March 25, 1886.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



168 



iftfwf* $ nt l* 



Address all communications to the Forest and Stream Publish- 

 ing Co. 



THE TRAJECTORY TEST. 



THE f unreport of the Forest and Stream's trajectory test of hunt- 

 ing rifles has been issued in pamphlet form, with the illustra- 

 tions and the tabular summary, making in all 96 pages. For sale at 

 this office, or sent post-paid. Price 50 cents. 



THE ANTI-HOUNDING LAW. 



TIIE following brief of the argument in support of the 

 auti-bounding law of New York was submitted to the 

 Senate committee Tuesday evening. The paper was accom- 

 panied with numerous letters and sworn statements as ex- 

 hibits. To committee will report this week. 

 1 o the Honorable Committee on Game Laws of the Senate of 

 the State of New York: 

 The State of New York possesses in the wild game of the 

 Adirondacks a natural resource of recognized value. The 

 intent of legislation is to conserve that game as a permanent 

 possession. If a statute accomplishes this intent it is a wise 

 law and should be retained. 



In purpose the anti-hounding deer law is thus wholly econ- 

 omic; in practice it accomplishes its purpose, and it should 

 be retained. 



The law of 1879, which permitted jacking, hounding and 

 still-hunting, was inadequate. Under its provisions, the 

 aouual destruction of deer between 1879 and 1885 was so 

 great as to insure, if continued, the speedy extinction of the 



species, 



Of the three modes of killing, hounding was the most de- 

 structive. To check the excessive slaughter, the Legisla- 

 ture of 1885 enacted the anti-houudiug law. 



The statute has proved a wise and beneficial protective 

 measure. Where enforced it has already accomplished much 

 and promises more. It is sustained by the overwhelming 

 sentiment of sportsmen. The retention of the law is essen- 

 tial to the maintenance of the game interests of the State. 

 Its repeal would result disastrously. 



In support of these economic considerations for retaining 

 the law, the following presentation of evidence is submitted: 



THE EVIDENCE. 



THE DEEll HAD DECKEASED PRIOR TO 1885. 



While the numbers of hunters (of different classes) engaged 

 in its pursuit had multiplied, the deer had been destroyed at 

 a rate and to an extent viewed with gravest alarm by all 

 intelligent persons cognizant of the actual condition of 

 affairs and concerned lor the perpetuity of the supply. 



Statement of Professor E. L. Richards.of New Haven. Conn : "IbavR 

 been in ihe woods off and on for almost twenty-five years. I can see 

 that the deer are decreasing yearly. This decrease is especially 

 noticeable in those parts of the wilderness where the running of dogs 

 has most prevailed." (Letter of March (5, 1S86), [Exhibit 1.] 



Statement of Dr. If. McY. Tobey, late of Jay, Es<ex county, N. Y. : 

 '•Fifteen years ago 1 could find good hunting in North Elba and St 

 Armaud, and I was satisfied with, it, but as deer became scarcer I 

 tried other sections, thereby following the deer from one quarter to 

 anotner, until my last hunt was had about 60 miles beyond Martin's, 

 in the depths of the .wilderness. * * * North Elba and St. Armand, 

 where deer used to be plenty, are almost destitute of them" (Let- 

 ter of Feb. 23, 1889.) [Ex. 29»] 



Statemeutof Ohas. H. Smith, of Petrie's Corners, Lewis county. N. 

 Y.: "I guided at the Saranac House, then kept by William F. Martin, 

 in '56, "57 and '58. I have followed guiding ever since. Deer have 

 decreased very fast from '?9 until '85. I think the main cause was 

 driving with dogs, as there were more killed in tnat way than in all 

 Others."' (LetLer oE Feb. 27, 1886). [Ex. 6. J 



Statement of W. R. Smith, Petrie's Corners, Lewis countv, fifteen 

 years a guide: -'There is not over one-quarter the deer in this county 

 there was in '8^, and if they had drove las: fall I don't think theiv 

 would have been scarcely a deer left in the whole Adirondacks " 

 (Letter of- March 19, 1686,) [Ex. 4.] 



THE DECREASE WAS DUE TO DOGGING. 



Among the several modes of taking deer, hounding was 

 recognized as most disastrous, and the certain result of its 

 continued practice was clearly foreseen to be the impending 

 ruin of the North Woods as a game region. 



