing to live on except game and fish, and, with the advance of civilization, it is a matter that requires earnest consideration and steps taken to preserve the game while the stock is available for the purpose, especially south of the main line of the Canadian National Railway. MR. LANCASTER:�Have you any information as to what proportion of the trappers come from outside of Ontario? MR. McDONALD:�I can get that information for you, but I would say it is not over twenty-five. MR. TAYLOR:�I have been interested in what Mr. McDonald said that the Indian should be brought under the same law as the white man as far as killing game is concerned. I understand that we now have no control over the Indian. I am quite convinced that the white man and the Indian cannot successfully trap together. I wonder if Mr. Maclnnes can tell us that some day in the future there will be someone with authority in the Department of Indian Affairs at Ottawa who could meet someone with authority in the Provincial Department, and negotiate with the Indians in connection with the Robinson Treaty Land ON THE GAME SITUATION 119 MR. MacINNES:�The Indians would have to settle that for themselves, and it would be a very long process. In some Agencies there are twenty bands, and there would be over one hundred bands affected by the Robinson Treaty, and each one of these bands would have to agree. MR. TAYLOR:�I think you will agree that in that section of Ontario, where the fur-bearing animal is becoming almost extinct, the Indians are less dependent upon game. Take, for example, the Brantford Reserve. MR. MacINNES:�They are farming; they are not hunting Indians. MR. TAYLOR:�I think if the rights were taken from the Indians they would become more progressive. MR. MacINNES:�There is no farming in the far north country. MR. NEWMAN:�Has the Indian the right to slaughter deer as he is, only on the excuse of securing food? MR. McCARTHY:�The only body that can settle that question is the Privy Council. MR. McLEAN:�Surely the Province has some right over its game reserves. MR. McCARTHY:�The Dominion Government could take away all the Indians' rights, but that would be a breach of faith with the Indians. MR. McLEAN:�Some compensation would have to be made. MR. McCARTHY:�The Province has made a solemn contract with the Indian, and that contract exists until it is changed. MR. TAYLOR:�I think the time is near for some negotiations looking towards a change. MR. NEWMAN:�I understand at the present time there are five million acres in fifteen hundred Indian Reserves. MR. MacINNES:�There are over 2,000 Indian Reserves. MR. NEWMAN:�Haven't the Indians the right to do as they like on their Reserves? MR. MacINNES:�That is based on the judgment of Chief Justice Hunter of British Columbia, which decided that an Indian on a Reserve is not subject to Provincial game laws. But, of course, Indian Reserves do not have much game on them. MR. TAYLOR:�Nobody is objecting to their having exclusive rights on their Reserves. MR. AUBIN:�Do the Indians consider themselves subject to Provincial rights? MR. MacINNES:�The Six Nation Indians of Grand River have set up the claim that they are allies and not subjects, and that they are not subject to the laws of Canada. We had some trouble with them and they took the matter to the League of Nations. MR. McCARTHY:�The whole matter is set out in the one clause of the Treaty�''And the said William Benjamin Robinson, on behalf of Her Majesty, and the Government of this Province"�Upper Canada, which is now Ontario�"hereby promises and agrees to make or cause to be made, payment as before mentioned, and further, to allow such Chiefs and their tribes the full and free privilege of hunting over territory now ceded by them, and to fish in the waters thereof, as they have heretofore been in the habit of 120 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 doing, save and except such portions of such territory as may from time to time be sold or leased to individuals, or companies of individuals, and occupied by them, with the consent of the Provincial Government." If any one of you gentlemen had a contract with Her Majesty the Queen, you would think you had some rights. MR. McLEAN:�The Indians have a right to any of these sections that are not leased to a company or individuals. MR. McDONALD:�North of the line, west of North Bay, there is no license granted to trap or hunt, the only license granted is for fishing. The Indian Department has applied to our Department for fishing privileges for the Indians. In many cases we have found this difficult to grant because the location has already been taken up and occupied by white men. We have been trying to keep the white men to one side and the Indians to another in commercial fishing. There are a large number of fishing rights in the Lake of the Woods district and at Fort William and on the Georgian Bay, for the exclusive right of the Indian, the Indian Department paying a small fee. MR. NEWMAN:�Why are you so lenient with the Indian? MR. McDONALD:�Because otherwise they would not be able to live. MR. MCCARTHY:�Mr. McDonald was fining the Hudson's Bay Company every day, and we were fighting the cases in the Court of Appeal. MR. MacINNES:�Section 3 of the Treaty is subject to such regulations as may be made by the Dominion of Canada. MR. McCARTHY:�It all depends on whether he is an Indian who is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Robinson Treaty; that is the first point�"Is he an Indian who comes under the Robinson Treaty?" The second point is�"Does he trap in unorganized territory?" In that case in 1912 I raised these questions: (1) (a) Had the Legislature of Ontario jurisdiction to enact 7 Edward VII, cap. 49, entitled The Ontario Game and Fisheries Act? (b) Are any, and if so which of the provisions of the said Act ultra vires? (2) Does the Act affect the right of the Indian: (a) To hunt as hereinbefore mentioned with restriction as to season? (b) To have in possession or sell game hunted by himself without restriction to season, or (c) With regard to his title to the skins obtained from the same? If so, had the Legislature of Ontario jurisdiction to so enact? (3) If, notwithstanding the Act, the said Indians were entitled to possess the said skins of animals killed during the close season as their lawful property, does the said Act make unlawful the possession or sale of the same during the close season by a purchaser from the said Indians? (a) In any case. (b) In the case of the purchaser being the Hudson's Bay Company. If so, had the Legislature of Ontario jurisdiction to so enact? (4) Does the Act, having regard to the Deed of Surrender, Statutes and Orders-in-Council, evidencing the surrender, affect the right of the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson's Bay to purchase and possess skins as above mentioned? If so, had the Legislature of Ontario jurisdiction to so enact? I think the Indian has no more rights than the white man, except under the Robinson Treaty. ON THE GAME SITUATION 121 MR. TAYLOR:�Under the Robinson Treaty the Dominion Government has no right to regulate. MR. MacINNES:�No, they have no right to regulate under that Robinson Treaty. MR. AUBIN:�That cannot be changed without the consent of the Indian. MR. MacDONALD:�Why could not the Indian Department create a central farm and get the Indians to work on it so that they would not have to depend entirely on game and fish? MR. McCARTHY:�Are these multi-millionaire Indians who live near North Bay Robinson Treaty Indians? MR. MacINNES:�Yes, they are; our Department has spent immense amounts of money in educating the Indian in agriculture, but it is very difficult to carry on that kind of work in the far North. We have Indians in the Rainy River District who have very fine farms and who work under farm instructors. It is the policy of the Department to stimulate agriculture wherever it can be carried on. DRa STONE:�Agriculture and trapping do not mix very well. MR. McCARTHY:�If you try to treat with them and give them certain territory you will first have to find out how much they have. MR. TAYLOR:�I think the Dominion Department could help in that matter in a wonderful way. MR. McLEAN:�How long do you think it would take to conclude such negotiations? MR. McCARTHY:�I do not know what authority the Department has, or how many Indians would have to be dealt with, but I do think it would take a shorter time than a lawsuit. MR. McDONALD:�The Indian can certainly be encouraged to farm and raise vegetables for his own use. MR. McCARTHY:�You are up against the maintenance of the Indian. The Hudson's Bay people are interested at both ends. MR. TAYLOR:�There are only about 200 Indians in this territory that is under the Robinson Treaty. MR. McLEAN:�Mr. McCarthy has told us that since the bounty on wolf pelts has been increased to $25, poison is being used to quite an extent; how did Mr. McCarthy get that information? MR. McCARTHY:�That can be secured from certain district managers and superintendents; they can tell whether the animal has been poisoned by the pelt. MR. McLEAN:�The increase in the bounty did not become effective until March. MR. McDONALD:�Poison can be used at the present time for killing wolves under license and regulations. MR. TAYLOR:�If you give a man a permit to buy poison he will give part of the poison to some man fifty miles away. Moved by Mr. Taylor that this meeting do now adjourn, to meet again at some future date, with the Department of Indian Affairs at Ottawa. 