FOREST AND STREAM 
571 
This difficulty is also increased by certain forms of ex¬ 
pression, which, have become as stereotyped as “ true 
sportsman”, “speckledbeauties”, etc. For instance, its 
always and eternally that “old buck” or “big buck” that 
a writer kills (with his quill), until in the interest of 
philosophy one is almost tempted to offer a reward for 
any reliable information about the killing of a small doe 
or a fawn. So, too, that same old buck is nearly always 
at the regulation distance of 200 yards or 400 yards, and 
200 yards is the lowest distance at which it is respectable 
to shoot him at all. In the country, where. I used to 
hunt squirrels when a boy, a shot-gun that didn't "kill 
100 yards ” was as worthless as a school-teacher who didn’t 
•'lick". “ Kuock him down in his tracks !” “ Put a ball 
through his heart 1" and a dozen kinds of similar lingo, 
form part of the mental furniture of many very good 
hunters, until one would suppose that to get a ball into a 
deer’s heart was a matter of course for a good shot, and 
that a deer was as easily knocked down in its tracks as a 
cabbage head. 
We have received from the past an heirloom of old 
ideas, to which many still cling, and many of which are 
partly true in a limited sense, hut wrong in being applied 
to all cases, such as, that bullets should he made of the 
softest lead : bullets injure a shot-gun ; any fool can kill 
a deer in “ running time ”, and others too numerous to 
mention. 
As in every other science, there are those who love to 
throw a vail of mystery around the simplest matters. 
From - many a good hunter, especially if of the real old 
variety, one can get little information about hunting or 
shooting except expressive shrugs and a bulging sapience 
of face thay say, as plainly as words, “ You poor goose, 
don’t ask me. Ask Him who made me so wonderful. - ’ 
So, too, we often see the same tendency to explain the 
natural by the supernatural. Thus, a style of rifle shoot¬ 
ing, containing not a prinoiple that had not been known 
and followed for years; novel only in the shortness of 
the distance, the character and position of the mark and 
in the number of shots fired ; so simple that in a few 
months it had dozens of successful imitators, and so 
■worthless practically that nearly all those imitators have 
abandoned it only last year—in the age of the telephone, 
phonograph and other vast triumphs of min d over matter; 
in an age when we look back with contempt upon the 
sporting knowledge of our fathers—was explained by 
many men of tolerably good sense as witchcraft, jugglery, 
illusion, Bleight-of-hand, etc. ; while some who laughed 
at these, and also scouted as absurd the only real explana¬ 
tion that could he given of it, planted themselves upon’ 
the highly philosophical rock of .“intuitive" and “in¬ 
stinctive aim.” 
A bar of nettles to the hand of progress is the super¬ 
sensitiveness of nearly every one whose opinions, wares, 
skill, fame or methods any one attempts, however sin¬ 
cerely or fairly, to touch with anything but the quill of 
praise. Such a person is apt to be set down for a “ cavil¬ 
ler ”, a “ detractor ”, a “ tool of a rival ” or a fool, and is 
quite likely to be answered with the knock-down argu¬ 
ment of “ put up or shut up while one who makes any 
advance beyond his fellows is apt to be immediately in¬ 
vited to ‘ * put. up ” or resign all pretensions. 
Here, too, nearly every improvement has to drag the 
leaden anchor of old-fogyism through the thick mud of 
prejudice. An improvement, if slightly defective (and 
often if not at all defective), instead of being encouraged 
and cheered on to perfection, is very apt to be blocked, 
hampered and bogged at every step by the strenuous 
efforts of those most anxious for improvement. Almost 
everything we have that is of much value has had to 
fight its way into favor. We laugh at the English for 
their stupidity in adhering to the muzzle-loading match 
rifle instead of bending their energies to the perfection of 
the breech-loader, as they should do ; yet we cling with 
equally stupid fondness to our clumsy, lumbering, low- 
trajectoried, single-barreled sporting rifles, while the 
English for years have been far ahead of us in that liwe. 
