Book Review: The Outlaw Gunner, by Henry M. Walsh
Jim Block • April 27, 2021
Eastern Shore outlanders wanting to acquaint themselves with local culture and history naturally learn about Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Henry Highland Garnet, and Gloria Richardson.
However, readers can discover another aspect of Shore history and culture in Henry M. Walsh’s The Outlaw Gunner (1st ed., 1971, 2008, Tidewater Publishers; 2nd ed., Schiffer, 2020), a history of wildfowl hunting and market gunning, its culture, techniques, boats, decoys, wardens, traps, trappers, cannon, guns, gunners, and dogs. Walsh also helped to found the Eastern Shore Waterfowl Festival in Easton.
Walsh’s local history will interest even readers with little or no interest in shooting. Many of its 13 chapters have tales told with art and imagination, including gunners and game wardens playing hide-and-seek, hunters battling storms, large guns that explode and injure their users, and long vigils waiting for game that all add rich appeal to his historical research.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, waterfowl hunting was far more important to the local economy than now. Well into the 20th century, ducks and to a lesser extent geese provided locals with plenty of food as well as plenty of food to sell. Restaurants in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York bought many birds from the Eastern Shore, with Canvasbacks prized for their flavor. Eating establishments in those cities almost always had wild fowl on their menus.
In the early 20th century, fearing mass extinction of the nation’s bird populations, Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918, with Canada and later other nations). This early environmental protection law made it illegal, without a permit, “to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or sell” wild, native migratory birds or their parts. Waterfowl needed protection from market hunters, but the Snowy Egret was also hunted nearly to extinction to provide white feathers for women’s hats.
Market gunning resembles the 19th century movement overland to settle the West. Yes, the Eastern Shore had long been settled by Europeans, but its outlaw gunners demonstrated endurance and imagination aplenty. Working with few materials, reusing old equipment, and sometimes struggling for survival, these bird hunters’ resourcefulness and imagination matched the wagon-hauling pioneers.
For instance, outlaw gunners invented specifically-designed boats (sinkboxes, sneak skiffs) in which to stealthily approach large rafts of unsuspecting ducks floating on the water.
Giant “punt guns,” some with bores as large as two inches, were improvised and packed with large amounts of powder to take out dozens of birds at a single firing. Improvised firearms sometimes exploded, causing serious injuries. Made from steel pipes or reused shotgun barrels and bolted to the bows of shallow-draft boats, battery guns fired multiple barrels simultaneously and sprayed shot widely.
When the MBTA law suddenly restricted hunting, the gunners quickly shifted to night hunting, the better to continue shooting ducks without hindrance by the law.
Historians of market gunning have yet to declare its end date, likely because none exists. The 1918 law, of course, was honored in the breach. The 1934 Duck Stamp Act regulated season dates and bag limits, but made perhaps a bigger impact in funds for state wildlife agencies and in sponsoring the popular duck stamp art competition. Ducks Unlimited notes that in the 1930’s there were “changes to waterfowl hunting regulations. Live decoys, sinkboxes, baiting, and shotguns larger than 10-gauge were prohibited, and a three-shell limit was placed on repeating shotguns.” On the whole, outlaw gunning ended with not a bang but a whimper.
Although Walsh’s treatment of outlaw gunners is sympathetic, the book’s final chapter argues a conservationist’s point. The book’s purpose is “to call attention to the many problems and uncertain future of our waterfowl” (167). Continued commercial hunting would have brought both waterfowl and sport to extinction. Even so, deteriorating conditions in the Bay as well as development have diminished waterfowl nesting habitat and hampered ducks’ reproduction. Hunters or not, all Chesapeake Bay residents are obligated to support conservation and environmental protection efforts.
References
https://www.commonsenseeasternshore.org/eastern-necks-outlaw-gunning-skiff-history-of-a-mystery
https://chestertownspy.org/2020/11/10/the-return-of-the-outlaw-gunner/
https://www.wildfowlmag.com/editorial/destinations_wf_chesapeake_0809/280774
http://johninthewild.com/the-history-of-hunting-ducks-tolling-and-market-gunning/
https://easternshorejournal.com/a-piece-of-hunting-history-eastern-necks-gunning-skiff/
Jim Block taught English at Northfield Mount Hermon, a boarding school in Western Mass. He coached cross-country, and advised the newspaper and the debate society there. He taught at Marlborough College in England and Robert College in Istanbul. He and his wife retired to Chestertown, Md. in 2014.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
