ORIGINS OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN THE WESTERN WORLD

R.J. Hudson
University of Alberta

Like democracy and national parks, wildlife policy in North America is considered to be an indigenous invention and an enviable model for the rest of the world. The basic principles are firm public ownership, equal access for all citizens, and removal of wildlife from the marketplace. Not only is the policy democratic, it seems to reflect a kinder view of nature; one based on empathy rather than greed, one that treats wildlife as subject rather than object, one that recognizes intrinsic as well as instrumental value.

Ours is a reactive policy; reactive to the European aristocratic tradition, and reactive to the commercially-motivated depletion of wildlife at the close of the last century and the antithesis of the supposedly aristocratic and artificial systems of Europe. We have, it seems, learned slowly but well from past mistakes. This is the thrust of our familiar but stirring story of conservation.  

Malthusian Paradigm

This view seems reasonable enough. We live in a Malthusian world of compounding demographic and technological pressures which place ourselves on a collision course with nature. Human populations passed 5 billion last summer and will reach 8 billion early in the next century. This, along with rising technological capacity and personal expectations, has placed enormous stress on the earth's life-support systems. The current rate of extinction of one species per day may well increase to several per hour by the turn of the century.

But, we apparently also consider that Man, besides becoming more populous, is evolving culturally, morally, and intellectually. The crucial question, we muse, is whether we can become wise enough and moral enough fast enough. We may see this as re-capturing the ecological respect of aboriginal societies, or perhaps developing a new age of ecological enlightenment which builds on accumulated cultural wisdom.

If this model were appropriate and if we could win this race against time, we could take pride in offering the world a refreshing alternative to "conservation by utilization". But what if we are wrong and fail to capitalise on the most reliable of human motivations; namely, self- interest?

There are dangers in managing the way we think the world should be rather than how it really is. There is more to it than working towards some personal vision that others do not necessarily share. Billed as eternal pessimists, wildlife professionals might be considered naively optimistic about human nature. Environmentalism based on moral gratification will be about as effective in protecting nature as organized religions are in ensuring world peace. Ethics may be defined as rules of behaviour that protect longterm interests, immediate or local trade-offs to the contrary. However, ethics may be perceived as devices for people who benefit from conservation to control the lives of those who do not.

I consider the prevailing environmental paradigm vain and particularly inappropriate where land is in private hands. Foolish pride has robbed us of the flexibility required to meet future challenges. In an attempt to appropriately humble our noble profession, I offer three generalizations. First, this is not the first time that societies have faced an environmental crisis nor devised institutions to deal with it. Secondly, "modern" attitudes towards nature were well differentiated in the ancient world. They reflected largely how people lived and appear to be more of a sympton than a solution to environmental problems. Thirdly, North American Wildlife policy, far from being a brave new experiment, is remarkably similar to that of 9th Century Europe. Perhaps for good reason, European policies (which we view with some disdain) have evolved beyond simple state ownership to a complex triangular relationship among the state, landowners, and the public.

Populations and Resources in Europe

Although global populations have increased exponentially from perhaps 200 million at the time of Christ (Goudie 1986), Europeans have surpassed carrying capacity several times in recorded history, experiencing major demographic crashes in the 5th and 14th Centuries.

Ancient World (750 BC-375 AD)

Although local pressures undoubtedly mounted much earlier, the first references to environmental degradation date to 500 BC in the Mediterranean city states (Hughes 1980). Farmers found it increasingly difficult to extract a living from the land. There was widespread belief in the passing of a Golden Age because of the natural senility of Mother Earth. In de Rerum Naturae (The Nature of Things), the Epicurean philosopher, Lucretius (95-55 BC) wrote:

She herself [earth] produced sweet fruits and fertile pastures, which now can scarce grow anything, for all our toil. And we exhaust our oxen and our farmers' strength, we wear out plowshares in the fields that barely feed us, so much do they begrudge their fruits and increase our labor. ... The gloomy grower of the old and withered vines sadly curses the times he lives in, and wearies heaven, not realizing that all is gradually decaying, nearing the end, worn out by the long span of years. (from Herlihy 1980)

Others from Plato (427-347 BC) to Columella (65 AD) countered this environmental fatalism, decrying soil erosion due to poor land management. Columella questions the conventional analogy of Mother Earth and a human mother:

For it is a sin to suppose that Nature, endowed with perennial fertility by the creator of the universe, is affected with barrenness as though with some disease ... has grown old in mortal fashion. (from Glacken 1967)

Populations pressures mounted most seriously in cities which faced the familiar problems of traffic congestion, smoke pollution, poor sanitation, incessant noise, and increasing vandalism and crime. Family planning was sanctioned. Polybius (ca 122 BC) indicated that Greek women married late and had small families to minimize subdivision of inheritances. The Roman poet Ovid added "rare is the woman in this age who wishes to become a mother". Infanticide and non-reproductive sex were widely practiced without inciting indignation.

