TWO OA> MORE HUNTING IN COMPANY. 239 



may not only get closer to deer than you could do on 

 foot, but can traverse far more ground in a day. Deer 

 vary, however, about this, and I have seen plenty 

 that, though used to horsemen and not disturbed by 

 them, were easier to approach on foot. And where 

 they are hunted much on horseback they learn per- 

 fectly what a horse means, and will often run at the 

 sound of hoofs without stopping to see whether there 

 be a man on the horse or not, and this, too, when 

 wild mustangs and cattle are ranging the hills and 

 the deer feed among them without fear. They seem 

 to know the different sound of the hoofs of a horse 

 with a man on him just as well as a man can generally 

 tell it. The only sure way to test the question whether 

 hunting on a horse is better than on foot is to try it. 

 And often the advantage of traversing more ground 

 overbalances all else. If one is to go stumbling with 

 heavy boots over noisy ground he had much better 

 be on a horse and go as fast as he can. But if he 

 will wear moccasins and use thorough care he can 

 approach almost any deer or antelope much closer 

 than he can on a horse, provided the deer has not 

 seen him at a distance. If you cannot keep them 

 from seeing you, as when you are on level ground, etc., 

 then your chances will be better on a horse, unless the 

 deer are too much hunted on horseback. When a 

 deer sees you, you can often get closer by a dash on 

 horseback than if on foot. 



A good hunting-horse is not the easiest thing in 

 the world to get. It is commonly supposed that some 

 phlegmatic old hack whose sensibilities have been 

 blunted by a thorough course of work, starvation, 

 and thrashing is best for this purpose. But such a 

 horse is rarely sure of foot and is sure to be slow. 



