|
(Editors note: This Conner Prairie Rural History Project research project was partially funded by an Indiana Heritage Research Grant, which is co-funded by the Indiana Humanities Council and the Indiana Historical Society.)
The goal of this project has been to study the interaction between Hoosier farmers and the state's wildlife in the 1930s. Through this study it is hoped that the attitudes and beliefs of the state's agriculturists concerning wildlife will also be made manifest. There is very little written material examining the interaction of farmers with the animals that inhabit their land. Works that tell the history of America's wildlife more often than not depict, not farmers, but hunters and trappers as the major human players. This may result from the desire to write of the frontier mentality, a significant ingredient of which included man's need to control nature. Studies exist that tell of predator removal as settlers swept westward across the North American continent, as do books detailing the exploitation of economically valuable wildlife species such as beaver, deer and the hapless passenger pigeon. The market hunting of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in which professional hunters killed immense numbers of wild game and waterfowl for shipment to urban markets, has also been explored in print. Writers have shown that the Teddy Roosevelt-led conservation movement, spawned by reaction to this decimation of wildlife, instigated activity by upper class sportsmen aimed at protecting fish and game. Most of these works are set in the late nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century. The 1920s and 1930s have been largely neglected by environmental historians. This may be owing to a lack of sensational issues—the frontier was closed, market hunting had been stopped and conservation activity slowed as Teddy Roosevelt's influence waned. A strong conservation program did not appear in Washington D.C. again until FDR assumed the presidency in 1933. But even Franklin Roosevelt's conservation programs did not involve voluntary citizen action, rather they relied on federal workers, many from the cities. Yet the rural areas of America still held abundant wildlife, and rural residents interacted with it on a daily basis. How were these animals viewed by the people who worked the land? Did the frontier mentality still exist? Or had a truce been called between man and beast? Was it even possible that the tenets of the upper class conservation movement had been adopted by rural residents, including the elevated value of wildlife? I believed that the answers to these questions could be found by examining how rural residents treated the wild animals living around them. This paper seeks to address these questions and to begin filling the void in the existing historiography. The method used to compile and analyze this information evolved as I followed the trail of information and leads. Before I began studying farmer action, I sought to determine the species, and relative densities, of wildlife present in the Hoosier state in the 1930s. I found several helpful secondary sources—some from the field of animal science and two early ecological studies centered on game species still viable for hunting purposes. The field of ecology was still in its infancy, and not accepted by mainstream scientists, let alone government bureaucrats or farmers. After getting a good handle on the types of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians living in the state I sought out secondary sources depicting farming activities. These provided information on farming methods of the period and gave me a solid base of knowledge for analyzing primary sources. Very naturally, these works discussed growing crops and raising livestock. They made no mention of wild animals. Next I turned to farm magazines from the 1930s. I searched through several years of the Bureau Farmer, the official publication of the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Hoosier Farmer, published by the Indiana Farm Bureau. I found no articles concerning wildlife. I began to think that the land had been "tamed" and that there were too few wild animals left to give farmers concern. Then I searched through Successful Farming. I found a few articles on enhancing game bird populations, and on hunting and trapping. However, this magazine was published in Iowa and covered topics of interest to residents of the upper Midwest, Indiana being mentioned only rarely.
I conducted four oral interviews of people who were engaged in farming in the 1930s. Finding these people proved less difficult than I had expected. Since the Indiana topography varies considerably--from swamps to plains to substantial hills, it seemed probable that farming practices, wildlife habitat and possibly even the wild animal species themselves could also vary widely. To expose this diversity I hoped to talk with people from different areas around the state. I queried acquaintances who offered the names of retired farmers still possessing reliable memories. I selected one farmer (and his wife) from an area of good farm land, one from the southern Indiana hill country and one who had grown up on an "in-between" sort of farm. My fourth interviewee had been raised in eastern Kentucky and had moved to an Indiana farm as a young adult; I used the information obtained from him for comparative purposes. I found these gentlemen, and one lady, a delight to talk with. They shared a wealth of information. They confirmed some of the conclusions I had formulated from the written materials, clarified points on which I was unsure, and provided new information which was unlikely to appear in written form. They allowed me to put the finishing touch on the project. Although they all doubted the usefulness of the information they supplied because of its mundane nature, every one enjoyed reminiscing on "things they hadn't thought about in a long time." To me, the information they supplied was invaluable. My sincere hope is that this information can be relayed to the public so that we may all acquire a greater understanding of Indiana's agricultural and environmental heritage.
