Feb. 25, 1886.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



87 



all their birds in view ; it arouses the jealousies of local hun- 

 ters and sends more sportsmen to the ground, which gener- 

 ally ends by closing it to all. A string of thirty quail is as 

 much as any sportsman* after the fatigues of the day, should 

 Carry. Never strain yourself. I would rather be commis- 

 erated on having thirty birds in three days' shooting, with 

 the invitation, '"'Come back, old fellow, and try it again," 

 than to have every one in the place at the depot to see "those 

 ffien who done killed all the partridges in the country." Don't 

 string your birds so that fifty will look like IS? (that is the 

 regulation lie) and hire two darky boys to carry them on a 

 pole, or you will be sure some time to be obliged to come 

 home on the owl train and sneak around town some back 

 way without a feather. Bedford. 

 Brooklyn, N. Y. 



ERRATIC BULLET FLIGHTS. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



In my article published by you last week I refer to other 

 cases in my own experience. One occurred a few months 

 before that already published. There was a millpond in the 

 neighborhood upon which I frequently shot wild ducks. 

 There was a deep indentation on one side, bounded by a com- 

 mon zigzag rail fence. The "lay of the land" was such that 

 I could creep into this indentation unperceived by ducks, 

 muskrats and other game, some of which I almost invariably 

 secured, as I was generally accompanied by a very small dog 

 with considerable spaniel blood in his veius, and enough 

 terrier to render him spunky. One day I stealthily crept 

 into my favorite nook, which brought me within rifle range of 

 most of the pond above and below. To my delight I found 

 a few ducks scattered over the pond. A large one and much 

 the nearest of any, happened to be in range of a tannery and 

 dwelling house perhaps 200 yards distant, but was swimming 

 slowly out of range, yet directly into the range of a herd of 

 cattle about 300 yards away in a pasture. 



This pond had been constructed but two or three years 

 before, and scattered over the site were several large syca- 

 more trees. I observed that the duck would soon pass just 

 inside one of these, and resting my rifle on a low rail aimed 

 in range of the tree, and as the duck came in range I fired, 

 killing the duck, and at the same time observed the bark fly 

 from the tree just above the water. A few seconds later 

 there was an outcry at the buildings which were at an angle 

 of about forty-five degrees to the line of my fire. My little 

 dog soon retrieved the duck, and taking it I passed around 

 to the buildings to learn the cause of the excitement there. 

 My bullet in passing through the duck and glancing upon 

 the water beyond became deflected to the right several inches, 

 glancing from the side of the tree, passed on to the house, 

 through the weather board of one inch just above the sill, 

 and nearly through the washboard in the kitchen, splitting 

 partly off a large sliver which struck with stinging force the 

 foot of a woman who was standing at a washtub with her 

 foot nearly against the board. Hearing the crack of the 

 rifle, the similar sharp crack of the cleaving sliver, which 

 was as large as a man's finger, and feeling the stinging sen- 

 sation upon her foot, she naturally thought the bullet had 

 penetrated it. Sighting from the bullet hole outside back to 

 the tree from which it had glanced, 1 found it had barely 

 missed the head of a man in the tan-yard. He was sure it 

 had touched his ear, but I could find no mark, 

 Philadelphia, Feb. 6. MlLTON P. Peirce. 



THE UTICA ASSOCIATION. 



AT a meeting of the Association Feb. 19, Secretary John 

 D. Collins presented the report of the committee ap- 

 pointed at the meeting held last month to consider needed 

 amendments to the game laws. The report is as follows: 

 To the Board of Trustees of the Utiea Game and Fish Pro- 

 tective Association: 

 The undersigned committee, appointed at the meeting of 

 said trustees January 21, 1886, to consider and report what, 

 if any amendments, are important and necessary for the bet- 

 ter protection of ?ame in the State of New York, hereby 

 respectfully report after much consideration and careful in- 

 vestigation, as follows: 



DEER PROTECTION. 