When the next great improvement in fire-arms comes up 
we shall nearly all pitch into it and quite forget the ponder¬ 
ous arguments the past has hurled at breech-loaders, re¬ 
peaters, and nearly every other improvement of any great 
value. 
We see, too, that same strange tendency in men, often 
sensible and intelligent, to overlook the most obvious facts. 
Men will argue against Express rifles as if it was absolutely 
necessary to cast the ball with a hole in it, and as if expan¬ 
sion of the bullet.was the only virtue in the rifle, Hundreds 
of pretty fair shots are sure that the lateral motion of the 
gun in following crossing game will carry the shot sidewise 
so as to meet it, although it would seem that no one can 
help seeing that the motion of the gun muzzle is not l-20th 
the speed the game it is following. Tins often degenerates 
into a stupidity that is absolutely unaccountable ; at least 
upoq any known principles of the human mind in a state 
of sanity. Thus many old hunters will insist that the 
hammer on the cap is the safest way to carry a gun, and 
others that if at half-cock it will pass the scar and strike 
the cap if anything pulls it back and lets it slip, although 
an instant’s experiment will settle the question, even if 
every day’s observation and the knowledge of a lock were 
insufficient. And if these are to be hooledat, what shall 
we say of those who made the old Henry rifle without any 
half-cock at all? And what shall we say of those who 
pester editors of sporting papers with questions that a 
moment’s experiment or thought would settle for them¬ 
selves, such as the proper load to ldll a chippy at ten paces, 
or why gun barrels are not made of glass so that we can 
see whether they are loaded or not ? Or of those who 
take a paper for years and ask questions which are an¬ 
swered in every number year in and year out? And I 
may add, what shall we say of the editors who keep on 
answering them? I hope “ they have ther reward,” but 
doubt it most mightily. 
Such cases of error as ignorance, envy, interest, and a 
dozen or more others, it is useless to discuss. The ones 
above mentioned comprise nearly all causes for which 
there is any hope of reformation; few indeed are they 
who will take the pains to avoid even these ; and fewer 
still are they who can succeed in doing so if they do try. 
But it does no harm and may do some good to point them 
out. Except in pure natural history, where experiment 
is often impossible, there is no such field of uncertainty 
as there is in such sciences as medicine. It is often im¬ 
possible to say whether a certain remedy cures patients : 
whether it is simply inert and they recover without it, or 
whether it ^ injurious and they get well in spite of it ; 
until years of observation and experiment, and a careful 
examination of very many cases have eliminated all 
chance and sifted out all other causes beyond the medicine. 
But in our science there is rarely any trouble of this kind. 
The most vexed questions—recoil, muzzle-loader vs. 
breech-loader, one.eye vs. two eyes, etc. — can all be sub¬ 
mitted to rigorous inductive or experimental tests that 
shall exclude all chance of mistake. The main trouble is 
that such investigations do not usually pay, aud are 
usually stopped short of the point necessary for certainty. 
Too often they are made only to prove an opinion, and of 
course all such are generally good for little else. 
Beyond all this lies afield for much honest difference of 
opinion; and here, without fear of the absurd charge of 
egotism which is often made when a writer alludes to 
himself, I shall mention a singular instance, because it 
shows the greatest of extremes in ideas. Mr. Cleveland's 
idea of a “ sporting rifle ” is a single-barrel, single-loading, 
No. 40 cal. 20-inch barrel, 40 grains of power, of about five 
or six pounds weight; while my idea of a “ sporting rifle ” 
is precisely the reverse. Though much Mr. Cleveland’s 
inferior in experience, skill and knowledge of different 
rifles, I think I am not his inferior in the desire to ascer¬ 
tain exact truth, and in the patience and deliberation 
necessary to get somewhere near it. So that when I paid 
for my beau ideal of a sporting rifle five times the amount 
that this cost I did not do it hastily or unadvisedly, for I 
had tried carefully and without prejudice all pur leading 
American rifles, commencing years ago with Mr. C.’s very 
beau ideal, and was quite as anxious for a cheap rifle as 
Mr. C. is for one that can be put in a valise. A still more 
singular feature is that we are both bent mainly upon one 
point, viz., to .get clear of as much labor as possible in 
hunting. For me, broken down in health and several 
times badly injured by overwork in hunting, this was the 
main point, to get a rifle that would save work ; aud it 
come to a point where I must have one or stop hunting 
dear entirely. Mr. C. thinks he saves work when he 
carries only six pounds of iron. I, much his inferior 
probably in physical strength, have chuckled for nearly a 
year over my success in attaining the same point by pack¬ 
ing over the hills nearly twelve pounds of iron in the shape 
of a double 65 cal. Express. The only point upon which 
we differ is the time of taking it easy. He likes his ease 
before getting a shot, while I prefer to rest after getting a 
shot, instead of half the time spending the rest of the day 
in hunting up wounded game. And I presume we are 
both satisfied with our success in attaining our respective 
points. At least I am. 
