FROM THE GAME FIELDS. 



*95 



PIJIJFS DEFENSE. 



San Francisco, Cal. 



Editor Recreation: Your June number 

 was put into my hands by a friend and I 

 have enjoyed it very much, being particu- 

 larly interested, I might say amused, by 

 your articles regarding the number of heads 

 of game that a man should limit himself 

 to bringing to bag. 



I have hunted since my twelfth year and 

 have a record of every head of game I have 

 killed since then — and I think I am a sports- 

 man. I have but 3 rules: 1st. Obey all 

 game laws — and sell no game. 2d. Never 

 destroy any animal you cannot use. 3d. 

 Kill in a masterly, sportsmanlike manner. 

 The above 3 rules cover my ethics of a 

 sportsman. 



The idea of being tied down to an exact 

 number of birds to a shoot is, I think, rather 

 farcical. Circumstances alter every case. 

 The quantity, to my idea, being covered by 

 my Rule 2. I recall 3 of my largest bags 

 and what was done with the game — my 

 record shows: 



October 30, '95; 112 ducks. Of these 12 

 I took home, 100 went to the Boys' and 

 Girls' x\id Society where the little waifs had 

 a duck dinner. 



March 9, '97; 2 guns bagged 85 geese. 

 These, I remember made 7 large sacks, I 

 took home one fat goose, and one sack 

 each was sent to the Orphan Asylums of 

 San Francisco. 



July 14, '85; 2 guns, 203 doves. This was 

 slaughter. A hotel in Southern California 

 had a big dove pie. 



October 10-14, '85; 4 guns, 14 deer. 

 Shipped to friends — every part used. 



We were in camp 10 days and the 14 

 deer were killed the first 4 days. We could 

 just as easily have got another dozen deer 

 but did not, as we could use no more. 



Fortunately T live in California where the 

 supply of some varieties of game is unlim- 

 ited and in a great many cases, under the 

 protection received is increasing. 



I have shot ducks on the Suism marsh, 

 40 miles from San Francisco, a tract of 

 about 5,000 acres, since 1875 — every year of 

 the 23 with hardly an intermission — in '75 

 market hunters were then getting pretty 

 thick on the marsh and the game com- 

 menced to disappear. In 1880 4 clubs were 

 formed, taking the lease of the entire tract 

 and the game and grounds were carefully 

 protected, birds have increased. Last sea- 

 son was the best the marsh has seen. 



I think California readers will be amused 

 at your limit of 10 ducks per day. As all 

 the birds are migratory the clubs make no 

 limits on numbers, trusting that a member 

 will kill only what he can use, and do so in 

 a sportsmanlike manner. I always bag as 

 many birds as I can; stopping at 100 to my 

 gun. Some of the members have bagged 

 many more, 140 to 160 ducks. Yet the 



game is increasing; and we consider our- 

 selves thorough sportsmen. 



If you could take the Southern Pacific 

 Railroad any bright February or March 

 morning and traverse the San Joaquin Val- 

 ley and keep a lookout you will see thou- 

 sands, I may say millions of geese, countless 

 flocks, from a dozen old Honkers to a cloud 

 covering the whole horizon, of white geese 

 and brant, and because a few of us bag 80 

 or 100 of these many birds, an infinitesimal 

 percentage of what we can see in a day's 

 hunt, and then give several hundred 

 orphans a good goose stew, we are called 

 names. Last year I shot on the same 

 ground and saw " Harrison's Hole " where 

 our good ex-President Benjamin Harrison 

 bagged with his party over 400 geese in a 2 

 days' shoot, and for this he is to be called 

 names. 



In conclusion I will say that if game was 

 scarce or on the decrease I would not 

 make these big bags. I think you can make 

 no rule but will agree that circumstances 

 alter cases. Shakespeare says, " What fools 

 these mortals be," but his calling us names 

 does not make us so; neither will your 

 rules make us unsportsmanlike — when we 

 explain our positions. 



Pijiji. 



ANSWER. 



Your " defense " is a very weak one. I 

 imagine the inmates of the charitable insti- 

 tutions you refer to would have been just 

 as grateful if you had given them so many 

 pounds of beef or mutton; and you could 

 probably have bought an equal quantity for 

 the price of the shells you used in killing 

 the game. It would seem, therefore, you 

 are using charity as a cloak to cover your 

 sins. 



Of course, it is better that you should 

 have given the game to these institutions 

 than that you should have sold it, or given 

 it to people who could afford to buy it, and 

 it is generally conceded, by all decent 

 sportsmen, that no man should kill game to 

 give away. In fact, no man does kill it for 

 that purpose. He kills it for the mere love 

 of killing and then gives it away in order 

 that he may be considered generous, or 

 charitable. — Editor. 



HOW MANY CHICKENS SHOULD A MAN KILL 

 IN A DAY ? 



Butte, Mont. 



Editor Recreation: I have just read in 

 your valuable magazine the letter of Mr. 

 Pratt, including a quotation from one from 

 a friend, and your comments thereon: 



I have for years been an advocate of just 

 your stand as to the amount of game it is 

 decent to kill, and my hunting friends will 

 testify that I have repeatedly put the dogs in 

 the wagon and 'my gun in its case when we 

 could have killed numbers of birds more 

 than we had. I did this simply because we 