Statement, of Richard M. Shutts. Chateaugay Lake, Franklin county 

 (northeast part of Adirondacks): "For tniriy years I have hunted 

 around Chateaugay Lake, and have watched decrease of deer. * * * 

 Have hunted t hem by jacking, trapping, hounding, crusting and still 

 hunting. * * * It me dogs are allowed to be used, you may pro 

 tect them in every possible way and our deer are doomed." (Letier 

 Jan, 5, 1886.) |Ex. 15.] - ' ' 



Statement of M. W. Young (thirty-five vears experience), of Wat- 

 son, Lewis county, N. Y. : -'As to hounding * * * I know that it 

 is utter destruction to the deer. * * * I believe two or three vf-ars 

 more like 1884 would have utterly destroyed the deer in this portion 

 of the wilderness, " (Letter of Feb. 27, 1886.) [Ex. 32 ] 



Statement of F. A. Young, (twelve years experience.) of Wat«on 

 Lewis county, N. Y.: "Two years more of hounding would have been 

 utter extermination of deer in this section, as there were nearly 300 

 deer killed by hounding in the Beaver River section in the year of 

 1884. This number does not include the deer killed by floating On 

 the same ground there were less than 60 killed last f alii 1885." (.Letter 

 of March 1,1886.) [Ex.33.] 



Statement of H. Wetmore (an old hunter), of Petrie's Corners, Lewis 

 county, N.Y.: "1 have in former years driven deer with dogs and 

 think tnat it is by far the most destructive to the deer of any kind of 

 hunting, and have given it up." (Letter of March 8, 1886.) [Ex. 34.J 



Statement of Robert Griffith, Jr , of Watson, Lewis county N Y • 

 "Thirty years experience has learned me that if we want to preserve 

 the deer we must keep out the dogs. A few more vears like the fall 

 of 1884 will make the deer in this part very scarce. I have no hesita- 

 tion in saying that in those two falls in October chat there were more 

 deer killed with dogs than in any ten years by still-hunting since I 

 have known the woods." (Letter of March 6, 1886 ) [Ex. 31 ] 



Statement of A. J. Muncy, Little Rapids, Herkimer county "In 

 Smith and Albany lakes in the fall of '81 there were about 25 deer got 

 with dogs; in the fall of '82, 40; in the fall of '83, 45 to 60, in the fall 

 of '84, 36; the parties and dogs were more numerous, but the deer 

 were not there to get it; double the 36 than the 45 to 60. (Letter of 

 March 7, 1886 ) [Ex. 8.] v 



Statement of Wni. R. Smith, Petrie's Corner?, fifteen years a guide- 

 "There are but few killed by floating or still hunting in season, but 

 * * * of all evils the hound is the worst and the only thing that 

 will exterminate the deer." (Letter of March 19, 1880.) [Ex 4.] 



Statement of Chas. H. Smith (forty-five years experience). Petrie's 

 Corners, Lewis county, N. Y. : "Deer have decreased very fast from 

 79 until So. I think the main cause was driving with dogs, as there 

 were more- killed in that way that in all others." (Letter of Feb. 27, 

 188b.) [Ex. 6. | 



DOGS AND NO DEER, OR DEER AND KO DOGS. 



The Legislature of 1885, then, was petitioned to enact an 

 anti-hounding law. This was not asked for as a piece of 

 odious class legislation, working to the deprivation of one 

 particular class of hunters for the benefit of another class. 

 It was not to stop the sport of the hounder that the still- 

 hunter might have the privilege of killing more game, but 

 that the stock might be rescued from extinction, and that 

 there might be deer left to hunt at all. It was in New York 

 as it had been in Maine and Pennsylvania, an alternative 

 between deer dogs and no deer, or deer and no deer dogs, 



Statement of Gen, R. TJ. Sherman, Secretary N. Y. State Fish Com- 



mission: "I am quite certain that if the hounding had gone on on th 

 scale it did in the fall of 1883 and 1884, the Adirondack deer would 

 soon have been practically exterminated." (Letter of Jan. 19, 1886;. 

 [Ex. 11.]. 