122 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 MR. MacINNES:�I intended to mention that in 1928 there was a Game Conference of the leading officials of the Dominion and the various provinces, at which a resolution was unanimously passed, and endorsed by the Ontario representatives, that special game preserves should be set aside for the Indians in the northern districts of the Province. I think that is worthy of being taken into consideration. MR. TAYLOR:�The Indians might not be averse to giving up some of the permits they now have for a special reserve in the North, where the white man could not hunt. THE CHAIRMAN:�We are indebted to Dr. Stone and Mr. Maclnnes, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Matthews for attending this meeting and giving us this valuable information before we go further north. We will hold a meeting at Ottawa on our return. If there is nothing further we will now adjourn. Meeting Adjourned. APPENDIX 4 MINUTES OF A CONFERENCE HELD IN PORT ARTHUR September 3rd, 1931 A conference was held between the Special Game Committee and the Indian Agents of the Federal Government. The Agents present were: Mr. T. R. L. Maclnnes, Ottawa; Mr. Tom Godfrey, Chapleau; Mr. Frank Edwards, Kenora; Mr. A. Spencer, Fort William; Father Couture, Nipigon; Corporal Bebb, R.C.M. Police. MR. MacINNES said he represented the Department of Indian Affairs, which was naturally interested in the game question, since it affected the livelihood of the Indians. "From our experience and from the reports of our officers, it is evident that the Indian is losing ground, and is rapidly being ousted by the white trapper, largely foreigners, who use any methods to make money. They are really not trappers, they are fur-miners, who go in to trap out an area and then move on. The Indian, on the other hand, lives on the ground, and is naturally concerned in the preservation of game, but he is losing his sense of conservation and following the example of the white man. There are no cases of Indians using poison, but we know that whites do use it. We know of one instance where two Swedes took 1,400 foxes in one district. It is impossible to trap that number by ordinary methods, and they must have been poisoned. We consider that Northern Ontario should be set aside and that only Indian trappers should be allowed to trap�at least, that no foreigners should be granted licenses for trapping north of the C.N.R. Transcontinental Line. We also think that south of this line there is sufficient unoccupied land which might be set apart as Indian preserves. In the Lake of the Woods and the Rainy River Districts there are some areas which might be set aside. It has been suggested that the Indian should set up as a farmer, but even if prospects in agriculture were brighter than they are at present, farming would be impracticable in some of those areas. Wherever it is possible to develop other means of livelihood for the Indian this is being done." ON THE GAME SITUATION 123 MR. MacINNES went into the history of the various treaties entered into with the Indians by the Federal and Provincial Governments, and pointed out the difficulties in adjusting differences. All of this is contained in a Special Report to the Ontario Government from the Department of Indian Affairs. MR. GODFREY:�We are all agreed that the condition of the Indian in this north country is very critical. Our bush Indians never lived on anything but trapping and hunting. They look upon the fur-bearing animals as their heritage, and we agents look upon it in the same manner. It has been said that the Indian is the most destructive of all the animals. I want to tell you that the men who made that statement are two of the worst game poachers in the north country. They are only trying to cover up their own misdeeds. If you were in contact with the Indians as we are you would know different. MR. BLACK:�If the foreigner was prohibited from trapping, do you think that would help? MR. GODFREY:�It would go a long way. I would not allow a foreigner to have a gun or a trap. MR. TAYLOR:�You have seven hundred Indians in your area�two hundred families? MR. GODFREY:�More than that�I have two hundred and fifty families. MR. TAYLOR:�How many of these are dependent upon the wild life for a living? MR. GODFREY:�I have no Indians who make a living by trapping. MR. TAYLOR:�Then how would they benefit by a change? MR. GODFREY:�They would no doubt go back if the field were restricted. MR. MacINNES spoke of the possibility of buying out the Indian rights. He thought it would be much more profitable for the Province to deal with the Indian in the Robinson Treaty. MR. BLACK:�Would that not have to be taken up with each band? MR. MacINNES:�Yes. I have set forth all that in my letter to Mr-McCrea. MR. AUBIN:�Is the fur of up North better than that of the South? MR. EDWARDS:�There is no doubt that it is better. MR. BLACK:�We are told that there is not sufficient fur to maintain the Indians, and we are also told that there is sufficient�we are at a loss to know which is right. MR. MacINNES:�These things come in cycles. The rabbits are coming back and there are signs that other animals are becoming more numerous. MR. NEWMAN:�What do you think of the zone suggestion? MR. EDWARDS:�"In certain areas close to the Indian Reserves the white trapper is encroaching upon Indian territory." He quoted extensively from resolutions passed by the Synod of the Diocese of Keewatin, the Presbytery of Toronto, and the Kenora Board of Trade. MR* SPENCER:�"My Indians are in desperation owing to the white trappers, most of whom are Finns and Swedes." He cited cases of foreign trappers being killed by Indians as a result of the competition. MR. EDWARDS told of other white men being killed by Indians and Indians being killed by white men in the Red Lake country. 124 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 MR. SPENCER:�The Indians will give up their trapping before they will fight. MR. EDWARDS:�"I would suggest that trappers' licenses be issued only by game wardens, and that the close seasons be made by both the Dominion and the Province." He also suggested penalties against interference in traps. MR. BLACK:�It is a hard thing to restrict waters, for instance, if Indians are allowed to net them out. MR. EDWARDS:�The Indian should be allowed to get fish for food. .MR. McLEAN:�I have seen Indians in the spawning season net out trout and throw them to the dogs. MR. EDWARDS:�Our Indians do not take fish indiscriminately. What other way is he to get food? There is no place in the North where they could deplete the fish�there is more water there than land. FATHER COUTURE:�Where we have dogs we feed them before ourselves. The Indians don't take more than they want. I saw only one example where the Indians had shot a moose in a marsh where they could not go out and get him. MR. TAYLOR:�We heard at Schreiber of a case where an Indian had killed three moose and left them to spoil. FATHER COUTURE:�I have heard the same; but very often the tourist will kill four or five moose, cut off their heads and leave the rest. MR. McLEAN:�Have foreign trappers crowded in very much? FATHER COUTURE:�In my district they have had to move north owing to the depletion of fur. It is true that an Indian will take the young animals, because he knows that the white man will come along and take them anyway. MR. EDWARDS:�There is no doubt that some of them will kill moose and leave the carcass, but they are exceptions. MR. MINER told of an experience in the North in 1918, in an area 15 miles west of Cartier, where there were lots of beaver. While he was encamped a fur-buyer came in. He offered three Indians twelve dollars for all the beaver they could get with coupons on, and five dollars for all they could get without coupons. "I don't know whether they sold any furs to him or not. A few days later the Indians started in tearing the dams out and carried on a wholesale slaughter. I counted sixteen sets of beaver entrails where they had killed and disembowelled the beaver and took the carcasses, fur and all, to the camps. On or about the 15th or 20th of November, I visited their camp; there was a small waggon box of skinned, disembowelled beaver carcasses lying piled up within a rod of their tent door. The fall of that year was very warm, and they did not smell like a Thanksgiving dinner. I pleaded with them not to exterminate the beaver, because there would be none for next year. They replied, 'I kill him all. I don't come back here next year. White man do that, I do that/ " MR. EDWARDS:�Stop the white man doing that kind of thing and you will clean it up. CORP. BEBB:�You should not judge all Indians by one individual. MR. MINER:�There were three of them. CORP. BEBB read a list of complaints made by Indians. He said it was pitiful to go into some of the reserves and see the condition of the Indians. If they had not been given supplies they would have died in many instances. ON THE GAME SITUATION 125 He said that if the country were left to the Indians there would be more fur. He admitted they were killing the moose, but this was because they were not able to make a living by trapping. MR. TAYLOR:�The Indian does not always conserve the game in his own territory. I have seen them, where there was no competition, clean out dams and club the young. FATHER COUTURE:�In the North there is not one case of that kind. Where there is no competition he makes a living out of trapping. MR. SPENCE:�From what I know of this district I would say that the zoning'system is the best. MR. TAYLOR:�If we refused to issue trappers7 licenses to non-British subjects, do you think that would help? MR. MacINNES:�I think it would�and better still if non-Ontario residents were excluded. MR. EDWARDS:�That would help a lot. MR. McLEAN:�It would be very hard to cut off the Canadian. I don't think that you have quite got the solution. MR. MacINNES:�That is why we suggested north of the Transcontinental where there are no whites. I suggest that bona fide residents should be allowed to trap. A special exception might be made of prospectors. MR. McLEAN:�How long would you say it would be before all the Indians would be self-supporting? MR. EDWARDS:�Five or ten years should bring them back. MR. MacINNES:�We have no intention of white-washing the Indian. Like the poor, he is always with us. We are trying to prevent him from becoming a charge on the community. MR. BLACK:�At this time, when we are doing all we can to help our own people, we should do something to help the Indian. We are glad to have had this discussion, and we shall give consideration to your views and to the information you have conveyed to us, so far as it relates to the preservation and propagation of the game of our Province. APPENDIX 5 MEMORANDUM BY T. R. L. MacINNES Department of Indian Affairs Canada Ottawa, June 10th, 1932. Memorandum: To the Special Game Committee Meeting at Ottawa, June 11, 1932. Re. Proposal to Exclude White Trappers from Northern Ontario. The view of the Department of Indian Affairs with regard to the desirability of making Northern Ontario a game preserve in which only Indians would be allowed to hunt or trap were set forth quite fully by its representatives during the meetings of the Committee in 1931. 