This ground for honest difference is quite extensive, 
though, as in the instance last given, the difference will 
often, if analyzed, be found to be rather different applica¬ 
tions of nearly the same identical opinions. For this 
reason, as well as from the natural difficulties surround¬ 
ing many branches of the subject, we should all be very 
cautious not to bristle too quickly when our opinions are 
opposed, and not dash too quickly with uplifted quill to 
puncture what to us seem empty bubbles from the oppon¬ 
ent’s mouth. And, above all, we ^should go slowly in 
forming our opinions about anything connected with the 
subject, more slowly in confirming them, still more slowly 
in writing about them, and even more so in rushing into 
print with them. T. 8. Van Dyke. 
[Commenting upon a reference to himself in Mr. Van 
Dyke's first paper, Mr. Cleveland sends us the subjoined 
note, which we are confident none will welcome more 
than will Mr. Van Dyke. — [E d. F. and S.] 
Editor Forest and Stream -.—On running over several 
numbers of your paper, my attention was arrested by an 
allusion to myself, which contains such an obvious mis¬ 
representation or misunderstanding of my words that I 
must ask room to set myself right. I sent you more than 
a year ago a very interesting letter from Mr. W. T, Horne- 
day. giving an account of the killing of a tiger with two 
shots from a 40 cal. rifle, The only deduction I drew from 
the story was— 11 The evidence it affords of the importance 
of a flat hundred yards of the bullet's flight. If Homeday's 
bullet had gone a single inch too high he never wouTJ. 
have written that letter,'' etc. 1 said not a word in ad¬ 
vocacy of the use of so light a bullet for such game, and' 
the admiration I expressed for the nerve of a man who 
could be cool enough to achieve such a feat is in itself 
evidence of my appreciation of the tremendous risk in¬ 
volved. Now, I hud the following in an editors! in your- 
paper of the 15th inst.“ Thus, when an eminent rifle 1 
authority told us of a tiger being killed with a 40 cal. rifle 
and 40 grains of powder, the ball hitting the tiger in the- 
eye, he proved nothing at all but the good fortune of the- 
shooter. Fifty such instances would not even tend to 
prove what he was trying to prove—the efficiency of such- 
a ball and charge for such game—until he can first give 
us a recipe for making tigers strike an attitude, at a short 
distance, too. from the hunter. " I made no effort to prove 
any such thing as you assert, and agree entirely with 
you that the instance cited affords no evidence in its 
favor. 
Chicago, May 30. H. W. S. Cleveland. 
GAME PROTECTION. 
Sportsmen’s Association op Western Pennsylva¬ 
nia. —This association has just completed its new rooms. 
No, 75 Fifth avenue, Erie, Penn. The building has been; 
leased for a term of ten years, and $10,000 were expended! 
in fitting up the quarters. There is a reading, card and' 
billiard room. The museum, in which the meetings of 
the association will be held, is a large hall on the upper- 
floor containing some 2,000 specimens of natural history,- 
most of them being the contributions of members. From, 
the date of its organization in 1876 the association has 
increased in membership, until now 260 nam es are upon 
its rolls, among which are many of great influence. The 
work accomplished has been of a most valuable nature. 