Then as now, imbalances of populations and resources were resolved by imperialism. Alexander the Great (before his death in 323 BC) extended Hellenistic influence through Asia Minor to Egypt and India. Roman emperors expanded their empires into Gaul and Britain in 58-51 BC. With these new resources, a period of relative stability and economic prosperity followed. However, the problem with imperialism is that it only buys time. As the centuries passed, civilisation filled the known world leading Tertullian (ca 200 AD) to express the thoroughly modern sentiment that:

Everything has been visited, everything known, everything exploited. Now pleasant estates obliterate the famous wilderness areas of the past. Plowed fields have suppressed the forests; domesticated animals have dispersed wild life. Beaches are plowed, mountains smoothed, and swamps cleaned. There are as many cities as in former years there were dwellings ... Everywhere there are buildings, everywhere people, everywhere communities, everywhere life. ... We weigh heavily upon the world; its resources hardly suffice to support us. As our needs grow larger, so do our protests that already nature does not sustain us. In truth, plague, famine, wars and earthquakes must be regarded as a blessing to civilization since they prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race. (from Herlihy 1980)

Middle Ages (375-1492)

Tertullian's words were prophetical. All this was dismantled with the fall of Rome and the subsequent Barbarian Migrations (375-568). Rural landscapes were depopulated from plague, war, disruption of trade, and loss of economic opportunity. Although the breakdown of order and renewed subsistence dependence on wildlife might have increased harvests, natural regeneration of forests in the ensuing centuries presumably allowed some recovery.

In the 8th Century, the Frankish Kings consolidated an empire of crowded but isolated settlements in a sylvan sea. Aided by climatic warming from the 8th-12th Centuries and the restoration of order, agriculture pushed back the forest fringe. The pace quickened with growing demands for iron smelting, glassworks, timber, fuelwood, and grazing. Human populations tripled in the 12-13th Centuries.

This set the stage for an unprecedented ecological crisis. Forest clearance created shortages of the many products upon which communities depended. In 1315-17, cold summers precipitated famine and warned of what was to follow. Environmental pressures were summarily relieved not by sound management but by the Black Death in 1348 which claimed 1 out of 4 lives.

Recent Times (1492-present)

Recovery from this 14th Century hiatus was slow. In some parts of Europe, populations did not recover to Medieval levels until the middle of the 19th Century. But by 1600, declining standards of living and grim economic prospects encouraged aggressive international trade and ultimately colonial expansion.

This wave of imperialism allowed relatively sustained prosperity in the western world and unprecedented population growth which persists today depite interruptions by an economic depression, global conflict, and widespread famine in developing nations. Our fortunes seem to be changing and we face prospects not unlike those of the 5th and 14th Centuries. Not surprisingly, our attitudes recapitulate those of the past although telescoped by rapid demographic and technological change.

Attitudes and Natural Philosophies

We may find it hard to accept that our view of nature simply reflects how we live rather than careful intellectual analysis of accumulated knowlege. But almost every contemporary conservation issue has been argued in about the same way throughout recorded history (Glacken 1967, Hughes 1980, Herlihy 1980). Chic attitudes such as sustainable development and deep ecology, supposedly the way out of our present mess, are reincarnations of ancient natural philosophies.

Ancient World

Although labelled slightly differently, Hughes (1980) discerns 4 dominant attitudes towards nature in Antiquity:

Religious tradition

The religious tradition had its origins in a pantheon of classical Greek/Roman deities such as Gaea/Tellus (earth goddess), Demeter/Ceres (goddess of agriculture), and particularly Artemis/Diana (protectress of wildlife). Fear of divine reprisal provided an incentive for conservation. Artemis, in classical mythology, punished hunters who took sacred animals, killed too many, or hunted in sacred places. She exacted the most severe punishment on Actaeon who, for "viewing her nakedness" (asking too many questions?), was turned into a stag and torn apart by his own hounds.