Statement of A. C. Clifton, Hague, Warren county (east side of the 

 Woods), for many years a guide: "The act was passed barely in 

 season to prevent extermination in several of the border counties of 

 the deer range." (Letter of Dec. 28, 1885, in Glens Falls Republican.) 

 [Ex. 9.] 



Similar Law in Maine.— Statement of E. M. Stilwell, Com. Fisheries 

 and Game. Bangor. Me. : "We c^uld have achieved nothing without 

 it. * * * The only question is between deer and dogs. - You cannot 

 have the one without stringently enforcing the law asrainst the other. 

 There is no such thing as a compromise between the two. Since the 

 passage of the amended dog law in 18S3, the deer of our State have 

 more than doubled." (Letter to Forest and Stream, Feb. 16. 1886.) 

 Statement of H. O. Stanley, Com. Fisheries and Game, Oxford. Me.: 

 "The 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. * * * 

 To the enforpement of this law I attribute the increase of the game, 

 that has filled our forests with deer as they are to-day.'* (Letter of 

 Feb. 14, 1886.) [Ex. 38.] 



THE LAW HAS PROVED A WISE ONE. 



The law has been in force one season. It was not every- 

 where strictly observed. Some of the petitioners for its 

 repeal defied and violated it. But where obeyed it dimin- 

 ished the number of deer killed iu 1885. Its effect was 

 beyond all cavil protective. In the Adirondacks, as in Maine, 

 it saved the deer, 



St. Lawrence and Franklin counties.— Peter B. Leonard, Protector 

 for S*t. Lawrence and Franklin counties, says: "In its working there 

 can be no question but the law prohibiting dogging has saved large 

 numbers of deer." The reports from Mr. R. M. Shutts (Upper Cha- 

 teaugay Lake), of the Chateaugay and Meacham lakes, Plumador and 

 Duck ponds and Deer River section in Franklin county, show a like 

 beneficial result; the total for Meacham Lake, Plumador and Duck 

 ponds and Deer Kiver in 1885 was 69, against 169 for the year before; 

 in the Wolf Pond and State Dam section in 1885 by stiil-hunting 17 

 against 40 by dogging in 1884. 



Essex and Clinton counties.— John Liberty, Protector for Essex and 

 Clinton counties, says: "I think the law has saved a great many deer 

 in my district." 



Warren. Washington, Saratoga and part of Hamilton counties.— 

 Seymour C. Armstrong, Protector for Warren, Washington and Sara- 

 toga counties and town of Indian Lake in Hamilton county, says: 

 "There were not as many deer killed in 1885 as there were in 18Si, 

 nol withstanding that there were only a very few clays of good still- 

 hunting in 1884 and a month or more in 1885. This is shown by the 

 numbers of deer expressed from North Creek during the months of 

 September, October and November, JS84 and 1885. The former year 

 there were 176 against 151 this year." 



Lewis. Herkimer and part »f Hamilton counties.- "Where the law 

 was enforced, it worked well, the Beaver River district (Lewis and 

 Herkimer counties) showing total of 60 killed in 1885 against 260 in 

 1881." (Mr. Chas. Fenton.) 



Fulton County— Protector T. C. Bradley in his annual report urges 

 that tne anti-hounding law ought to be more stringent than it is. 



Statement of O. F. Hulser, supervisor of the town of Forestport, 

 Oneida county: "From a record that I have kept it shows that two 

 years ago last fall there were brought out of the woods in this vicinity 

 47 carcasses of veuison, one year ago last fall 35, and this last fall 15 

 only." (Letter of Feb. 12, 18S6.) [Ex. 22,] 



In St. Lawrence county an anti-hounding law has been in 

 force since 1879. The result is that the deer have increased 

 there in that time. 



Statement of A. Ames Howlett, of Syracuse: "In St, Lawrence 

 county, the increase of deer [between 1879 and 1885] has been very 

 marked indeed, for, by comparison, in 1880 I saw there about fifteen 

 deer in a six weeks' trip, while, in 1884 I saw about forty deer in an 

 eighteen days' trip, and in 1885, in a ten days' trip, I saw more deer 

 than ever before. (Letter of March 22, 1880 ) [Ex.41.] 



See Stoddard's Guide, p. 15. [Ex. 37.] 



It is significant that in this county, sentiment supports 

 the anti-houndina: law. Its repeal is asked for only by 

 those who are in districts where the few remaining deer can 

 be gotten in no other way. 