126 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Formerly that part of Ontario lying north of the main line of the Canadian National Transcontinental Railway was not frequented to any extent by white trappers, and hunting and trapping was, therefore, restricted practically to Indians. During the past five or six years, however, white trappers have been entering upon Indian hunting grounds in increasing numbers, with the result that a serious situation has developed, both with respect to the economic welfare of the hunting Indians and the conservation of wild life. In view of these developments, representatives of this Department, at a Conference of Dominion and Provincial game officials in 1928, urged that action be taken by the various provinces to set aside adequate hunting preserves for the exclusive use of Indians. As you are aware, this policy has been followed by the Dominion Government in the Northwest Territories. As a result of the discussion that occurred at the Conference, a resolution was passed unanimously approving the principle. Following this, the Province of Quebec in the same year, 1928, set aside Great Lake Victoria and Abitibi Preserves for the exclusive use of Indians. No action, however, has as yet been taken by the Province of Ontario. In 1931, however, the Province of Ontario appointed a Special Game Committee, membership of which was composed chiefly of the members of the Legislature, under the Chairmanship of the Honourable W. D. Black. This Committee travelled throughout the Province and investigated all questions pertaining to hunting and fishing. Representatives of the Department gave evidence before the Committee at Toronto and at various other points during their investigation, and advocated the exclusion of white trappers entirely from Northern Ontario. The report of this Committee is not yet available, but it is hoped that it will contain recommendations favorable to our contention. The arguments advanced by the Department in support of this policy, briefly, are as follows:� First from the Dominion viewpoint, which is concerned with the welfare of the Indians as wards; hunting and trapping are the aboriginal vocations of the Indians, and as there are no other gainful employments available for the Indians, and in the northern districts, it is necessary that they should be protected in their pursuits of hunting and trapping, if they are to be saved from indigency. From the viewpoint of the Province, which is concerned with wild life conservation, there are strong arguments to show that the exclusion of white trappers is a desirable, in fact a necessary measure. The northern parts of Ontario and Quebec comprise the richest remaining area in the Dominion in which fur-bearers have not been exploited to the point of depletion. The supply of fur-bearers is not more than sufficient to provide a livelihood for the Indian hunters and trappers who are now located in these districts. Obviously, therefore, the interests of conservation would suffer by the operations of additional white trappers in any numbers. It is well known, moreover, that the Indians, when undistribed, conserve the game, as the same families use the same hunting grounds from generation to generation. The white trapper, on the other hand, is usually a fur-miner whose object is to clear out the fur in a given district as rapidly as possible and then move elsewhere. The use of poison is a common practice among white trappers. This is especially so in the case of foreign trappers, particularly Finns, of whom there are a large number. The use of poison, carried on to any extent, means the extinction of the fur-bearers. The Indians scrupulously avoid the use of poison, and indeed, the Department has not been able to discover a single case where an Indian trapper has resorted ON THE GAME SITUATION 127 to the use of poison. The itinerant white trapper is often of the most undesirable character. Upon frequent occasions white trappers have driven Indians from hunting grounds by threatening them with guns. In some instances the Indians have retaliated, and there have been some cases of fatal shootings. In the fall of 1931 there were certain developments which have tended to bring the issue to a head. A certain commercial aeroplane company was employed by a Syrian merchant of Kapuskasing for the purpose of taking parties of trappers into Northern Ontario and Quebec. Following this the Department received reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and from missionaries, as well as from our own agents, pointing out that this new factor of the use of the aeroplane had greatly aggravated the situation, as it was now possible to take parties in a few hours to remote points that formerly could only be reached by a journey of several weeks by canoe and portage. Obviously, aviation put to this use would soon clear the fur out of the country. Correspondence was entered into between this Department and the Province of Quebec, with the result that that Province by an Order-in-Council, dated the 15th of January, 1932, excluded white trappers from the greater portion of the northern part of the Province. Copy of this Order-in-Council is enclosed herewith, together with a map showing the boundaries of the new preserve in which Indians only may hunt. It will be noted that the southern boundary of the Indian hunting area in Quebec fits in well with this Department's proposal for complementary action with respect to that part of Ontario lying north of the Transcontinental line, as it would continue on in an almost direct route. The proposal of the Department is strongly supported by the Hudson's Bay Company. The Department is in receipt of a letter dated the 21st ultimo from the office of the Fur Trade Commissioner for the Hudson's Bay Company at Winnipeg, enclosing copy of a letter which the Company had sent to the various provinces on the subject. A copy of this letter is appended hereto. I may add that this action was taken by the Company quite independently and without consultation writh the Department. (Signed) T. R. L. MacInnes. APPENDIX 6 CLAUSES FROM INDIAN TREATIES Robinson-Superior Treaty (made between the Province of Canada, as represented by the Hon. William Benjamin Robinson, and Ojibewa Indians inhabiting the northern shore of Lake Superior, September 7th, 1850): "And the said William Benjamin Robinson, of the first part, on behalf of Her Majesty and the Government of this Province, hereby promises and agrees to make the payments as before mentioned; and further to allow the said Chiefs and their tribes the full and free privilege of hunt over the territory now ceded by them, and to fish in the waters thereof as they have heretofore been in the habit of doing, saving and excepting only such portions of the said territory as may from time to time be sold or leased to individuals, or companies of individuals, and occupied by them with the consent of the Provincial Government." 128 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Robinson-Huron Treaty (made between the Province of Canada, as represented by the Hon. William Benjamin Robinson, and Ojibewa Indians inhabiting and claiming the eastern and northern shores of Lake Huron, September 9th, 1850): The same provisions as the Robinson-Superior Treaty above quoted. Treaty 9 (made between the Royal Commission representing the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario and the Indians of the Ojibewa, Cree and other Indians of Northern Ontario, 1905, with subsequent adhesions): "And His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of His Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes." Treaty 3 (made between the Dominion of Canada and the Saulteaux tribe of the Ojibewa Indians, October 3rd, 1873): "Her Majesty further agrees with her said Indians, that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by her Government of her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering, or other purposes, by her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government." Treaty 5: (made between the Dominion of Canada and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, 24th September, 1875): The same provisions as Treaty 3 above quoted. APPENDIX 7 MEMORANDUM OF DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT PARKS Indians I am of the opinion that the time is not far distant that Some drastic action must be taken to curtail the illegal operations carried on by the various bands of Indians in this District. If possible I would suggest that all Indians be made to reside on their respective Reserves, otherwise when hunting and trapping away from such Reserve they be subject to the same laws and regulations as the white man. In this District many of these people are in possession of cars, motor boats, radios and other luxuries, and in some instances, owing to the sale of timber limits, etc., in former years, they draw monies amounting to $3,000.00 per family per annum. ON THE GAME SITUATION 129 Gun Licenses Undoubtedly the Department will receive a great deal of support in passing a law compelling all sportsmen to have a gun license throughout Northern Ontario. Such license would enable our officers to keep a check on the foreigner and non-resident, and no license should be issued to a minor under sixteen, the latter class are very destructive with the .22 rifle. I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, (Signed) G. M. Parks, District Superintendent. APPENDIX 8 FEDERATION OF ONTARIO NATURALISTS The eight representations of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists to the Special Game Committee may be summarized as follows: (1) The wild life�game or otherwise�of the Province is the property of all its citizens, and must therefore be administered in the interests of all. (2) To give that wild life at least a reasonable chance of continued existence, the establishment of additional wild life sanctuaries is essential. (3) Scientific investigation of wild life should be encouraged in all possible ways, and the Federation believes that the appointment of an advisory committee would be an effective means of increasing and co-ordinating knowledge of the problems respecting the natural life of the Province. . . . (Signed) W. E. Saunders, President. A, F. Coventry, Secretary- Treasurer. APPENDIX 