Hunters often spared animals of specific ages and sexes in religious deference. The state also proclaimed sacred precincts (temene/templa) which served as nature reserves. Like contemporary national parks, these were not beyond commercial influence. Xenophon (ca 300 BC) indicated that temene could be leased near Athens for specific purposes, and Juvenal lamented that many in the vicinity of Rome were being rented by foreigners. Nevertheless, religious sanctions particularly when reinforced with legal ones provided an important instrument for nature conservation.

Orphic tradition

The Orphic tradition, originating in the 7th century BC, takes its name from Orpheus, its presumed founder. This philosophy was expoused by nature mystics such as Pythagorus (ca 530 BC) and Empedocles (493-433 BC). They taught that all life was sacred and that Man did not hold any particular position in the hierarchy of nature. Like practitioners of the great eastern religions, they were strict vegetarians, believing in the sanctity of life and transmigration of souls.

Collaborative tradition

The collaborative tradition builds upon Aristotle's pyramidal ("aristocratic") view of nature. Lower animals served those above them in a pyramid topped by Man. By extension, nature became the raw material for man's handiwork, a view which predominates western attitudes and religions and is presumed to be the root of today's ecological crisis (White 1967).

However, this anthrocentric view did imply stewardship. Zeno's (335- 263 BC) widely-accepted stoic philosophy taught that nature was controlled by divine reason and that man's reason was a spark of that divine force. Therefore, the practical goals of men should be, in the words of Posidonius, to "work jointly with nature in the actual formation and ordering of the Cosmos". Stoics also believed in the universal brotherhood of man and the ideal of living harmoniously under one polity. One people, one earth. This provided moral justification for the campaigns of Alexander and Caesar.

Activist tradition

The ancient world was not without its environmental activists. Plato was among these, expressing his alarm about the effects of deforestation. Columella admonished Roman citizens for plying their "hands in the circuses and theatres rather than in the grainfields and vineyards" and for failing to carefully husband the soil. But the loudest protests were of urban ills. Public works projects precipitated a thoroughly modern range of objections.

Middle Ages

Herlihy (1980) finds a progression of four cultural attitudes during the next millenium:

Religious tradition

The religious tradition of the 3-5th Centuries was largely eschatological, concerned with the ultimate destiny of man. In the formative years of the Christian church, nature was as source of inspiration. But in later years, preoccupation with Judgement Day robbed people of joy on earth. Whereas the Ancients accepted that the earth was growing old, those in the Middle Ages interpreted famine and hardship as divine retribution. Such fatalistic attitudes gave little encouragement for creative conservation effort. Attention turned to burning witches.

Adversarial tradition

The adversarial tradition of the 6-10th Centuries is captured in the epic Anglo Saxon poem Beowulf which pitches Man in a heroic struggle with Nature. Forests, the antithesis of civilized life, were dark forboding places full of dangerous wild animals, theives, and demonic forces.

Collaborative tradition

The lifting of religious fatalism in the 11-14th Centuries brought a more positive collaborative attitude, not unlike that guiding Stoics in the Ancient World. This was a period of renewed commerce and optimism although increasingly frequent famines and the Black Death brought a return to patristic views of a senile world and divine retribution.

Contempative tradition

The contemplative tradition, based on similar optimism, developed in parallel. People from the crowded cities of Europe found solace in unspoiled nature and wrote with rapture of its spiritual and recreational value. Even the church seems to have lightened its view of the stage for man's earthly audition. St. Bernard (1091-1153) wrote:

I have discovered that you will find far more in the forest than in the books; trees and stones will teach you what no teacher permits you to hear. (from Glacken 1967)

Recent Times

Imperialism by western powers created an affluence which allowed people to appreciate the intrinsic as well as instrumental value of nature. The 19th Century is considered the heyday of natural history (Barker 1980). Linnaeus' Sytema Naturae (1758/9) had given new respectability to nature study and created a fascination with biological diversity and the new dominions offered many new species to be discovered. A centruy later, Darwin's theory of natural selection cultivated intense interest in species as parts of a larger puzzle. Marsh's Man and Nature (1864) introduced the ecological theme of interconnectedness, castigating American views of progress. This wave of environmentalism was translated into political action at the turn of this century. But it lost momentum during two world wars and the intervening economic depression.