The three men slipped quietly through the thickets in the cold January night. They watched the ground before them, careful to place their feet away from any downed branches or brittle leaves that might betray their approach. Every few steps the men looked ahead and up into the tree tops at the stark silhouettes against the moonlit sky. Finally they discovered the tree for which they searched; a tree not winter bare, but solid as if fully leafed out. Stealthily, the hunters spaced themselves out beneath it, aimed their shotguns up toward the outer edges of the crown and fired in unison. With this first, and only, volley the "leaves" took flight. Amid flapping and cawing, hundreds of wings and beaks reacted to the startling attack. But not all of the quarry escaped. The three men stood among the victims, a shiny, struggling, flopping mass on the dark ground. With the tree above them now bare, the men moved on, again alternating their eyes between the thicket floor and the tree tops in the distance. One would return the next day with a rifle to kill any birds still alive, and to cut the feet from the carcasses. (1) The hunters, members of the Rocklane Gun Club in Northern Johnson County, considered that evening's expedition a success. They had collected one hundred and thirty-eight pairs of feet from one tree, and laid them in the sun to dry. (2) After mailing them for counting in the office of the Division of Fish and Game in the State House basement, the club's status would be elevated in the annual Crow Killing Contest sponsored by the Indiana Department of Conservation. Many Indiana farmers participated in this contest because it decreased the state's crow population, whose numbers had expanded to the point that most Hoosiers considered the large black birds a pest. Indiana's farmers found the 1930s a difficult time to earn a living. The Great Depression, begun when the stock market crashed in 1929, had deepened. The economic downturn affected farmers through low produce prices and shrinking markets. Farmers reacted by cutting costs and increasing production. They utilized most tillable acreage creating "clean" farming practices which left little land in scrub or bush. Ora Tracy of Jennings County remembered with pride how his river bottom land had once been rabbit hunting ground for a neighbor, but that by the late 30s Tracy himself plowed from one end of his farm to the other. (3) He had placed the rabbit hunting area under continual cultivation. Tracy, like most Hoosier farmers, fought the depression by extracting the most produce possible from the land he farmed. Farmers supplemented this hard work with thriftiness. Nonessentials remained in the stores, Hoosiers opting instead to "make do" with what they already possessed. They further maximized profits by eliminating waste and loss from weed and insect pests. Farmers extended these attitudes to their interaction with the state's wildlife. They tagged most species as being either beneficial or destructive, and acted according to those beliefs. They recognized insect-eating birds and rodent-eating snakes as partners in maximizing profit and often allowed them to remain. Conversely, farmers actively destroyed wildlife that ate or ruined crops, feeds and seeds or that harmed poultry or small livestock. While products had been developed to aid in controlling problem or pest animals, the economic depression kept many farmers from taking advantage of them. Most efforts at controlling wildlife were still "hands on." With money scarce, farmers often turned to the state's natural resources to supplement their income. Most did not consider the majority of fur bearing mammals to be a problem when it came to crop destruction, owing to the fact that so few wild animals remained. However, they prized those that remained for their pelts. Hunting and trapping remained a favored and profitable pastime. Organized efforts aimed at controlling wildlife came from various sources. One likely venue, the agricultural extension service, was slow to join the effort. The members of this Purdue-based organization concerned themselves little with wildlife during the early 1930s. This situation changed as the Indiana Department of Conservation (I. D. O. C.) continued to publicize the benefits of the state's wildlife population. By 1937 extension office annual report forms contained a section on wildlife management, but if Hamilton County records are any indication of state trends, change came slowly at the local level. The agent for that county had left the section conspicuously empty while the records for traditional agricultural activities noted a busy year. The agent likewise had crossed out the section heading "Predator Control," and used the allotted space for another subject. (4) Activity came from other areas. In addition to the crow contest, Indiana farmers joined in other I. D. O. C.-sponsored efforts, pest control contests held by high schools and the Indiana Farmers Guide newspaper, and localized community endeavors. They came together to hunt foxes, eradicate pest animals and to aid game birds. They saw these efforts as community building activities—concerted actions which bound Hoosiers together in the effort to control the forces of nature and to battle the economic depression. Farmers in Indiana expended much energy interacting with wildlife. By looking at the various species of wild animals found in the state at that time and the actions taken by farmers in attempting to control them, we are able to better understand Indiana's faunal heritage.
|
Introduction
|
Despairing, I next tried a local approach. I began looking through the 1936 Noblesville Daily Ledger, the prominent newspaper in Hamilton County. To my surprise, I found small articles notifying readers about fox drives, rabbit hunts, hawks being killed and a variety of other wildlife related news. This led me to the Indiana-published Indiana Farmers Guide magazine. I later found out that many 1930s farmers across the state subscribed to "The Guide." It proved to hold a plethora of information—covering news of individuals and organizations from across the state, as well as editorials and advertisements. More importantly, the editor printed questions and concerns from readers. The difficulty I encountered with these sources was that wildlife news was not big news, and so it appeared in bits and pieces, requiring a page-by-page search of each issue. This consumed enormous amounts of time. But, I pieced together the semblance of a farmer/wildlife puzzle.