9 ONTARIO HUNTERS' GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Recommendations to the Provincial Legislature, Passed at the Annual Meeting of this Association, Held in the King Edward Hotel, Toronto, February 10th, 1932 (1) That this Association is in favor of a Game Preserve and Sanctuary, as Outlined in the letter from the Department of Ontario Game and Fisheries, dated September 20th, 1929, comprising portions of the Townships of Harrison, Burton, Shawanage and Burpee. (2) That an educational campaign be instituted in our schools covering the conservation of our wild life, and that the Department of Education shall require each teacher to devote fifteen minutes per week to this subject. (3) That the Government be called upon to ensure a better enforcement of the game laws. 130 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 (4) That each license to hunt big game have a coupon attached upon which the purchaser is required, under penalty, to make a return of his take. Penalty�The refusal of a further license, to be so stated on the face of the license. (5) That we are in favor of an annual Province-wide gun license. (6) That we are strongly in favor of the Government increasing the bounty on wolves of all ages to at least $40.00. (7) That the fee for non-resident hunters be increased to $50.00. (8) That the open season on big game be shortened in Sections "A", "B" and "C". (9) That the use of the ferret and the sale of cottontail rabbits be prohibited in that area covered by present gun license. (10) That this Association is strongly in'favor of placing the protection of game and game fish in Algonquin National Park under the Department of Game and Fisheries of the Province of Ontario. (11) That in the hunting of waterfowl feeding for the purpose of baiting be prohibited. That the season be shortened and that the bag limit be 15 per day and 100 per season. (12) That there be a closed season on all rabbits or hare, from February 15th to September 15th, in that section of the Province covered by the present gun license. (13) That the Province-wide use of dogs in the hunting of deer be permitted. (14) That an open season on ruffed grouse and spruce partridge be permitted to 1932, not to include Hungarian partridge. That the season be 15 days, with a bag limit of six per season. APPENDIX 10 SUGGESTIONS BY MR. F. SANDERSON, NIPIGON Nipigon, Ont., September 2nd, 1931. Mr. Frank Edwards, Indian Agent, Kenora, Ont. Dear Sir:� I understand that a Parliamentary Committee will meet at Kenora some time next week to enquire into game and fish conditions of these districts, and I believe there are some items on the agenda in connection with trapping conditions in general and with relation to Indians in particular. And it seems to me this might be an opportune time to suggest some measures of relief for the Indians during the coming winter. In promoting the various schemes for unemployment relief during this business depression, and more particularly for that during the coming winter months, nothing has even been suggested to help the Indians' serious plight so far as I am aware. And their natural heritage has been so exploited in recent years by the advance of civilization and industry, commercial fishing in inland waters, and in a more pronounced way by invasion of white trappers, ON THE GAME SITUATION 131 that, in my opinion, it is only a matter of comparatively short time until they will be practically driven to extinction. By way of opportunity for these Indians to better help themselves during the coming winter I would suggest an open season throughout these districts for them to take beaver and otter, say from November 1st to February 28th, the same open season as that governing fisher, marten, mink and fox. As matters now stand there is an open season for beaver and otter north of the C.G. Ry., which is not as good a beaver-producing section as the country south of that line. If this move meets with your ideas I would be glad if you will present it at the forthcoming meeting and give it your support. Yours very truly, (Signed) F. Sanderson. APPENDIX 11 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SPECIAL GAME COMMITTEE FROM THE TEMISKAMING FISH AND GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, KIRKLAND LAKE DIVISION (summarized) That the netting licenses, domestic as well as commercial, be cancelled in Larder Lake, and that the closed season on lake trout be extended from September 15th to November 15th. That a whole-time resident warden be appointed at the earliest possible moment. Some complaint of contamination of local waters (Otto Lake and Blanche River) by mine waste from Kirkland Lake. Requests for fish slides and dam repairs on Victoria Lake and Victoria Creek. Restocking of certain waters, such as Crystal Lake, and planting of rice in the district. (Signed) Louis Geizer, President. J. F. Browne, Secretary-Treasurer. APPENDIX 12 RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT MEETING OF THE THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT FISH AND GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION WHEREAS the Thunder Bay and District Fish and Game Protective Association and its predecessors, the Fort William and Port Arthur Fish and Game Protective Associations, have for some years past repeatedly requested the distribution of black bass in certain lakes in this District; AND WHEREAS the Ontario Department of Game and Fisheries, in reply to such requests, has in the past assured the aforesaid Associations that this would be carried out as soon as such bass were available; 132 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Thunder Bay and District Fish and Game Protective Association view with strong disfavor and desire to place on record a strong protest against the action of the aforesaid Department in distributing the first supplies of parent bass available in this District, on the application of private individuals through political and other organizations, for planting in Two Island Lake, Loon Lake, Lac de Mille Lac, and other points outside the District, such as Bruce Mines. None of such requests were placed through this Association. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that this Association request the Department of Game and Fisheries that, in future, no applications for game fish fry or parent fish whatever be accepted by the said Department, unless placed through this Association. Thunder Bay and District Fish and Game Protective Association. (Signed) Earl F. Beebe, Secretary. APPENDIX 13 RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY SABASKONG GUIDES AND OUTFITTERS' ASSOCIATION Morson, Ontario, January 17th, 1931. WHEREAS this Association is vitally interested in the conservation of the game fish in this District, because of the employment given to its members by visiting anglers; AND WHEREAS the Ontario Government is spending large sums of money annually to construct roads in order to attract the sportsmen and tourists to this Province; AND WHEREAS the Province derives a larger revenue from the sale of non-resident angling licenses than from commercial fishing licenses; AND WHEREAS the operation of nets for commercial purposes will in a short time deplete the fish supply in the waters where they are operated; NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED by this Association as follows: THAT the Minister of Mines and Game and Fisheries, the Honourable Charles McCrea, be requested to close all inland lakes to commercial fishing, especially the following named lakes, which are along or adjacent to the Kenora-Fort Frances Highway, namely: Pipestone, Kakagi (or Crow Lake), Atikwa (or Deer Lake), Lawrence Lake, Rowan Lake Dryberry Lake, and Whitefish Bay Lake of the Woods, including Whitefish Lake and Sturgeon Lake waters. PASSED by this Association in session this 17th day of January, 1931, ON THE GAME SITUATION 133 APPENDIX 14 MEMORANDUM FROM SPORTSMEN OF FORT FRANCES CITY Fort Frances, Ontario, September 8th, 1931. To the Honourable Members of Special Committee on Fish and Game. At a meeting of sportsmen of this locality, held under the auspices of the Fort Frances Board of Trade, it was agreed that the following recommendations with respect to changes of our present game laws or existing conditions affecting game and fish life be submitted to your Commission for consideration: That all inland lakes of the Rainy River and Kenora Districts be closed to commercial fishing, particularly the Upper and Lower Manitou Lakes, and if possible to secure the co-operation of the United States Government that Rainy Lake be closed to commercial fishing. That no license be granted for domestic fishing in any game fish lake. That the enforcement of the game laws of Quetico Park be placed under the supervision of the Department of Game and Fisheries instead of the Department of Lands and Forests as now vested. That the practice of trolling with motor be prohibited. That the meeting express their approval of the present law prohibiting the use of dogs for the hunting of deer. That the pulpwood which has been permitted to remain for the past three years in the Seine River is detrimental to the fish life of said stream as well as a hazard to navigation and for that reason should be cleared therefrom. That the angling fee of $5.50 to non-resident anglers permit holder to fish anywhere within the Rainy River and Kenora Districts, including Quetico Park. That your Commission consider the advisability of recommending to the Government the setting aside of a plot of ground near Nestor's Falls for the purpose of establishing a camping ground for the convenience of tourists at a nominal fee. Respectfully yours, Geo. H. Porter, Secretary. APPENDIX 15 ALGOMA GAME, FISH AND FOREST ASSOCIATION Suggestions to the Special Game Committee Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Aug. 11th, 1931. (summarized) Create Separate Department for Game and Fisheries The Association objects to placing the Department under the Provincial Treasurer, or under the Department of Mines, on account of the value of its revenue and resources, and the importance to the tourist trade of the wild life of the Province. 