With reference to deer: Your committee report that dur- 

 ing the past three years there has been a large increase of 

 killing, greatly surpassing the number of deer killed and 

 shipped in former years, the extent of which, if continued, 

 will, in the best judgment of your committee, result in the 

 complete extermination of wild deer in the Adirondack wild- 

 erness in the course of a very few years; that moose have 

 become already totally extinct within the period of our own 

 recollection, and deer will probably follow the same fate in 

 the course of the next five years unless more protection is 

 afforded by law. 



That this increase of extermination during said last three 

 years has been the result of a great change taking place 

 within that time. 



1. There has been an increase, of the number of hunters, 

 also a great perfection of the weapons and devices used, with 

 an increase of the market demand for venison, all growing 

 out of fashionable popularity. 



These causes are unavoidable, and all contribute to a 

 greater destruction of deer. 



2. Other deer-producing states around us are waking up to 

 this danger of extermination; and are taking more active 

 measures for better protection and preservation. 



Pennsylvania has very recently found it necessary to pass 

 laws prohibiting all killing for five years. 



Maine, which has a wild tract equal to our Adirondack 

 wilderness, has equally found it necessary to put greater re- 

 strictions upon the killing and shipping of deer, both as to 

 season and the number to be killed by each person. 



Our State having less stringent laws, amounting to loose 

 liberality, has within said time now become the rendezvous 

 and hunting ground of all the market hunters from these 

 other States, who gather here in increasing numbers with the 

 most perfect skill and appliances ready to kill the last doe 

 for the vast market demand. These professionals start at the 

 first opening of the season ; penetrate to and overrun the 

 deepest recesses of the wilderness and the most secluded 

 haunts and hiding places of deer, keeping up the extermina- 

 tion till the close of the season; sending their game in most 

 instances to foreign markets. The number of these profes- 

 sionals has -greatly increased each year and in the judgment 

 of your committee will continue to increase in numbers and 

 perfection of their appliances with each succeeding year in 

 the future, which, with the natural increase of our domestic 

 sportsmen, must only bring one result : the early extermina- 

 tion of the last buck, doe and fawn, and the protection and 

 preservation ofmothing. 



Your committee in this connection give due and com- 



prehensive notice and consideration to the great diversity of 

 opinion among citizens as to the utility of the law against 

 hounding, now in force. They give all due weight to the 

 arguments for its repeal. The result of their investigation is 

 this, viz., that all the opposition to this law grows out of 

 pure selfish desire on the part of individuals clamoring to ac- 

 complish their own personal ends and conveniences, and par- 

 takes not at all of any real or honest preservation or protec- 

 tion. No better evidence of this is needed than the very fact 

 that in all their plans for proposed legislation on the subject, 

 protection and preservation are asked for with special privi- 

 leges, which are not protective, in the very fact of the con- 

 ceded dangers of total extermination. 



Your committee are also mindful of the fact that the 

 greatest liberality of open season should be allowed consist- 

 ent with due preservation, but the very idea of any game 

 law is to prevent extermination, by limits upon the killing 

 and the modes thereof, in which all interested citizens should 

 unite, concur and observe for the general good. The way 

 to protect is to limit and restrict the killing, and is quite in- 

 consistent with too great destruction. 



They further report that up to within the past past three 

 years the laws which have been liberal have been practically 

 ample, but that the recent change of conditions necessitates 

 greater limits of both season and the number to be killed. 

 They recommend the following law to be passed, which, 

 after a reasonable trial, they think will obviate what will 

 otherwise become necessary, viz., the necessity of a law 

 which will pi'ohibit for a term of years all killing in this 

 State. 



In respect to game birds : Your committee are of the 

 opinion that the open season should be made uniform and 

 limited to the autumn months of September, October and 

 November, as being most consistent with due regard to pro- 

 tection. We think August woodcock killing quite out of 

 season as well as destructive ; of partridges and their broods, 

 both should be lulled at the same time. 