The officers are —President, Robert Dalzell; Vice-Presi¬ 
dents, Col. B, F. Ruff, D. G. Phillips, F. H. Kennedy; 
Treasurer, W. C. Mac-rum ; Secretary, John F. Wilcox; 
Assistant Secretary, Howard Eaton; Naturalist, H. S. A. 
Stewart. Board of Directors, John C. Brown, Howard! 
Hartley, Dr. W. F. Fundenberg, E. A. Myers, and J. V. 
Long. Executive Committee, John Caldwell, Jr.; C. A. 
Carpenter, N. M. McDowell, Edward Gregg, B. Bakewell„ 
Jr.; Charles Hays and J. H. Bugbman. 
Dissatisfied Connecticut Sportsmen— Editor Forest 
and Stream :—The article in your last issue (31st July) en¬ 
titled “ A Connecticut Quandary," it seems to me is rather 
doubtful recommendation for lawB which “are in very 
good shape, in fact as nearly perfect as we can at present 
hope to make, them.” It strikes me very forcibly that a 
law which is a dead letter is rather worse than useless, for 
it teaches people to break laws. What a farce ; the legal 
season opening 0 :t. lst.and New Ha\ en restaurantsbm i ag 
and selling them (woodcock) in the middle of June. Now 
our present law was, I believe, passed in the interest of a 
few sportsmen who shoot nearer the sound than we poor 
chaps up here in the hills — men who want to take, say, a 
week's vacation in the fall for shooting and who want to 
bag all the birds possible in that time, and, of course, 
October in that locality is the best month. With us the 
last of September is better usually, and the present law is 
very unpopular in Litchfield County at least, and I know 
it is with many sportsmen in other parts of the State. 
The trouble seems to me just here, our sportsmen work 
too much on the plan of “every man for himself.” If a, 
law is passed that suite a man, or nearly so, he will observe- 
it—if it don't he will not—thinking somewhat in this way: 
“I can’t get the laws changed as I would wish, so 
the easiest thing for me to do is to go to some quiet spot 
where they won't prosecute me, and just take my little 
hunt and keep still about it.” I have long been in favor 
of a uniform season throughout New England, beginning 
Sept. 1st and closing Jan. 1st, and I believe that the quick¬ 
est way to get it there is to enforce the laws as they stand 
rigidly in every town. Our club have so far enforced the 
law in our town but they are getting rather discouraged, 
for we continually hear of its being violated all over 
the State elsewhere, and they are beginning to ask what 
is the use of keeping birds till October to have them go to 
swell the hag of some chap down along the sound Oct. 
1st? , , 
If our city sportsmen and game clubs will see to it that 
birds are not sold in the markets out of season, one great 
inducement to poachers will be gone, and if by any possi¬ 
bility the present law could be enforced for one season 
throughout the State, I feel certain that one more to the 
liking of the majority of sportsmen would take its place, 
and which would in reality afford more protection to birds, 
than at present. 
I should be sorry to see the old law opening the season 
July 4th again in force, but I believe even that was better 
than the present, which seems to be just about as good as 
no law at all. W. H. Williams. 
Lakeville, Conn., Aug. 4. 
Why are they not Prosecuted 'i—Ncui Raven, Conn., 
A ugust 12 —Editor Forest and Stream You ask me in 
your article if I could tell who killed the woodcock?; There 
are several men who make a business of shooting them 
and sending their birds to New York markets. But they 
are not members of the New Haven Gun Glub. 
D. C. Sanford, 
Lewiston, August 11, 1879. 
Editor Forest and Stream :— 
Through your columns I wouldlike to call the attention 
of Maine sportsmen to the necessity of a State organiza¬ 
tion, aud the manifold benefit such an association can de¬ 
rive. For several years a majority of our sportsmen have 
seen the need of unity, and have required the influence 
such an association could wield, The subject has been 
broached on one or two occasions—occasions inopportune 
however ; but now, as our State shoot comes off early in 
September,* plans should be perfected, and arrangements 