134 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 All Revenue Derived by the Department of Game and Fisheries from the Sale of Licenses and Other Sources to be Returned for Expenditure in Conservation Work The Association believes that the Department of Game and Fisheries should not be expected to contribute to the Provincial Treasury, but should use all its surplus for conservation and the attraction of tourists. Reduction in Cost of Licenses to Residents of Ontario Suggests that the licenses be issued through the different game wardens and the 50c. fee to issuers be eliminated. Commercial Netting in the Waters of the St. Mary's River from the Vicinity of Hilton Beach on the East Side of St. Joseph's Island Northward to Sault Ste. Marie Should be Absolutely Prohibited Game fishing in Lake George, Batchewana Bay and the St. Mary's River is now very poor, and must be improved if the tourist trade is to be retained. (Signed) R. H. Burns, Secretary. Algoma Game, Fish and Forest Association. APPENDIX 16 IROQUOIS FALLS AND DISTRICT ROD AND GUN CLUB Recommendations Iroquois Falls, February 9th, 1932. (summarized) Bear Believes that no change should be made in the present law, as it is a satisfactory compromise between the bounty and a close season. Deer and Moose Recommends that the open season for Divisions "A" and "B" be made the same, and that the open season be from October 20th to November 30th. Animals taken in September and early October are practically all spoiled. Recommends that licenses be issued for buying and selling of hides. Recommends that the law be amended to give protection to fawns. Recommends that game animals should be exposed in transport, and the sex indicated. Ducks and Geese Recommends that open season in Division "A" be from September 15th instead of September 1st, to allow the young birds to mature. Recommends that shooting be allowed one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset, as in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan. ON THE GAME SITUATION 135 Recommends the establishment of a sanctuary at Hannah Bay to protect the geese flying south. Present bag limit is satisfactory. Approves destruction of American mergansers, but not during the close season, so as not to conflict with law against carrying firearms, or to destroy other species. Crows Recommends that any method of destruction be permissible. Hawks and Owls Present regulations believed satisfactory. Beaver and Otter No change recommended in law. Believes there should be more law officers to prevent illegal handling. Indians Believes they should be allowed to take deer, moose and fish for their own requirements, but not be allowed to sell. Crown Game Preserves Recommends that more patrols be put on the preserves and that the penalties for violation of Order-in-Council be more severe, such as $25 fine for the first offence, $100 for the second, and jail term without option for the third. License Issuers Recommends that there be at least one issuer of licenses for every 5,000 people, in all but the largest centres, and that those holding licenses have their names posted in some public place at least once a week during the open season. Trap Line System Recommends that each licensed trapper have a registered trap line. Guides Recommends that qualifications for guide be required as follows: That he be an experienced bush man, a resident British subject and at least 21 years of age. Recommends that if non-resident tourists employ a guide he must be registered in Ontario. Taxidermists Recommends that provision be made for licensing taxidermists. Reindeer Would approve the importation, raising and distribution of reindeer, but is without sufficient information to justify a recommendation on the subject. Bird Dogs Recommends that restrictions be put on the training of bird dogs during the nesting season of birds. 136 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Search of Premises Recommends that law officers have the right to enter and search, without warrant, the premises of any hunting camp, lumber camp, mining camp or construction camp. Enforcement Recommends as an aid to enforcement of the law that all places of business selling ammunition be required to keep a record of all sales, including .22 shells and shot shells, and to show such record to any officer of the law on request. The Iroquois Falls Rod and Gun Club made further recommendations, as follows: (summarized) (1) Resolution that the Department of Game and Fisheries be petitioned to investigate the planting of fingerling and fry fish in neighboring waters for later angling, and refuse issuance of further domestic net licenses for inland waters stocked with game fish. (2) Resolution that the Department of Game and Fisheries be petitioned to consider a short open season for partridge, with limited bag, for 1932. (3) Resolution that the Department of Game and Fisheries be petitioned to investigate the carrying of firearms by tourists and vacationists during May, June, July and August, to reduce or prohibit this custom, and if necessary to license the carrying of all firearms, licenses not to be issued during the above months, and prohibition not to apply to farmer on his own property. These licenses to issue to British subjects only. (Signed) H. J. Rowley. C. S. Jessup APPENDIX 17 REPORT TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE CONDITIONS AFFECTING GAME AND FUR-BEARING ANIMALS IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (From G. M. Parks, District Superintendent, North Bay, Ontario) Deer Reports from the Department's field officers, as well as my own observations, indicate that the deer are holding their own, although there is no noticeable increase. Moose Results obtained by hunters would indicate that these animals are scarce, although it must be kept in mind that moose are of a migratory nature and move from place to place for better feeding grounds. ON THE GAME SITUATION 137 Wolves There is a noticeable decrease within the last two years; no doubt this is due to the extensive trapping carried on by many of the unemployed who are induced by the $25.00 bounty which is being paid by the Department. Needless to say, these animals are very destructive to deer, and if they could be wiped out our game would soon return. Bear These animals have been plentiful during the last two years, and the question of them killing young moose and deer is very debatable. No doubt bears will kill whenever the opportunity presents itself, like the wolf, and I know of one case where a full-grown fox destroyed a fawn two or three days old. Nevertheless, I am much opposed to the granting of a license permitting hunters to kill bear during the months of May and June as advocated by many of our so-called sportsmen. Fur-Bearing Animals During the past two years there has been a general decrease, which I think is due to very intensive trapping in former years, when fur prices were exorbitant. As far as the muskrats are concerned, I am of the opinion that no trapping should be allowed during the breeding season, which is about the month of May in this District. Open Seasons With regards to open seasons for hunting, very few objections are raised to our present regulations, except in that territory north of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, where it has been suggested that the season open on October 1st. Partridge or Grouse Last fall these birds were very numerous, and as we were favored with a good winter and excellent hatching conditions, I would recommend a short open season this fall with a bag limit of ten birds per season. Ducks and Geese These birds are very scarce in this District, and many sportsmen are of the opinion that the season for ducks should open on September 15th. The bag limit appears to be satisfactory. Commercial Fishing Throughout this District commercial fishing is restricted to the Great Lakes or inter-provincial waters, with the exception of two or three inland lakes, where, on account of the unemployment situation, licenses have been granted for a short period of time. Trapping Grounds This subject has been much discussed during the last few years. The chief trouble is the dividing of boundary lines and allotting of territories to the bona fide Indians. From a conservation point of view I believe the leasing of trapping grounds would have a far reaching effect, as each man would take care of his territory, even to the preventing of fires, etc. With regards to the fees to be 138______________REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE___________No. 32 charged, I would suggest $10.00 per annum for each township, this to be increased to a maximum of $25.00 at the expiration of three years, or an annual increase of $5.00 per annum. Game Reserves Very pleasing results have been obtained by the setting aside of various areas in this District as game reserves. This, in my opinion, is one of the primary means of saving our game, but I do not deem it advisable to have the set-aside areas too large, as it makes it very difficult for efficient patrol. APPENDIX 18 MEMORANDUM FROM SPORTSMEN OF NORTH BAY LOCALITY North Bay, Ont., Aug. 1st, 1932. Recommendations submitted to the Special Committee appointed to investigate conditions affecting game and fur-bearing animals in the Province of Ontario, by the District Superintendent: Adoption of a gun license throughout the entire Province, such license not to be issued to minors under sixteen years of age, and to residents and British subjects only. That the law restricting the use of dogs for hunting throughout the Province be strictly adhered to. I strongly recommend that there should be an increase in all fines for violations of our Act, especially when the offence is committed in our game reserves. In all cases where fur dealers are continuously neglecting to comply with the Departments regulations, or when convicted, that their license be cancelled for a period of at least six months. That the question of leasing trapping grounds be given some consideration, as I feel satisfied that in the future it will be necessary to make some arrange ments to govern this, as well as allotting certain territories to the Indian. That the Department continue to refuse the granting of commercial fishing license for all small inland lakes; this to be effective as soon as general employment conditions return to normal. APPENDIX 19 KENORA BOARD OF TRADE Recommendations to Special Game Committee (summarized) Recommendation for the establishment