The most recent wave of environmental awareness is said to have been conceived with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962 and symbolically born on Earth Day, 22 April 1970. Chase (1986) searches for the origins of the movement in a variety of off-beat philosophies and religions. But stripped of their detail, modern attitudes differ little from those of the past in character or impact. Far from developing a new natural philosophy, the struggle among alternative paradigms simply continues. Contemporary environmentalists wishing to impose moral sanctions on the use of the earth's resources draw on the ancient Orphic tradition. Those preaching stewardship and sustainable development express the environmental optimism of the Stoics. A 3000-year old debate continues.

Wildlife Policy

That the future of wildlife rests in shaping human attitudes is an article of faith. This has always troubled me since I don't see evidence that prevailing notions of the correct relation between Man and Nature have ever been very powerful instruments. They may be more of a symptom than a solution. More important are specific policies and practices.

Ancient World

With the rise of democracy in the ancient world, hunting became the right of free citizens. It was considered a good way to develop military skills and therefore officially encouraged although some, such as the Greek archon Solon (ca 594 BC), felt that passion for hunting caused young men to neglect their trades. According to Roman law, game was considered res nullius, literally things unowned (Whittuck 1904). We like to think this legal status limited private ownership, but it simply described natural circumstances, placing wildlife in the same category as things abandoned or discarded. Things found could be owned by possession. Wildlife could be possessed once killed or captured.

Private game reserves gained popularity in ancient times. The Greek term theriotrophia describes mammal feeding grounds. Aristotle canvassed owners of these private reserves to obtain information for his biological writings. Aristotle also speaks of a mountain in Asia Minor where deer carried ear marks presumably denoting ownership. In the Roman Empire, wildlife was raised for recreational and commercial purposes in vivaria or leporia (literally rabbit-raising areas but also used for wild boar, deer, mouflon, and exotic game). Pliny credits Quintus Fulvius Lippinus with introducing game husbandry. Varro (116-27 BC) explains that it gained popularity in the previous generation (i.e. 200 BC) in response to declining game populations:

Your father, Axius, never saw any better game than a paltry hare. For in his day there was no great preserve, whereas nowadays people enclose many acres within walls so as to keep numbers of wild boars and roes ...(from Anderson 1985)

The technology of game husbandry in the ancient world is described in great detail in Columella's de Rustica, written about 65 AD (Forster and Heffner 1968). Pliny comments on the therapeutic value of venison and, of particular interest, antlers:

People say the stag's right horn, which is endowed with some sort of healing drug, is never found; and this must be confessed to be the more surprising in view of the fact that even stags kept in parks change their horns every year; it is thought that they bury them. The smell of either horn when burnt arrests attacks of epilepsy.

The animal is not liable to feverish diseases - indeed it even supplies a prophylactic against their attack; .... though it is thought that this only holds good if the stag has been killed by a single wound.

Middle Ages

Recreational hunting, including the raising of deer in parks, remained popular through the Mediaeval period. The rise of the royal prerogative and the entrenchment of the aristocratic hunting tradition is the part we conveniently remember. The story, of course, is much more richer (Kirby 1931, Kirby and Kirby 1933, Wolfe 1970, Cantor 1988).

Imperial Forests

Charlemagne (768-814 AD) is credited with introducing the Forest Laws. He responded to the need for more careful management by allocating land on the principle of "highest and best use". He encouraged forest clearing on arable lands but protected production forests (sylva), and wildlands (foresta), managing them much like our crown/public lands.

By asserting state ownership, pressures could be controlled, sustainability ensured, and the royal treasury could be filled with fees from leases and permits. Although the right to hunt some game species was reserved for the monarch through an extended interpretation of res nullius, the prime motivation of the Forest Laws was as much sustainable utilisation as royal recreation. Cutting trees without authorization, in many jurisdictions, was a more serious crime than poaching.

The system was practical and humane at the time and it bears a remarkable resemblance to our own. Policies were defended with familiar conservation rhetoric. Besides being essential for conservation and indeed the economic future of the realm, the Forest Laws ensured that common folk didn't neglect their trades, and prevented local insurrection by limiting the distribution of weapons.

