Because of the vicious and heartless elements among men and women, we say, Give us far-reaching, iron-bound LAWS for the protection of wild life, and plenty of courageous men to enforce them.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXVI

THE ARMY OF THE DEFENSE

It now seems that the friends of wild life who themselves are not on the firing-line should be afforded some definite information regarding the Army of the Defense, and its strength and weakness.  It is an interesting subject, but the limitations of space will not permit an extended treatment.

Over the world at large, I think the active Destroyers outnumber the active Defenders of wild life at least in the ratio of 500 to 1; and the money available to the Destroyers is to the funds of the Defenders as 500 is to 1.  The average big-game sportsman cheerfully expends from $500 to $1,000 on a hunting trip, but resents the suggestion that he should subscribe from $50 to $100 for wild life preservation.  If he puts down $10, he thinks he has done a Big Thing.  Worse than this, I am forced to believe that at least 75 per cent of the big-game sportsmen of the world never have contributed one dollar in money, or one hour of effort, to that cause.  But there are exceptions; and I can name at least fifty sportsmen who have subscribed $100 each to campaign funds, and some who have given as high as $1,000.

Once I sat down beside a financially rich slaughterer of game, and asked him to subscribe a sum of real money in behalf of a very important campaign.  I needed funds very much; and I explained, exhorted and besought.  I pointed out his duty—­to give back something in return for all the game slaughter that he had enjoyed.  For ten long minutes he stood fire without flinching, and without once opening his lips to speak.  He made no answer no argument, no defense and finally he never gave up one cent.

Wherever the English language is spoken, from Tasmania to Scotland, and from Porto Rico to the Philippines, the spirit of wild life protection exists.  Elsewhere there is much more to be said on this point.  To all cosmopolitan sportsmen, the British “Blue Book” on game protection, the annual reports of the two great protective societies of London, and the annual “Progress” report of the U.S.  Department of Agriculture are reassuring and comforting.  It is good to know that Uganda maintains a Department of Game Protection (A.L.  Butler, Superintendent), that so good a man as Maj.  J. Stevenson-Hamilton is in control of protection in the Transvaal, and that even the native State of Kashmir officially recognizes the need to protect the Remnant.

There are of course many parts of the world in which game laws and limits to slaughter are quite unknown:  all of which is entirely wrong, and in need of quick correction.  No state or nation can be accounted wholly civilized that fails to recognize the necessity to protect wild life.  I am tempted to make a list of the states and nations that were at latest advices destitute of game laws and game protectors, but I fear to do injustice through lack of the latest information.  However, the time has come to search out delinquents, and hold up to each one a mirror that will reflect its shortcomings.