of a game sanctuary in the eastern area of the Lake of the Woods. Recommendation that the ownership of any gun or rifle necessitate the carrying of a license, so as to ensure control over army of shooters. Recommendation that certain angling areas of the Lake of the Woods be retained only for angling purposes, especially in view of completion of highways from Winnipeg to Fort Frances via Kenora. (Signed) R. H. Moore, Chairman, Game and Fish Committee. ON THE GAME SITUATION 139 APPENDIX 20 TEMISKAMING FISH AND GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Haileybury, Ont., September 23rd, 1931. (summarized) Recommendations (1) That steps be taken to stop pollution of the waters of Lake Temiskaming by the Northern Ont. Power Co.'s pulp mill. (2) That fish ladders be placed at the following places: Government Dam at Sth. Temiskaming; Government Dam at Latchford; Northern Ont. Power Co.'s dams at Matawapika Falls, Rabbitt Lake, Fountain Falls and Ragged Chutes. (3) All applications for gill net fishing should be made through the Department. (4) All newly-stocked waters to be posted. (5) Lectures and booklets to be given to public and separate school pupils on wild life, conservation and kindred topics. (6) Game warden to be appointed in Haileybury, and more wardens throughout Northern Ontario. (7) Special trout hatchery at Spring Creek, West Rd., Haileybury, for the needs of localities along the T. & N.O. Railway. (8) That the Department be asked to remove and destroy coarse fish in game fish waters. (9) Increase of wolf bounty to $50 for females and $30 for males. (Signed) Adam Keddie, Secretary-Treasurer. These recommendations were endorsed by the Town Corporation of Haileybury (signed by H. Clifford, clerk and treasurer) and by the Haileybury Rotary Club and the Haileybury Board of Trade, signed by their respective secretaries. APPENDIX 21 NIPISSING FISH AND GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION North Bay, Ontario Recommendations referred to Special Game Committee (1) That the duck season should not open sooner than Sept. 15th in all parts of the Province, and that the bag be limited to 10 birds per day, or 100 per season, per person. At this season of the year the spring ducklings are not fully developed, and it was felt that the season is too long and too early. Also it was felt that the present bag limit is too large and will tend to decrease the flocks and that a great many will result in waste. (2) That we are in favor of the buck law and that shooting of fawns under one year old be prohibited. (3) That we recommend a gun license fee of 50c. per year be established for all persons carrying firearms, and that a button or badge be issued with 140 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 each license. This is to be worn while carrying a gun. This was thought to be a check on poachers and others using firearms unlawfully, and yet the fee would not work a hardship on anyone. Referred to the Committee by the Deputy Minister; Submitted by Leonard Dreany, Secretary-Treasurer of the Association. APPENDIX 22 SUGGESTIONS MADE TO COMMITTEE Indians and Trappers HARRY OLLMAN, Aldershot, asks that the white trapper be done away with altogether, and that the Indian only be permitted to trap. I. BONNEAU, Chief Constable, Victoria Harbor, asks: (1) That all trapping and hunting of fur-bearers be banned south of the French and Mattawa Rivers for five years. (2) That all Indians be banned from trapping outside their reserves for five years. (3) That hunting fur-bearers by dogs be prohibited, and that dogs running at large be shot. (4) Penalty to be increased for illegal taking of fur, when found on buyers. (5) All trappers convicted of illegality to be barred from trapping for a period of time. CHARLES BURNS, Sundridge, asks: (1) That trapping be closed for five years. (2) That farmers be allowed to trap on their own lands. E. R. GREEN, Judge, asks that trappers' licenses be changed to a system of licenses for townships. D. W. BUDD, Renfrew, asks that travelling fur-buyers be eliminated. A. E. WAY, Lowbush, asks: (1) That trapping be cut down. (2) That only British subjects of at least one year's domicile in Ontario be granted trappers' licenses. (3) That the same regulations apply to fur-buyers and traders, demanding further that they be property-owners or that they put up a bon'd. J. A. MacDONALD, J.P., Fort Hope Indian School, Tashota, asks that white trappers be excluded entirely from district north of the C.N.R., and that Indians be registered and carry card of identification for trapping purposes. GEO. B. NICHOLSON, M.P., Chapleau, asks that all the Crown domain north of the Great Lakes be reserved to Indians, i.e., that no further licenses be issued except to Indians, and that all white trappers' licenses lapse at a certain specified future date. J. D. KENNEALLY submitted a resolution to the Department of Indian Affairs, asking that trapping territory be allotted between whites and Indians. CORPORAL BEBB, R.C.M.P., Nipigon, submits serious complaints by Indians against white trappers. A. J. MANLEY, Sudbury, sends letter from Harry Endleman in 1923, with five recommendations re trapping. ON THE GAME SITUATION 141 APPENDIX 23 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE KENT ANGLING AND HUNTING ASSOCIATION (1) That United States hunters, other than members of existing private clubs or bona fide tourists entering this country at regular ports of entry, be excluded from the waters of Mitchell's Bay and vicinity. (2) That the Game and Fisheries Department discontinue the procedure of removing parent black bass from the waters of Mitchell's Bay, unless fifty per cent of the fry or fingerlings obtained from these and all the parent bass be returned to the waters of Kent County. (3) That the open season for black bass be extended in this locality from October 15th to October 31st. (4) That some action be taken to eliminate the great amount of commercial shooting and the wholesale netting of fish during the spawning season in the waters of Rondeau Bay. (5) That a full time overseer be appointed, with headquarters at Erieau. . . (Signed) Cliff. H. Dafoe, Secretary- Treasurer. APPENDIX 24 SMITH'S FALLS FISH AND GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Ling taken in locality. Smith's Falls, Ont., Jan. 20th, 1932. . . . Further victories in the war against the ling were reported by officers of the Smith's Falls Fish and Game Protective Association today. The campaign to remove this fish from the waters of the lakes, in this district, is meeting with success, and while those in charge declare the real run is still more than a week distant, more nets and equipment are being prepared, and will be placed in due time. New records for weight and stomach capacity were established on Saturday when a big ling weighing 11J4 pounds was caught. This fish is now on display in the window of a local store. The former holder of the weight record was a 10}4: pounder. The champion feeder proved a female weighing 634 pounds, and which had swallowed another ling, sixteen inches long and weighing over a pound. Another heavy feeder had, for breakfast, two perch, the largest eight inches long, and still another had swallowed one big mouth bass and two perch, each almost seven inches in length. To date, no less than 2,467 ling have been taken out, and a total of 4,042 pounds of fish have been given away free to the unemployed. Business is increasing daily, officials say, and many are applying for ling for table use. The following summary shows clearly the success attending the campaign. 142 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 Summary The dates, numbers of ling caught, and the number of pounds of ling disposed of locally for table use. DATE Dec. 29th............................ " 30th............................ " 31st.............................. an. 1st............................. 2nd............................ " 5th............................ " 6th........................... " 7th............................ " 8th............................ " 9th............................ " 11th............................ " 12th............................ " 13th............................ " 14th............................ " 16th............................ Jan. 17th, 18th and 19th. NO.CAUGHT POUNDS GIVEN AWAY 48 40 36 27 6 36 52 54 9 59 51 63 213 209 55 293 110 418 338 519 399 535 362 236 29 684 377 869 382 2,467 4,042 831 3,298 (Signed) J. E. Close, 130 Elmsley St., Smith's Falls. Smith's Falls, Ont., February 9th, 1931. . . . The total number of ling taken from the Otter Lake was 2,171, from the Rideau Lake 1,892, numbering in all 4,063 fish, approximately 14,835 pounds. The largest one-day catch was 557 fish. The nets they used were about one and a half ton trap nets. The number of fish taken out would have been considerably increased, but, owing to the high water of the Rideau, they were unable to obtain any better results. One ling, taken from Otter Lake, had a ling inside measuring 16 inches long, about 1J4 pounds. They have taken from some of these ling: lake trout, pickerel and bass, up to seven inches long, perch eight and a half inches long, sun fish five and a half inches long; rock bass, mud pouts, shiners, frogs and crabs. Allowing one fish a day for each ling, they would consume 1,481,535 fish per year. Three fish per day would mean 4,444,605 fish per year. Female ling weighing eight and three quarter pounds at spawning time carries 873,520 eggs. The figure is 28,640 eggs in one ounce spawn. ... (Signed) J. G. Close. ON THE GAME SITUATION 143 APPENDIX 25 COPIES OF INVOICES ON FISH SHIPPED FROM KILLARNEY TO NEW YORK From And Sold By (1) Jos. Herbert, Jr. Killarney, Ont. Booth Fisheries Co. Wholesale Commission Fish Dealers Fulton Wholesale Fish Market New York, N.Y. Date Folio Boxes Bbls 5/2 15395 3 232 Trout 16 $37.12 30 Whi 3 Boxes and Ice 17 390 5.10 Duty and Entry Fee Express Charges 292 1137 42.22 Commission 633 24.52 Purchase Account by Port Clinton Fish Co. Wholesale Fish Dealers 41 Peck Slip, New York $17.70 To Joe Herbert, Jr. Address�Killarney, Ont. Lot No. 11 Date Received 7/18 legs. Quantity Kinds 6 50 56 50 50 50 54 Gr. 13 12 Pch 12 Gr. Yell. Comm. Express Freight 6 Bas. At 13 13 10 18 16 Amount $ 7.94 7.28 6.50 5.00 9.00 8.64 Total 55 $ 6.65 19.86 3.30 $44.36 29.81 $14.55 144 