But as time passed and pressures mounted, tougher measures were needed. Charlemagne's successor, Louis the Pious, felt justified in requiring his subjects to provide, without compensation, services in maintaining royal game parks. This trend hastened as the Frankish Empire fragmented and provincial sovereigns became increasingly independent. Local princes sometimes applied the Forest Laws capriciously and harshly but, they claimed, in the common good.

British Forest Law

William of Normandy, of Viking ancestry, was one of these princes. Following the Battle of Hastings in 1066, William I and his successors established a large network of royal forests, evicting many of his subjects by right of conquest. By 1200, this network covered perhaps 20% of the area of England. Mounting frustrations with their ability to curb illegal timber removal, grazing, and poaching lead the Norman Kings to impose increasingly harsh penalties including corporal and capital punishment.

Abuse of power was finally curbed with the signing of the Magna Charta (main charter) by King John. Two years later, the child king Henry III, endorsed a subsidiary charter dealing specifically with forest laws, the Charta di Foresta, which provided that:

God created man, giving him power over fish, fowl and all wild animals. Therefore, we have the commandment from God that no man shall lose his health or life on account of these things.

This provision generally has been respected in countries basing their legal systems on British law. The notable exceptions have been England's infamous Black Acts of 1731 and, in recent years, the shoot- to-kill order for rhino poachers in several African countries. As in the past, this escalation has enjoyed general support by an otherwise civilized public.

Obsolescence of the Forest Laws

Pressures on forests to meet agricultural and commercial needs continued to increase, although depopulation of Britain by the Black Death in 1350 provided some reprieve. The British monarchs were forced to sell many of their holdings to increase royal revenues but it also became increasingly difficult to enforce the law over such a large area. A desperate citizenry simply helped themselves to products of the forests, or bought them in unofficial deals with corrupt officers. By the end of the 16th century, the forest laws were commonly considered obsolete. The House of Tudor (1485-1603) had to be more concerned with the waivering support of their subjects than protecting their prerogatives.

Reassertion of Royal Prerogative

James I (crowned 1603) of the House of Stuart and his successor, Charles I, attempted to reassert the royal hunting prerogative and revive a delapitated game management system. James I reclaimed royal game throughout the realm, banned commercial sale of wildlife, and insisted that local gentlemen remedy scarcity of game in some counties. He administered this system with an army of officials, including foresters, warreners, warders, parkers, gamekeepers, and others. James also appointed gentlemen as regional superintendents, rewarding them with hunting privileges. However, this aggressive conservation program came to an abrupt end with the civil war of 1642-48.

When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, he restocked forests and parks with large numbers of deer imported from Germany. Because of unsettled conditions and daring poachers, sporting prerogatives had to be exercised more carefully. In 1671, a new game law diminished royal prerogative and passed responsibility for game conservation and management to 'gentlemen of quality'. Besides revising property requirements for hunting, this act formally licenced the chase, park, and warren on private land. The chase was a large unfenced hunting reserve, the private counterpart of the royal forest. The park was an enclosed area for holding deer. A warren held rabbits, game birds, and other small game. These had been in existence throughout the middle ages but had been held under royal warrant.

Democratization of Hunting

With industrialization, political influence shifted from the landed gentry to the urban entrepreneurial class. In 1831, all property qualifications were finally removed although rights of access remained. This democratized hunting but essentially left management of wildlife in the hands of landowners.

Although country gentlemen now had to share the hunt with all citizens, democratization opened new economic opportunities at a time when wool and mutton prices and consequently revenues from their estates were falling. Particularly in the Scottish Highlands, hunting became so profitable and popular that deer forests increased from 1,975,209 acres in 1884 to 2,878,342 by 1911, creating considerable hardship for the crofters employed by the sheep industry (Orr 1982). At some social cost, landscape conservation was achieved.

Whereas democratization came in steps in Britain, it came abruptly on the Continent. Following the French Revolution in 1789, the national convention decreed that:

The right to hunt on alien property and compulsory services connected with the chase are abolished without compensation. Henceforth, the right to hunt shall be that of the landowner on his own property.

The German Revolution in 1848 lead to similar provisions (Wolfe 1970).

In the absence of land reform, hunting in Europe retained aristocratic vestiges. But from this has grown a sophisticated game management system which effectively deals with crushing human pressures.