The month of December killing is very destructive of 

 partridges from the fact that then they mainly are trapped 

 by experts. Under the present laws there will be few, if 

 any left to protect in a very few years hence. 



They recommend an amendment as now before the Legis- 

 lature, introduced in Senate by Mr. Coggeshall, proposed by 

 the secretary. 



In respect to song birds of all kinds, your committee are 

 of the opinion that all small birds, other than such as are in- 

 jurious to husbandry, or such as prey upon or destroy the 

 insectivorous species, such as butcher birds, crows, owls 

 and hawks (other than night hawks), should not be allowed 

 to be destroyed in any manner, or at any time, or for any 

 purpose whatever, within this State and should be prohibited. 



Your committee are informed that very large orders are 

 being constantly sent out by jobbing houses for the skins of 

 sinall birds of various kinds to supply the trade, and fashion- 

 able demands for ladies' bonnet trimmings, whereby they are 

 being greatly depleted, to the detriment of husbandry and in 

 derogation of public delight. Such practices should be dis- 

 countenanced by all good citizens as abhorrent and repulsive 

 in the extreme and totally without sense or palliation. 



I. 0. McIntosh, 

 John D. Collins, 

 Gustavtjs Dexter, 

 proposed amendments. 



The following bill is recommended by the association, as 

 an amendment to the fish and game laws now in force. The 

 wisdom of its provisions are evident at a glance : 



Section 1. No person shall hunt or pursue any wild deer in this 

 State with any dog or bitch. If any dog or bitch shall be found so 

 hunting or pursuing in the State, it shall be prima facie evidence of 

 the violation of the foregoing provision of this section by the owners 

 of, or persons having or harboring such dog or bitch. Any person 

 offending against any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty 

 of a misdemeanor, and in addition thereto shall be liable to a penalty 

 of fifty dollars for each and every violation, to be sued for and re- 

 covered as provided by chapter five hundred and thirty-four of the 

 laws of eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, as amended, for the re- 

 covery' of the penalties thereby imposed, or as hereinafter provided. 



Sec. 2. No person shall hunt, kill, chase, destroy or capture alive, 

 any deer in this State except in lawful manner between the 15th day 

 of August and the 15th day of October in each year. Whoever has in 

 possession at any other time any fresh venison or fresh deer skin or 

 deer carcass shall be deeni<;d to'have violated the provisions of this 

 section. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall forfeit 

 $50 for each deer killed or had in possession, to be recovered as herein 

 stated. Fresh venison may be had in possession and sold for thirty 

 days after Oct. 15 aforesaid, provided the possessor proves that the 

 same was lawfully killed within the lawful period aforesaid. 



Sec. 3. The number of deer which any one person may kill or have 

 in possession during the lawful period of each year as provided in the 

 foregoing: section is hereby limited to three deer in each year and no 

 more. Whoever kills more than three as aforesaid shall forfeit $50 

 for each deer killed or had in possession in excess of three. Whoever 

 harbors or possesses for another any deer killed in excess of three 

 aforesaid for the purpose of evading the provisions hereof, shall be 

 deemed to have violated this section. Market men who keep a 

 regular market for supplying venison to customers at retail only may 

 have in possession during the lawful season fresh venison carcasses 

 in excess of three in November, provided they do not in any way 

 directly or indirectly aid or employ the killing of deer within this 

 state or countenance the violation of the provisions of this section, 

 and provided also that such carcasses have not been killed in viola- 

 tion of the provisions of this section. 



Sec. 4. Whoever kills or captures any deer at any natural or 

 artincial salt licks within this state shall forfeit $50 for each deer so 

 killed or captured. The placing of any artificial salt lick for captur- 

 ing deer within this state is hereby forbidden, under a penalty 

 of $50. 