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 APPENDIX 26 SUGGESTIONS OF W. G. CROZIER, CHARLESTON (Charleston Lake) Asks for a fishway in the dam at the outlet of Charleston Lake. Thousands of bass yearly are now carried out of the lake through the dam being opened during the early part of the season, and closed at the time when bass go to their summer grounds. Bullheads and ling destroy spawn of all game fish. The very deep water in the lake rendering winter fishing impracticable, the problem of bullheads should be undertaken in May, September and October. APPENDIX 27 FISH: VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS RECEIVED BY COMMITTEE E. D. CALBERT (Rainy River District) asks that Whitensh Bay be closed to commercial fishing. JULES F. ROOS, Missanabie, complains of the dams at Dog Lake and Manitowik Lake, which he says have spoiled fishing in Stoney Portage. F. DAVIS, Hamilton, protests against the use of Dip Nets in Hamilton Bay, likewise against the dumping of hot slag into the waters of the Bay from the Steel Plant. GEORGE DREWRY, Kenora, asks that net licenses in angling water be not renewed. R. A. CARSCALLEN, Walfaceburg, asks that the bass season be extended to November 1st (in Lake St. Clair, River St. Clair and tributaries thereof, and Mitchell's Bay). EARL F. BEEBE, Secretary, Thunder Bay and District Fish and Game Protective Association, asks advice and assistance on their problem of securing owners' consent to restocking of streams, in unorganized townships, and would like the co-operation of the Department. CREIGHTON BRADFORD, Secretary of Owen Sound Fish and Game Protective Association, protested against commercial fishing and netting in Owen Sound Bay, and forwarded petition. APPENDIX 28 PROVISIONAL COUNTY OF HALIBURTON, FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE Resolutions Submitted to Special Game Committee Haliburton, Sept. 10th, 1931. (summarized) (1) Recommendation for the appointing of special Game Wardens, each Township to have the right to name its own wardens and allot their territory. (2) Recommendation that the Warden for the County of Haliburton reside near the centre of the County. (3) Recommendation that the County Council of Haliburton recommend to the Department the appointment of a County Game Warden, the placing of the appointment being left to the Department. ON THE GAME SITUATION 145 (4) Protest against the lowering of lake levels in the County at trout spawning season, and recommendation for co-operation between the Municipalities and the Trent Valley Canal officials at spawning time. (5) Recommendation that the Department publish the legal procedure dealing with the taking of Fresh Water White Herring, commonly known as White Fish, in the fall of the year, during their spawning season. (6) Recommendation in favor of dogs in hunting deer, in favor of Buck Law, in favor of increasing wolf bounty. (7) Recommendation for an open season for partridge, during last seven days of October, with bag limit of five per day. (8) Recommendation for license fee of $25.00 for non-resident license to hunt red deer only. (Signed) W. R. Curry, Chairman. Haliburton County Sherbourne Township, per John McNamara, submitted resolution to the Fish and Game Commission of the County of Haliburton, which was forwarded by their Chairman, W. R. Curry, to the Special Game Committee, asking for a high and low water level from 12 ft. 6 in. to 9 ft. 6 in. during the coming year, for Hollow Lake. APPENDIX 29 ST. CATHARINES AND LINCOLN COUNTY GAME AND FISH PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITH ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS The following recommendations were presented to the Annual Meeting January 29th, 1932, voted on, and carried. Game (1) That an educational campaign be instituted by the Department of Education in our schools covering the conservation of our game birds, game-fishes and animals. (2) That this Association is in favour of a province-wide gun license. (3) That the fee for non-resident hunters be increased. (4) That provision be made in the Game and Fisheries Laws whereby a gun may be lawfully transported in a gun case to and from a trap shooting event. (5) As sportsmen coming from Counties where gun licenses are not necessary believe that after buying a gun license to shoot pheasants in Lincoln County that they are entitled to hunt any place they desire, this Association recommends: "That notice be printed on the face of gun license, "Not Good on Posted Property". (6) That we approve of the Statutory permission for the use of dogs in the hunting of deer. (7) That an open season on grouse be permitted for 1932. (Six birds.) (8) That in view of the very large amount of revenue derived from the issue of gun and sportsmen licenses in the Province of Ontario, this Association 146 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 feels that a much larger distribution of suitable game birds for propagation purposes should be distributed annually throughout the province. (9) That baiting be prohibited in the hunting of waterfowl; and the bag limit on ducks be reduced to not more than one hundred per year. (10) As rabbit hunting is practically the only sport left to be enjoyed by the hunters in the Niagara District (except one day's pheasant shooting), and as cotton-tail rabbit is decreasing very rapidly; to preserve this sport this Association recommends: "That the Sale of Cotton-Tail Rabbits be Prohibited." (11) That the use of the ferret for hunting rabbits be prohibited in this district. (12) That open and closed seasons be established on jack rabbits and cotton-tails. That the open season be from November 1st to January 31st. (13) That duck season be shortened to open October 1st. APPENDIX 30 WATERFOWL: VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMITTEE Ducks and Geese: MR. H. S. OSLER, Toronto, recommends the following changes: (summarized) (1) Suggests that there should be more restrictions put on American shooters in general. (2) Suggests two zones for duck shooting, the dividing line being the main line of the Canadian National, Montreal to Sarnia. For the northern zone, September 1st as the opening date. (3) Opposes bag limit as unsatisfactory, unenforceable and tending to destroy the more valuable species. (4) Rest days recommended for Mondays and Tuesdays as well as Sundays in each week. MR. FOREST CONOVER, Leamington, asks that an area at the northeast and the base of Point Pelee, adjoining the Point Pelee National Park, be re-purchased as a sanctuary and preserve for ducks and other waterfowl. MR. C. J. KERR, Hamilton, writes to protest against hides, screening, decoys and other practices on Burlington Bay; also describing conditions in the Dundas Marsh. MR. GRINER, of Hamilton, Hamilton & District Angling & Casting Association, protests against hides. MR. F. DAVIS, Hamilton, asks that shooting boxes and monkeys be prohibited, all decoys to be no more than 60 yards from shore or rush bed, all hides to be on shore or rush bed, bag limit to be reduced to 10 per day, and shooting to begin at daybreak. Complains of conditions in Hamilton Bay. MR. W. G. A. REID, Detroit, makes suggestions as follows: (1) Season for ducks, October 15th to November 15th. (Not for Northern Ontario.) (2) Season for geese, November 15th to December 15th. (Not for Northern Ontario.) (3) Correction of shooting on highways or school and public grounds and by high-powered rifles in congested district. (4) That Government should not feed geese unless public can shoot them. ON THE GAME SITUATION 147 MR. W. F. INMAN, Hamilton, asks that feeding of ducks be prohibited and prevented. MR. GEORGE DREWRY, Kenora, complains of the setting of fish nets in wild rice fields. COL. EMMERTON, District Superintendent, London, asserts that domesticated wild ducks are being offered for sale by farmers in St. Clair district. MR. R. A. CARSCALLEN, Wallaceburg, recommends that duck hunting licenses be refused to non-residents of Canada to hunt in the waters and marshes adjacent to the St. Clair River and tributaries, and Lake St. Clair east and north of a line drawn from St. Clair Ship Canal to mouth of River Thames, marked "B-C" on map enclosed. Not to apply to members of private clubs. MR. WILLIAM R. CLARKE, Cochrane, claims that geese and trout are being slaughtered and shipped by boat from Moose Factory. MR. W. W. SCANE, Chatham, asked for a close season on duck in 1931. MR. J. H. SINCLAIR, Perth, (1) opposes any change in duck season. (2) asks that bag limit be reduced to 100. MR. BRUCE BRADLEY, Paincourt, asks that non-resident duck hunters be allowed to export ducks up to the bag limit per hunter, i.e., 150. KENT ANGLING ASSOCIATION asks that foreign hunters be kept out of Mitchell's Bay and vicinity, with certain exceptions. MR. C. J. KERR, Game Overseer, Hamilton, tells of conditions in Hamilton an.d Burlington Bays, and asks that complaints be made directly to Overseer. W. T. FLANIGAN, Cornwall, Ont., asks a $2.00 tax for duck hunters. HARRY OLLMAN, Aldershot, wants more wild rice planted for ducks in Northern Ontario. APPENDIX 31 UPLAND GAME: VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS TO COMMITTEE PROFESSOR J. A. DYMOND, Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology, Toronto, suggests that the Government finance research into game, especially ruffed grouse. MR. EARL F. BEEBE, Fort William, tells how well Hungarians have done in that region. MR. Z. A. NADON, Radiant, claims that partridge are very numerous, but that foxes and hawks kill them off. M. J. HOUSE, Niagara Hunt Club, asks for open season on partridge. DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISHERIES asks recommendation on pheasants: (a) whether hunting area should be extended. (b) whether shooting should be restricted to male birds or include male and female. Predatory Birds: HENRY WATKIN, Secretary, Western Ontario Fish & Game Protective Association, London, requests assistance to curb the starling. ALBERT CHESTER, Loon Lodge, Newboro, asks for information on how to get rid of crows. N. MANNEN, Jerseyville, Secretary of Farmers' Club, A. E. WAY, Lowbush, and E. F. NEFF, Jordan, want campaign against hawks and owls. 148 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 APPENDIX 32 FIREARMS: VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS TO COMMITTEE