GENERAL SENTIMENT SUSTAINS THE LAW. 



The law is sustained by (he overwhelming sentiment of 

 sportsmen in all parts of the State, and nowhere more earn 

 estly than in many districts in the North Woods. 



Statement of R. M. Shutts, Chateaugay Lake, Franklin county: 

 "Eight men out of ten of those here whose interests are affected are 

 in favor of retaining the present law." (Letter of Feb. 24,1880.) 

 [Ex. 15 ] 



Statement of F. A. Young, ihirty years guide: "I think it [present 

 law] is good. In proof, I owned two hounds, when the present law 

 was passed, they were as good as any in the North Woods. I shot 

 both of them. . . I know every guide in this section, and there is 

 not one iu favor of hounding deer." (Letter of March 1, 1086.) [Ex. 33.] 



Statement of O. F Hulser, supervisor, town of ForestDort, Oneida 

 county: "The non-hounding law I believe to be the best that has ever 

 been enacted, aud so do nine out of every ten people sav who live 

 hereabout on the borders of the woods." (Letter of Feb. 12, 1886 ) 

 [Ex. 22 ] 



Statement of John D. Collins, Esq., Utica, N. Y : "I am wonder- 

 fully surprised at the earnest and unanimous enthusiasm with which 

 people sign the petition [to retain the lawl here. They are verv de- 

 cided." (Letter of Feb. 24.) [Ex.23] ' 



Statement of Mark Smith [March 1]: "I thinlOf we can prohibit 

 bounding of deer for three years I think tbey will increase. All our 

 hotels are not in favor of hounding, for one reason— extermination 

 and unwholesomeness of the meat." [Ex. 38.] 



THE LAW IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE WELFARE OF THE 

 ADIRONDACKS. 



The conditions which, on economic grounds, demanded 

 the enactment of the law in 1885, have not changed— save 

 in so far as the law itself in this brief time and with imper- 

 fect execution has worked advantageously; and these con- 

 ditions call for the law's retention. 



Statement of T. Q. Frost, storekeeper and postmaster at Belfort 

 N. Y : "The way to make the deer last the longest is to simply keep 

 the dogs out of the woods. We have paid to exterminate the wolf 

 and panther, and feel keenly the injustice of turning the dogs in the 

 woods. I am a hunter of forty years standing." [Ex. 39.] 



Statement of O. A. Batcheller, Commander TJ. S. Navy: "I have 

 no doubt deer would be much more plenry if there were no doss " 

 (Letter.) [Ex. 16.] • " 



From Edward H. Litchfield, New York: "I disapprove most de- 

 cidedly ot hounding in a country where the deer must take to water 

 and there be butchered by having their brains beaten out with a pad- 

 dle, or in some similar unsportsmanlike manner. * * * The legis- 

 lation that we do need, if auy, is to compel a more vigorous enforce- 

 ment of the law as it stands." (Letter of Feb. 15, 1886.) [Ex. 24.] 



Sworn statement of Elijah Simonds: "As long as they allow hound- 

 ing and keep dogs in the woods, they won't have any deer If you 

 want to keep the deer, you must cut the dogs' heads off or get rid of 

 txupni.' 1 [Ex, 21.1 



Statement of Mark Smith, of Number Four, Lewis county N Y • 

 "I think if we can prohibit hounding deer say three years longer and 

 preventkilhnguntilthelst of August, and give them a chance toin- 

 ?£ eas o' , l thmk il wiu be besc for us aU -" (Letter of March 1, 1886.) 



Statement of John Hitchcock, Petrie's Corners: "If the present 

 hounding and crusting law is enforced there is no mistake about the 

 increase of deer, as the guides and hunters will assist in protecting 

 March^ 1886 ) aS [E 40 ] gam8 C0Dstables ^ their duties." (Letter, 



Statement of Sam Dunning, Essex county [March 12]: "Deer will in- 

 crease, m spite of the still-hunters, in the rougher parts of the Adi- 

 rondacks, but the dogs can drive them out of these places easily." 



THE LAW'S REPEAL WOULD BE DISASTROUS. 