Summary and Conclusions

Wildlife management in North America grew from the ashes of unbridled exploitation of wildlife in the 19th century. We perceive our system to be an innovative, democratic, and successful response to this environmental emergency. The aristocratic style of wildlife management in Europe is considered relevant only as a contrast to our profoundly different vision. However, history suggests that wildlife policy is not just an expression of a society's notions of justice or the rightful relationship between man and nature. It may well be the other way around. The colored glasses of pride should be put aside.

I prefer to think that, in the long run, wildlife policy is an adaptive response to particular problems. Democratization of hunting following revolutions or colonization has repeatedly lead to profound depletion. The initial response is for the state to claim ownership. This was adaptive in the time of the God-Kings in Egypt and Asia Minor, Charlemagne in Europe, and Roosevelt in America. But as pressures mount, and agricultural expansion places more and more land in private hands, state ownership must be judiciously franchised as it was in Europe in the time of Caesar and Charles II. Recent interest in fee hunting, game ranching, and farming may be part of this natural adaptive response to changing pressures. The cycle continues ... although perhaps for the last time since there are no new worlds to conquer.

But another force in the evolution of wildlife policy almost certainly has been the configuration of political power. The foundations of wildlife policy in Europe were laid when political power rested with a landed gentry. We can be assured their interests were served. Wildlife policy in America came when the power base was in the industrial eastern states. There was an obvious advantage of public ownership to those who did not have the means to claim it for themselves in any other way. Today, it is hard for us to understand how such a democratic solution to a grim environmental emergency would have been so slowly accepted. I suspect that local people and administrations saw a hidden agenda which threatened home rule.

Why policies evolve, of course, is less important than whether they work. I see our centralized system as being too inflexible to meet the challenge of landscape conservation on private lands. I see the trend towards franchizing responsibilities for wildlife management to public groups and landowners as a natural and adaptive response. Centralized systems have always devolved in this way for the same reasons; namely, difficulty curbing poaching on a vast public domain and difficulty diverting royal appropriations from problems with a shorter fuse. In some circumstances, wildlife conservation needs Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Debating privatisation is rather like debating the use of drugs. Some forms of franchising help control markets, some provide badly needed incentives to land owners, but others can be as deadly as cocaine. In wildlife management as in medicine, to count on divine intervention is negligent. In Islam, there is a saying: "trust in God, but tie your camel".

Literature Cited

Anderson, J.K. 1985. Hunting in the Ancient World. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Barker, L. 1980. The Heydey of Natural History: 1820-1870. Jonathan Cape, London.

Cantor, L. 1988. The keeping and hunting of deer in England: A brief history. Deer Farming 22: 5-8.

Chase, A. 1986. Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park. Atlantic Monthly Press, Boston.

Forster, E.S. and E.H. Heffner (transl). 1968. Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella on Agriculture. Vol. 11. Loeb CLassical Library No. 407. Heinemann, London.

Glacken, C.J. 1967. Traces on a Rhodian Shore. Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the end of the Eighteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Goudie, A. 1986. The Human Impact onthe Natural Environment. Blackwell, Oxford.

Herlihy, D.J. 1980. Attitudes towards the environment in medieval society. pp 100-116. In: Historical Ecology (L.J. Bilsky, ed). Kennikat Press, Port Washington, NY.

Hooper, W. D. 1934. Marcus Porcius Cato on Agriculture and Marcus Terentius Varro on Agriculture. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Hughes, J. D. 1975. Ecology in Ancient Civilizations. Univ. New Mexico Press.

Hughes, J.D. 1980. Early Greek and Roman environmentalists. pp 45- 59. In: Historical Ecology (L.J. Bilsky, ed). Kennikat Press, Port Washington, NY.

Kirby, C. 1933. The English game law system. American Historical Review 33: 240-262.

Kirby, C. and E. Kirby. 1931. The Stuart game prerogative. English Historical Review 46: 239-254.

McCandless, R.G. 198-. Yukon Wildlife: A Social History. University of Alberta Press.

Orr, W. 1982. Deer Forest, Landlords and Crofters. John Donald Publ., Edinburgh.

White, L. 1967. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155: 1203-1207.

Whittuck, E.A. 1904. Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wolfe, M.L. 1970. The history of German game administration. Forest History 4: 6-16.