The Emu War, the Pig War, and Britain’s Suspicious Salmon
Three true stories in which governments, armies, and lawmakers encountered a problem and responded with impressive official seriousness. One involved machine guns, one involved a pig, and one involved fish behaving legally.
Advertisement
Setup: In 1932, Australian wheat farmers asked the government for help with an emu problem. Tens of thousands of the large, fast birds had moved into farming country, eating crops and knocking down fences. The government sent soldiers equipped with Lewis machine guns, ammunition, and the general confidence of people who had not yet met an emu at scale.
Escalation: The soldiers discovered that emus were difficult targets. They scattered when approached, absorbed an alarming amount of ammunition, and moved quickly enough to make a military operation look like an especially tense birdwatching expedition. After several attempts and thousands of rounds, the operation was called off.
Punchline: The engagement became known as the Great Emu War, and the emus are generally considered to have won. The birds received no medals, largely because they were unavailable for comment.
Setup: In 1859, an American farmer on San Juan Island shot a pig belonging to an Irish employee of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The farmer offered to pay ten dollars for the animal, then increased the offer to ten dollars and some potatoes when the owner demanded more. The owner refused both.
Escalation: The disagreement grew into a territorial crisis between the United States and Britain. Warships arrived. Troops were deployed. For more than twelve years, both nations maintained military camps on the island while diplomats negotiated the fate of a border that had somehow become attached to one hog.
Punchline: The conflict is remembered as the Pig War. The pig was the only creature killed, making it the quietest military casualty report in the history of international tension.
Setup: Britain’s Salmon Act of 1986 addressed the illegal taking and handling of salmon. This is a reasonable subject for legislation, particularly in a nation with rivers, anglers, and a long acquaintance with fish.
Escalation: Section 32 makes it an offense to receive, retain, remove, or dispose of salmon when a person believes, or it would be reasonable to suspect, that an offense has been committed. The law is commonly summarized as banning the handling of salmon in suspicious circumstances.
Punchline: Somewhere in Britain, the legal system has prepared itself for a fish that arrives with no explanation and refuses to answer basic questions.
This Week in Weird History: the emus held the line, the pig started a crisis, and the salmon retained counsel.


Discussion (0)
Join the Conversation
Join the conversation
Sign in to share your thoughts, reply to readers, and like comments.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!