Its repeal^ would be the license of a mode of hunting so 

 destructive in character and so disastrous in effect, as to practi- 

 cally nullify the purpose of game legislation. After a short 

 scramble for the game while it lasted, the end would be ex- 



tinction; the Adirondack deer would follow the Adiron- 

 dack elk and the Adirondack moose. 

 Statement of P. R. Leonard, Game Protector, Seventh District: 

 If it is repealed it will make it very hard for the State Game Pro- 

 tectors to protect the deer successfully." (Monthly report (Feb.) to 

 Com. R. TJ. Sherman.) [Ex. 86.1 



Statement of. E. R.Wallace, author "Wallace's Guide to the Adiron- 

 dacks:" "If the bill became a law it would sound the death knell 

 and mean the total extinction of the deer. * * * If hounding is 

 again legalized the entire extinction of deer will be a matter of only 

 a few years." [Ex.20.] 



Statement of D. W. Cross, author of "Fifty Years with the Gun 

 and Rod. "Hounding can only be advocated as the shortest and 

 easiest method of slaughtering arid finally exterminating this uoble 

 game."— (Letter of Feb. 1886.) [Ex. 10.] 



Statement of John Hitchcock. Petrie's Corners: "The State could 

 not exterminate the deer quicker if they offer a bounty for each deer 

 of $5 than they will by hounding again, for all the hunters will take 

 their last chance, as I have heard many of them say." (Letter, 

 March 6.) [Ex. 40.] 



Statement of Prof. E. L. Richards, of New Haven, Conn. : "If kill- 

 ing deer by the aid of dogs is to be allowed to any extent the deer are 

 bound to go." (Letter, March 6.) [Ex. 1.] 



Statement of David Baird, of Croghan, N. Y.: "To pass a law for 

 dogging deer for two months 1 consider an outrage, and will ha the 

 means of exterminating the deer in five years. I am a hunter and 

 will do all I can to protect deer from slaughter." (Letter, March 6.) 

 [Ex. 18.] 



THE DESTRUCTTYENESS OF HOUNDING. 



It is more destructive than other methods, because by the 

 use of dogs the game is more surely found. The dogs 

 penetrate to the deepest coverts and drive out the game which 

 would be perfectly safe from the efforts of man unaided by 

 the hound. It is the only method of hunting that is success- 

 fully practiced at all times, in all binds of weather, wet or 

 dry, warm or cold, whether the day be noisy or still, on 

 leaves, on bare ground, on snow. Other methods require 

 peculiar conditions and are restricted by unfavorable cir- 

 cumstances. 



Sworn statement of Samuel Dunning, of New Russia, Essex county, 

 N. i.: "Deer will increase in spile of the still-hunters iu the rougher 

 parts of the Adirondacks, but the dogs can drive them out of these 

 places easily. * * * There are five killed by hounding where there 

 is one killed by still-hunting." [Ex. 2.] 



Statement of William Hulbert, of Petrie's Corners, Lewis county: 

 "Have been a hunter and trapper for 40 years. I think there are 

 more deer killed and riestroveu by dogs than by floating and still- 

 hunting." (Letter of March 4.) [Ex. 30.] 



Statement of Robt. Griffith, Sr., of Petrie's Corners, Lewis county, 

 N. Y.: "I have have hunted in Lewis, Herkimer and Hamilton coun- 

 ties for forty years. * * * In regard to the most destructive way 

 [Ex 19 d6er ' ^ by thG U8e o£floes -" (Letter, March 6, 1886.) 



Hounding is more sure in results, because its success de- 

 pends on the certainty of the deer's obedience to the instinct 

 which prompts it, when pursued, to take refuge in the water. 

 Once in the water its capture is easy. Water-killing is the 

 mode of hunting asked for by the advocates of the law's re- 

 peal. (Oral testimony of Dr. Samuel B. Ward, in reply to 

 question by the chairman of your Committee, hearing of 

 March 16.) 



Statement of Wm. R. Smith, fifteen years a guide [siwra] : "I don't 

 think ttiere is one in twenty that gets away after theliound once gets 

 the track."' (Letter of March 19.) [Ex. 4.] 



Hounding is destructive because the deer is given no 

 chance of escape, through any lack of skill on the part of 

 the hunter. Water-killing calls for very little or no skill. 

 It is practiced with equal success by the professional hunter 

 and by the inexperienced tourist. 