J. A. GRIFFITH, Deputy Warden, Freeman, asks that the carrying of .22 and other firearms be prohibited, especially in motor cars. E. R. KERR, Secretary Jack Miner League, Walkerville, writes asking that the carrying of firearms be prohibited in Essex during the winter months, i.e., after January 2nd. A. K. McMILLAN, Clerk-Treasurer, Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Cornwall), asks in the name of these united Councils that Dundas and Stormont be added to the list of Counties where it is unlawful to carry firearms without a license. J. ALLAN SHERRETT, Secretary-Treasurer, Kenora Board of Trade, sends copy of resolution from the Board that the carrying of firearms be licensed. Licenses W. H. ELLIOTT, M.P.P., Fort Frances, makes the suggestion that all licenses in Fort Frances, fishing, hunting, trapping, angling, car markers, etc., be placed in the hands of one individual for issue. APPENDIX 33 GAME WARDENS: SUGGESTIONS MADE REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT A. E. WAY, Lowbush, says more game wardens are urgently needed along a long strip of the interprovincial boundary, to prevent furs being taken illegally into Quebec. W. F. INMAN, Hamilton, asks for more game wardens and overseers, carefully selected and salaried. JUDGE G. C. THOMSON, Hamilton, thinks wardens should be young men, and should share in the fines. W. T. FLANIGAN, Cornwall, wants assistant warden for district, with car and outboard motorboat for warden's use. CHARLES BURNS, Sundridge, asks that more wardens be appointed, and that they go in pairs. APPENDIX 34 COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF THE COST OF GAME LAW ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE STATE POLICE AND UNDER THE OLD WARDEN SYSTEM, FURNISHED BY THE STATE OF OREGON Under Game Commission assessed fines total cost cost per month cost per case October 1, 1926 to September 30, 1927 $25,731.80 $128,680.50 $10,723.36 $190.50 1,300.00 ARRESTS 675 Game) 15 (Fish) ON THE GAME SITUATION 149 ARREARS ASSESSED FINES TOTAL COST COST PER MONTH COST PER CASE October 1, 1927 to September 30, 1928 617 (Game) $21,691.20 $134,511.30 $11,209. 45 (Fish) 1,830.00 October 1, 1928 to September 30, 1929 686 (Game) $25,084.95 $148,583.95 $12,381. 37 (Fish) 2,358.20 October 1, 1929 to September 30, 1930 633 (Game) $23,537.45 $137,800.64 $11,483. 43 (Fish) 2,225.00 October 1, 1930 to July 31, 1931 505 (Game) $21,046.60 $109,192.02 $10,919, 19 (Fish) 650.00 Under State Police August 1, 1931 to March 31, 1932 802 (Game) $36,044.50 $84,705.84 $10,588.23 51 (Fish) 2,335.00 APPENDIX 35 Game Preserves C. B. TAYLOR, St. Thomas, and C. W. CLAPPERTON, Port Loring, endorse the establishment of proposed game preserve in the Township of Hardy. K. HANSON, Sabaskong Guides and Outfitters Association, Rainy River, sends resolution asking that a game preserve be erected as outlined. FORT FRANCES BOARD OF TRADE submits resolution asking that Quetico Park be put under Department of Game and Fisheries instead of Lands and Forests. APPENDIX 36 Miscellaneous FORT FRANCES BOARD OF TRADE asks that camping ground be set aside near Nester's Lake. JAMES COOPER, Welland, asks that permission be granted to serve venison in hotels. APPENDIX 37 Rabbits F. J. K. CLARKE, Secretary Essex County Sportsmen's Association, sends copy of a recommendation made by the Association to prohibit the use of the ferret, any animal, or mechanical device, for the taking or killing of rabbits in Essex County. JUDGE G. C. THOMSON, Hamilton, asks for a close season for rabbits, not to interfere with privileges of farmers on their own lands. $217.75 $216.60 $217.60 $214.25 $105,75 150 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 APPENDIX 38 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM P. STEVENSON, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, ORILLIA (1) Province-wide gun licenses for residents only, over 18 years of age. (2) No farmer or settler to have more than one dog (any breed) over one year old. (3) Deer and moose skins to be purchased and sold only by licensed fur dealers, and record kept of all purchases and sales. Skin coupon to be attached to hide before sale and until exported or tanned. (4) Non-resident hunting licenses to be increased to $50.00, with $1.00 issuing fee. (5) Use of dogs hunting deer and fox prohibited. (6) Licensed fur dealers to forfeit license for one year from date of conviction for buying or having illegal beaver or otter; for second offence license refused indefinitely. (7) Hunting mink with dogs should be prohibited. (8) All deer and moose, or parts thereof being transported by car or truck, must be placed in such car or truck in such a manner that the coupon may be easily checked by any officer. (9) Officers under appointment to be strictly under the Department for discipline and to be transferred anywhere within the Province at the will of the Department. (10) Officers should be retired on pension at age of sixty-five years. (11) Farmers7 deer hunting licenses should be purchased from the nearest license issuer, and license issuers should be held responsible that these licenses are sold only to persons who are entitled to them. APPENDIX 39 Letter from J. C. RICHARDSON, Treasurer, the Ontario Hunters' Game Protective Association, enclosing and protesting against an advertisement in which moose, deer or bear is guaranteed to hunters. APPENDIX 40 DR. EDWIN H/WILSON, PERTH, ONTARIO The following recommendations are made to the Special Game Committee: (1) Strict enforcement of the law by the appointment of more game wardens who should be carefully selected and properly paid. (2) Increased bounty on destruction of wolves. (3) Limiting the number of ducks each man can take to seventy-five. (4) Recommendation of open season for wood duck. (5) Sees no need for change in hunting deer, in time or method. (Signed) E. H. Wilson. ON THE GAME SITUATION 151 APPENDIX 41 MlTSKRATS BRUCE F. BRADLEY, Paincourt, asks: (1) That muskrat meat with skin removed be sold for meat without license. (2) For earlier muskrat season, (a) to catch fewer females. (b) that the fur be in better condition. (c) For better quality meat. (d) to get furs on market early. W. G. A. REID, Detroit, asks that the muskrat trapping season on private property be open all winter. GEORGE PARK, Eugenia, asks a close season for two years on fox, raccoon, mink and muskrat. CHARLES BURNS, Sundridge, asks that it be permitted to sell red fox-bred in captivity. APPENDIX 42 Deer E. S. SHERWOOD, Ottawa, Rockcliffe Club, Gatineau Club, wants shorter deer season. W. F. ROBERTS sent petition from Restoule district asking for open season for deer in Parry Sound District. ROBERT McCULLOCH, Fort William, asked for later season. GEORGE PARK, Eugenia, asks that close season in Grey be continued. LIONEL STEVENSON, Guelph, asks for buck law. H. C. PARSONS, Toronto, asks for buck law. APPENDIX 43 SUGGESTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE FROM A. FRANCKE, ABIWIN, VIA KAWENE P.O., ONTARIO (summarized) (1) Duck season, Sept. 15th to Nov. 15th, or else a smaller bag limit. (2) Closed season on partridge till 1932 or short season, if any, in 1932, and license fee, with small bag limit. (3) Later season for deer and moose, say, 30 full days of November, with lower fee, $2.00 for deer, $3.00 for moose. (4) No dogs at any time in hunting. (5) Close all trapping even for Indians up to October 30, 1936, or even 1939, except for wolf, bear and skunk. (6) No travelling fur-buyers licenses during closed seasons. (7) Increase in penalties for infraction of game laws, especially for illegal possession of pelts. Suggests jail term of two or three years, without option of fine. More game wardens. (8) Free trolling and angling in all lakes. Asks for gill net regulations to be amended so as to read 50 yards by 4>2 inch mesh, with $3.00 fee. (9) Special gill net license to enable fur farmer in outlying districts to take coarse fish for feed. 500 ft. by 4>2 inch mesh; fee of $20.00 152 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE No. 32 (10) No commercial fishing license in inland lakes. (11) No further lakes closed to fishing. (12) Law enabling fur farmers to trap live animals for foundation purposes only. (13) Inspection of all fur farms in outlying districts, 6 times per annum. (14) Residents in outlying districts to be permitted to trap weasels, bears, wolves, foxes or mink, on their own property. (15) All residents of outlying districts should have permit to possess firearms, whether British subjects or not. Permits confined to property-owners. (16) Prospectors, miners, tourists, or bushmen in outlying districts to be permitted firearms only if going outside civilization. (17) No one to be allowed to reside in outlying districts unless permanently employed, owning home with clear title, and no trappers to live in outlying districts during close season, unless licensed as guide or a permanent employee of a railroad. (Exclusive of Indians.) (18) No minor to hunt, possess firearms or reside in outlying district, without guide. (19) A survey of all lakes suitable for sport fishing. (20) That all Provincial Parks, especially Quetico, be transferred from the Lands and Forests Department to the Department of Game and Fisheries. (Signed) A. Francke. APPENDIX 44 Dogs CAPT. J. E. FREEMAN, Hartington, Ontario, writes in favor of dogs. H. C. PARSONS, Toronto, asks that if dogs be prohibited, the prohibition extend to the whole Province. MALCOLM LYMBURGER, L. L. Club of Blackheath, Ont., writes in favor of dogs, and would rather have Buck Law than see dogs prohibited. T. B. FARRELL, Beaver Meadow Hunt Club, writes in favor of dogs CHARLES BURNS, Sundridge, in favor of dogs. E. S. SHERWOOD, Vice-Chairman Enforcement Committee, RockclirTe Crown Game Preserve, President Gatineau Fish and Game Club, writes to ask that dogs be prohibited absolutely. JOHN CHRISTIE, Park Ranger, Rock Lake, writes opposing dogs. S. T. MALKIN, Orrville, writes very much opposed to dogs. FORT FRANCES BOARD OF TRADE submits resolution asking that dogs be cut out. M. J. HOUSE, Niagara Hunt Club, writes opposing dogs. J. J. HAMER, Parry Sound District, writes commending the dog ban. APPENDIX 45 Moose A. E. WAY, Lowbush, gave names of trappers, Indians, etc., who support the claim that bears do damage to moose. THE LIBRARY OF THE JUL 24 �JJ UNIVERSITY OF IUIN0I8