Sec. 5. All penalties imposed by this act may be recovered by action 

 for penalties or by indictment and fine, and all the provisions of 

 chapter 534 of the laws of 1879, in respect thereto and the disposition 

 thereof, shall apply hereto. 



Sec. The provisions of sections 1 and 38 of chapter 534 of the laws 

 of 1879 and the acts amendatory thereof, so far as they are in conflict 

 with the provisions of this act, are hereby; abrogated. In o ther 

 respects said act is to be construed injaid hereof. 



I. C. Mcintosh said that the limitation of three deer to each 

 person was copied from the Maine law. 



The report was adopted and a committee of two, D. Col- 

 lins and I. C. Mcintosh, named by the chair to go to Albany 

 and attend to the introduction of the bill and endeavor to 

 secure its passage. 



Mr. Mcintosh reported that he had ordered for Jock's and 

 South lakes 50,000 salmon trout from Caledonia. Mr. Green 

 writes that he wanted them to be taken Feb. 28. The fish 

 were to be taken from Prospect or possibly Remsen. A. D. 

 Barber, Jr., had been written to, but, though he expressed 

 interest, he said he would be unable to take the fish to Jock's 

 Lake. 



Mr. Collins moved that Mr. Mcintosh's committee be con- 

 tinued and instructed to attend to getting the fish and getting 

 them into the lake. . . 



There was some informal discussion as to the best method 

 of getting the fish to Jock's Lake at this time of year. 



Mr. Mcintosh said he thought 75,000 could be secured. 



The members present all signed the petition issued by the 

 Forest and Stream, protesting against the repeal of the 

 anti-deer hounding law and the Association adjourned, sub- 

 ject to the call of the president. 



THE MAINE DEER LAW. 



THE large game of Maine is recognized as one of the 

 valuable natural resources of that State. The laws 

 have been most carefully framed for the proper preservation 

 of the deer supply; and— so great is the importance attached 

 to these laws — special officials are intrusted with the duty of 

 supervising the enforcement of the statute by the game 

 wardens. 



The Maine game law forbids absolutely and at all times 

 the use of dogs for hunting deer. The working of this anti- 

 deer law — whether it be for good or evil— is full of instruc- 

 tion for the other States which are now considering the 

 same subject. It is worthy of remark that the enactment 

 of the Maine law was bitterly opposed, as was the law itself at 

 first, on the identical grounds now urged by the opponents 

 of the New York anti-hounding law. 



The following official reports of the effect of the law, and 

 the testimony of well known Maine sportsmen are sub- 

 mitted: 



[From Commissioner H. O. Stanley.] 



COMMISSIONERS. 8~TATE OP MAINE, ) 



E. M, Stilwell, Bangor. COMMISSION OP FISHERIES & GAME, V 



HenrvO.Stanlev^^ Dixpiei.d, Feb. 14, 1886. ) 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



You ask for my opinion as to the working of the anti-deer 

 hounding law in Maine. I can give it in a very few words. 

 That law in my opinion, is the very best one we have on our 

 statute books for the protection of our deer in the Maine 

 forests. If hounding were to be allowed, it is ray belief, 

 that in five years from now few deer would be left in our 

 State. To the enforcement of this law I attribute the in- 

 crease of the game, that has filled our forests with deer as 

 they are to-day. Repeal this law and the track of the deer 

 would disappear from Maine. 



H. O. Stanley, Commissioner. 



[From Commissioner E. M. Stilwell.l 



COMMISSIONERS. STATE OP MAINE, ) 



E. M. Stilwell, Bangor. COMMISSION OF FISHERIES & GAME, V 

 HenryO. Stanley^ BANGOR, Feb. 16, 1886. ) 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



You ask me the question of our success with the Maine 

 anti-houndine: deer law. My reply is that we could have 

 achieved nothing without it. There is no such thing as deer 

 protection, there is no such thing as deer propagation with- 

 out that law. The only question is between deer and dogs. 