Statement of E. R. Wallace, Syracuse, author of "Wallace's Guide 

 to the Adirondacks' : "For twenty-five year.-t that * * * region 

 has been * * * my careful study anil exploration. I have wit- 

 nessed the killing of deer by every mode practiced, and have ob- 

 servedthat^none^s so^elfectualas that of hounding." (Letter of 



Statement of Wm. R. Smith, fifteen years a guide [supra]: "I know 

 of men kitling five and six a day with dogs, when the same men could 

 not kill one a year in any other way." (Letter of March 19.) [Ex. | 



Statement of Sam Dunning, Essex county [supra] : "There are five 

 killed by hounding where there i^ one killed by stili-hunting. There 

 are very few men that are good still-hunters'. Anyone that has a 

 hound can get one now and then, when deer have been run hard." 

 [Ex. 2.] 



Statement of E. R, Wallace, of Syracuse, N.Y., author of "Wallace's 

 Guide to the Adirondacks:" "If hounding is again legalized the entire 

 extermination of deer will be a matter of only a few years Have 

 hunted twenty-five years and observed that no way was so effective 

 as hounding." (Letter, March 13.) [Ex. 20.] 



In its effect upon the deer supply the killing of one doe 

 is estimated to be equal to the killing of four bucks. (Dr. 

 S. B. Ward, in letter in Forest and Stream Feb 18, 1886.) 

 Hounding is indirectly more disastrous than other methods 

 because of the deer killed by it a large proportion are does 

 and fawns. This is consequent upon the nature of the 

 method, which consists in tiring out the game so that it shall 

 plunge into the water; the does and fawns being sooner ex- 

 hausted, sooner seek refuge in the water. The bill now be 

 fore you contemplates the hounding of does when burdened 

 with the cares of maternity, and the starvation of suckling 

 fawns deprived of their mothers. 



Statement of Sam Dunning, Essex county \supra] : "Dogs will fol- 

 low a aoe at any time as well as they will any deer. My dog staged 

 a deer that was with her fawn. It was too young to run, and 1 picked 

 it up and carried it home. There are more does killed in Aue-ust 

 than any other month." [Ex. 2.] * 



Sworn statement of Sam Dunning [supra] : "My dogs have driven 

 very young fawns into the water. I have got them that would not 

 weigh over twenty pounds alive and sold them. Most any do" can 

 catch a deer when he gets tired from a long race. * * * When the 

 deer was tired I have known deer driven into the water by dogs that 

 could not stand up when they got ashore." [Ex. 2.'] 



Hounding is now more destructive than formerly (€. e. , in 

 proportion of game killed to game supply) because of the 

 confined range of the game. By the extension of railroad 

 and steamboat lines, growth of settlements, multiplication of 

 hotels, felling of forests, clearing of woodland coverts, de- 

 nudation of some feeding grounds by tires and freshets,' and 

 desolation of others by "back waters" of dams and reser- 

 voirs, the range ©f the game had become year by year more 

 narrow. 



For removal of forests and extension of denuded and water-killed 

 areas see Report of Forestry Commission [Ex. 35]. 



Statement of Prof. E, L, Richards, Yale College, 25 years a visitor to 

 the Adirondack*: "If, as was the case before the woods were so much 

 frequented as they are now,an occasional pond only was watched whtn 

 the dogs were our, there might be some reason In allowing a few days 

 to be taken m this way. But now every pond is watched, and if the 

 deer escapes one enemy he is certain to fall before one of the manv 

 others who are lying in wait for him. * * * If the New York Leg- 

 islature allow the deer to be killed by dogs in obedience to the sense- 

 less clamor of a few dog keeping guides ana hotel keepers they may 

 enable said guides and hotel proprietors to take in a little" money for 

 a, few years. But after a very few years the woods will be deserted 

 by sportsmen because there will be no deer to kill. -(Letter of March, 



Sworn statement of Elijah Simonds [.supra]: "It is the practice of 

 some hotel beepers to get up a big hunt, take thirty or forty clogs and 

 ten or fifteen guides, watch all the ponds and Lakes, scatter the dogs 

 through the woods and scoop in deer hy the wholesale." [Ex. 21.] 



Hounding is more destructive than other methods because 

 the system entails the slaughter of game all the year around 

 by the hounds, unassisted by human agency. The hounds 



