r96 



RECREATION. 



had enough. I have been fortunate the last 

 8 or 10 years in being able to take long 

 hunting trips, last season being the shortest 

 during that time, and that was about 18 

 days. Usually I have been out from a 

 month to 6 weeks. 



There is a certain amount of justice in 

 the views of Mr. Pratt's correspondent. 

 When a man is cooped up in an office all 

 the year round and only gets a day or 2 of 

 hunting, I think charity should look with a 

 half shut eye at the total score. I am con- 

 scious of being a little greedy the first day 

 or 2; and have usually killed more birds 

 than I was quite satisfied to bring home. I 

 assume every hunter feels some of the eager- 

 ness we see in our dogs, or probably he 

 wouldn't be a hunter; and who ever saw a 

 good bird dog that was willing to quit. 

 Aren't we all a little bloodthirsty? There 

 is such a thing as being too severe. 



The first day out last year we killed about 

 30 birds to 3 guns. That was 8 or 10 too 

 many. We put the dogs in the wagon and 

 went home then, and flushed at least 3 

 coveys on the way, which we did not shoot 

 at. After that, the most we killed in one 

 day was 22, our usual total being 12 to 15. 

 We had a party in camp, and only once did 

 we let any birds spoil. A few of the first lot 

 were fly-blown before we could eat them. 

 I did intend to make a killing the last day, 

 to take home — that is, what I would call a 

 killing — say 25 or 30 or perhaps even 40; 

 but the weather was bad and we had to fore- 

 go that last hunt. This on grounds where 

 we might have killed 100 a day had we 

 chosen, simply by starting earlier and hunt- 

 ing a few hours later. 



We usually started out about one, drove 

 an hour, hunted one to 3 hours, according 

 to how soon we found birds enough, and got 

 home at 5 to 6. We did not hunt every day. 

 As we had 7 people and 7 dogs, it took 10 to 

 15 chickens a day to feed us. I ate chickens 

 till I could feel pin feathers breaking out on 

 my back. In fact I was getting tired of 

 them; but my wife, who is my chief hunt- 

 ing chum, bemoaned the fact that we had to 

 go home. She said her chicken appetite 

 was just getting into nice working order! 

 They were delicious, surely; just short of 

 full size and tender enough to melt in one's 

 mouth. We were soundly scolded by our 

 friends for returning without a feather! 



G. H. Macdougall. 



ANSWER. 



It is impossible to make rules or laws to 

 exactly fit every case; but the trouble is, if 

 we give one man a license to violate laws — 

 written or unwritten — then we must give 

 such permissions to everybody. If we agree 

 that no man should kill more than a dozen 

 chickens in a day and then say that under 

 certain circumstances a man may kill a few 

 more, where shall we draw the line? If for 

 reasons given by Mr. Macdougall, he might 



kill 25 or 30 on the first day, some other man 

 might show that he should be allowed to kill 

 50 on the first day, and another that, for 

 some special reason, he should kill 75, etc. 

 Where are you going to stop? 



I fully agree with Mr. Macdougall, and 

 with Mr. Pratt's friend, that the man who 

 gets out only once a year, and then for 2 or 

 3 days, should have special consideration; 

 but how are you going to frame a law to fit 

 such cases? How can you even frame rules 

 among sportsmen to fit such cases? If you 

 say a man who hunts only once in a year 

 shall have the privilege of killing more birds 

 than the man who makes several trips in a 

 year, then some other fellow will say " I 

 have not been out after birds for 5 years, un- 

 til last summer. Then I killed 200 birds in 

 one day, and what are you going to do about 

 it?" 



Another man will say, " I was out last 

 year and the year before, but did not find 

 the birds. This year, if I go out, I am going 

 to make a big killing. I am going to kill 

 every bird I can find and if I get 300, so 

 much the better. I must make up for lost 

 time." 



What are you going to do with this chap? 



After all, there is but one way of dealing 

 with this question and that is to make uni- 

 form laws and rules for everybody. It is not 

 all of hunting to kill game and the man 

 who considers his trip a failure unless he 

 can bring home a big bag is not a sports- 

 man in the best sense of the term. There 

 are thousands of men who are content to 

 tramp the fields and the woods, with dog 

 and gun; to climb the hills with rifle, or to 

 loiter on the banks of a trout brook, even 

 if they do not fill the hunting coat pockets 

 or the creel. These men even think they 

 have gotten their money's worth if they 

 have not killed a thing or taken a fish. They 

 have gotten health, strength, energy, and 

 when they return home, their beefsteak or 

 bacon taste so much better than they did 

 before that they are content. The sooner 

 people quit measuring the value of a hunting 

 trip by the amount of game killed the better 

 for the game. — Editor. 



A PUGET SOUND MAN CONTRADICTS WEBBER. 



Seattle, Wash. 

 Editor Recreation: I read the letter in 

 December Recreation, from George II. 

 Webber, Vancouver, B. C., and as a Puget 

 Sound sportsman I resent his statement. 

 He says there are many good, honest 

 sportsmen on the Sound who are sick of 

 the howl of game hog, and who think just 

 as he does in regard to killing all the game 

 he can when out hunting. I have lived 30 

 years among .the sportsmen of Puget 

 Sound. They are good, honest, big 

 hearted, manly fellows as ever lived; but I 

 have failed to find among them the senti- 

 ment expressed by Mr. Webber. We have 

 here a breed of self-styled sportsmen; 