 You cannot have the one without stringently enforcing the 

 law against the other. There is no such thins; as a com- 

 promise between the two. Since the passage of the amended 

 dog law in 1883, the deer of our State have more than 

 doubled. 



To claim that still-hunting is mcrre destructive than hound- 

 ing is utter nonsense. Hounding permits no sanctuary, no 

 respite for the deer. They are driven even from their new- 

 born and suckling young into the lakes to be shot. The 

 still-hunter can practice his craft only after the leaves have 

 fallen, after the fawns are weaned, the venison fat and in 

 condition, and fit as food for man. 



E. M. Stidwei/l, Commissioner. 



P. S. — I send you also letters from Mr. John Shaw, the 

 well-know shipbuilder ; Dr. Samuel B. Hunter and C. B. 

 Donworth, Esq., all of Machias, and Manly Hardy, of 

 Brewer. Messrs. Shaw, Hunter and Donworth are sports- 

 men of large experience, who have been for many years 

 practically familiar with the Maine game question and inter- 

 ested in the due protection of the great resource of our 

 State. Mr. Hardy is a dealer in furs, has an almost univer- 

 sal acquaintance with the hunters of the State — whites and 

 Indians— is a keen observer, accomplished sportsman and 

 naturalist, from whose opinion on this question there is no 

 appeal. You are at liberty to publish the letters if you see 

 fit. — E. M. S. 



[INCLOSTJRES.] 



Machias, Me., Feb. 15, 1886. 

 E. M. Stilwell, Com. Fisheries and Game: 



Dear Sir — You ask my opinion about the anti-dogging 

 deer law of this State in relation to its saving the deer. I 

 will say that I think it is the greatest protection to the deer 

 that we have. Yours truly, *" John Shaw. 



Brewer, Me., Feb. 15, 1886. 



Hon, E. M. Stilwell: 



Dear Sir — In answer to your question as to my opinion 

 of deer increasing where hounding is allowed, I have to say 

 that my belief, backed by a long experience, is that they 

 will be exterminated in less than half the time where hound- 

 ing is allowed that they will where only still-hunting is 

 done. People hound because they can get more deer in that 

 way than by still -hunting. If this were not so no one would 

 care to keep hounds. In the months of September, October 

 and November, when there is no snow, the best still-hunters 

 can kill but few, so those who wish some easier way ask for 

 hounding. I believe deer can be killed fast enough by fair 

 still-hunting without being murdered by hunting with 

 hounds. Very respectfully, M. Hardy. 



Machias, Feb. 13, 1886. 

 Hon, E. M. Stilwell, Com. Fisheries and Game: 



Sir — In answer to your letter of inquiry as to the result 

 of the law prohibiting the use of dogs in hunting deer, I will 

 say from personal knowledge, the increase is perfectly aston- 

 ishing, especially when the law is well enforced as in Wash- 

 ington county. It has been proved here that the use of 

 hounds by sportsmen cannot be allowed at any season, not 

 only because of its destructiveness. but it so frightens the 

 game that it leaves the hunting grounds. When hounds are 

 used the residents provide themselves with that nondescript 

 class of curs known as deer dogs, and allow them to hunt as 

 they please, take them into then camps, hunt on the crust in 

 the spring while the does are weak and the fawns are young, 

 and in summer while the fawns are yet too young to care for 

 themselves. In. order that the law shall be effective it must 

 include all kinds of dogs, for we often find the common cur 

 the equal of the wolf. 



Since the close of the war I have lived in this town and 

 have been greatly interested in the protection and in the in- 

 crease of game. My business keeps me upon the roads the 

 greater part of the time, besides I annually take my fall 

 hunt. I find that since the enforcement of the anti-dog law 

 so apparent is the increase of the deer, that the citizens now 

 watch for the deer dog, which is hated as the farmer hates 

 the sheep-killing cur. The wardens find no difficulty in 

 getting information when any one undertakes to violate this 

 most beneficial law for the preservation of game. For three 



