8(3 GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



suppress the practice of hounding- in that State led to several serious 

 tragedies, the most noted of which occurred in the fall of 1886, when 

 two game wardens were «hot and killed b\^ a party of poachers who 

 had a dog with them for the purpose of using it in hunting deer con- 

 trar}^ to law. The wardens attempted to capture the dog and were 

 killed while so doing. The principal actor in the affair escaped to 

 California, where he was apprehended in March, 1887, and brought 

 back to Maine, tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for 

 life." This sentence was afterwards commuted to twentj^-tive years 

 and further reduced b}" good behavior to nineteen years, so that the 

 term expired in 1906. 



Judging by legislative acts public sentiment has vacillated some 

 what on this point. For some years prior to 1901: Vermont authorized 

 the destruction of dogs used for hunting big game, but in that year 

 repealed the provision, retaining, however, the prohibition of such 

 hunting. So in New Hampshire, the destruction of dogs was author- 

 ized until 1905, but the legislature of that year repealed the provision. 

 Wisconsin declares a dog used for pursuing deer a public nuisance, 

 and thereby tacitly licenses its destruction. Michigan deals with the 

 practice with a strong hand by declaring that any dog found pursu- 

 ing, killing, or following upon the track of deer is a public nuisance, 

 authorizing any person to destroy it summarily, and exonerating him 

 from civil or criminal liability for so doing. Maine and Minnesota 

 allow destruction of dogs under such circumstances by any person; 

 and the conservative State of Massachusetts authorizes any of her offi- 

 cers ^vho are required to enforce the game laws and all who may serve 

 criminal process to kill any dog found chasing or hunting deer, if such 

 hunting is known to the owner, and further provides that if the same 

 doo- is twice found hunting deer that fact shall be sufficient evidence 

 of the owner's knowledge and consent. 



Pennsylvania has gone into the subject with more detail than any 

 other State. It declares that any dog pursuing or following upon 

 the triTck of a deer is a public nuisance, and may be killed by any 

 person upon affidavit of one or more persons before an authorized 

 officer that the dog is in the habit of running deer or has been known 

 to do so within a year. The law further declares that any dog pur- 

 suing any game animal or bird during the close season off land con- 

 trolled by its owner is a public nuisance, and may be killed by the owner 

 or lessee of the land whereon it is found, or by any game officer who 

 sees it upon the track of such game, unless the dog wears a collar giv- 

 ing the name and address of the owner. Collared dogs so found hunt- 



a For details of this tragedy see 'Forest and Stream,' Vol. XXYII, p. 308, Nov. 11, 

 1886; 'Maine Sportsman,' vol. 13, p. 158, April, 1906. 



