264 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



fApRtt 29, 1886. 



Tenth District.— All that part of Oneida lying north of the 

 south lines of Verona, Rome, Marcy and Deerfield, all of the 

 county of Lewis lying west of the west lines of Diana and 

 Croghan, and all of the county of Herkimer lying south of 

 the south branch of Moose River. Nathan C. Phelps, pro- 

 tector, Remsen, Oneida county. 



Eleventh District. —The counties of Otsego, Chemung, 

 Broome, Cortland and Tioga, and all the towns of Oneida 

 county lying south of the south lines of Verona, Rome, 

 Marcy and Deerfield. Frederick P. Drew, protector, Wash- 

 ington Mills, Oneida county. 



Twelfth District. — Jefferson and Oswego, except Oneida 

 Lake. William N. Steele, protector, Clayton, Jefferson 

 county. 



Thirteenth District. — Madison, Onondaga, Cayuga, Wayne, 

 Seneca, and the waters of Oneida Lake in Oswego and 

 Oneida counties. W. H. Lindley, protector, Canastota. Mad- 

 ison county. 



Fourteenth District. — Schuyler, Yates, Chemung, Tomp- 

 kins, Steuben and Allegany. John Sheriden, protector, Penn 

 Tan, Yates county. 



Fifteenth District, — Monroe, Livingston, Ontario, Wyo- 

 ming, Genesee and Orleans. Geo. M. Schwartz, protector, 

 Rochester, Monroe county. 



Sixteenth District. — Erie, Niagara. Chautauqua and Cat- 

 taraugus. S. A. Roberts, protector, Buffalo, Erie county. 



The terms of office of all except Mr. Steele, Mr. Brmcker- 

 hoff and Mr. Drew expire on or about July 20, 1886; these 

 three hold until May 12, 1887. The appointments are made 

 by the Governor alone. The term is three years, unless a 

 removal is made meanwhile for cause. In one respect, but 

 in this only, can the protector system be said to have worked 

 contrary to its purpose. It was not intended that this sys- 

 tem should supplant all others having the same object, but 

 that the State force should work co-ordinately with the local 

 officers already provided. There is much of the work that 

 may be done more promptly and at less cost by the regular 

 criminal officers of counties and towns, or by individuals 

 having an interest in protecting game and fish, than through 

 the agency of the State protective force. Yet it has become 

 the custom of sheriffs and other criminal officers in cases 

 where complaint has been made to them of violations of 

 which the law required them imperatively to take notice to 

 send the complainants to the protectors. 



Many so-called game protection clubs and individuals 

 having a personal interest in the enforcement of the law, 

 instead of using the ample means at their own command for 

 the detection and punishment of offenders, call for the inter- 

 vention of protectors. If a partridge be trapped, or a pick- 

 erel be speared in Tuckertown a message is sent to the game 

 protector living perhaps sixty miles away, when the case 

 might be promptly disposed of by a suit before the nearest 

 justice, which any constable or indeed any individual has a 

 right to prosecute in his own name. If the protector re- 

 sponds to the call, the cost of travel in the case may exhaust 

 his whole monthly allowance, and when an aggravated case 

 of deer slaughter or robbery of spawning beds is reported 

 from some other part of the district, he has no means to pay 

 his expenses in looking it up. There is a general, but of 

 course a false impression, that the protector not only receives 

 a large salary, but an unlimited allowance for travel and 

 expenses. He gets but little aid in the way of private hos- 

 pitality, even in cases when his host is the principal bene- 

 ficiary by his visit. Instances have been reported where 

 hotel keepers at prominent fishing resorts have charged a 

 protector, who came at their urgent call, the highest rates 

 of board and boat hire, when in consideration of the services 

 rendered to their special interest, he should have been 

 treated as a free guest; and as sometimes happens, in case a 

 protector pays an official visit to a place where the public 

 sentiment sustains poaching, he must make his own camp 

 for shelter and look to his own pack basket for sustenance. 

 The work of the protectors might be greatly aided by the 

 active co-operation of a class who, though they have the 

 greatest practical interest in the enforcement of law, are too 

 timid or parsimonious to render assistance. There are some 

 who hunt and fish for pleasure or health, who do all that 

 interest and duty demands of them, but there are others, and 

 they are much the larger portion, who clamor for protection, 

 but will not lift a hand to aid. Cases have been reported 

 where proprietors of fishing resorts deriving large profits 

 from waters stocked by the State, find fault because the 

 State does not furnish ihem with special protection. One 

 instance may be cited where at a lake in which the State has 

 deposited two million of salmon trout fry, there are eight 

 steam yachts owned by as many proprietors of cottages. A 

 protector cannot get one of these for love nor money, for 

 the purpose of removing nets of which these same cottage 

 proprietors complain, but if a poacher wanted to use one 

 in putting out unlawful nets it would be at his service. The 

 excuse given in such cases is, fear of the poachers. "O, I 

 dare not let you have my boat to look up nets; my barn 

 would be burned or my boat destroyed if I did." 



In many cases where the protector needs a witness, and 

 calls upon one who could give the necessary evidence if he 

 would, the answer is, ' 'O, I don't want to be known in the 

 case; the poachers would retaliate if I told what I knew; 

 you must find out the facts by some other means; I hope 

 the offender will be punished, but please do not let anybody 

 see you talking to me here; they will suspect me at once of 

 informing on them." 



These are the excuses every day made to protectors who 

 " are trying to do their duty, but are balked by the cowardice 

 of the class referred to. 



The most effective agency that can be brought to the as- 

 sistance of the protectors in the discharge of their difficult 

 duties, are local game and fish protection societies formed 

 and conducted in good faith as such. 



Of this class there are many in the State. It would be in- 

 vidious, perhaps, to name any particular one as an example, 

 but they are known to the public by their works. _ They are 

 increasing in numbers and usefulness, and are doing more, 

 perhaps, than any other means to promote a healthy moral 

 sentiment in support of the game laws. They are the co- 

 ordinate remedy which the Commissioners recommended in 

 all places where other means have been found insufficient 

 for local protection. Our letters of instruction to the pro- 

 tectors have enjoined on them the importance of these so- 

 cieties and of their keeping in active working relations with 

 them. 



If the honest, law-respecting people of any locality in the 

 State, will unite in an organization, pledged to support the 

 game laws and to stand firmly by each other and by the law, 

 without fear or favor, there will be no barns burned, or boats 

 destroyed in that locality, by poachers. 



Of all classes these are the greatest cowards, except those 

 who are afraid of them, and they will yield always before a 



bold front. Wherever there is a determination on the part 

 of good men to give the laws honest and brave support, 

 public sentiment will not lag behind. 



Not all of the professed protection societies are of the class 

 described. There are some with good purposes but without 

 efficiency, and others whose objects, whatever their profes- 

 sions, are wholly selfish. Beyond the protection of the par- 

 ticular game they covet, they have no interest. There are 

 still others which under cover of specious titles are the shield 

 of other law breakers, or are themselves law breakers. These 

 organizations are best known by their high pretensions and 

 small performance. 



It is claimed by many that there should be a larger force 

 of protectors. The Commissioners do not concur in this 

 view. They believe that the State has done all in the prem- 

 ises that it can be reasonably asked to do. 



The game and fish interest, it is true, is a public one, but 

 much of the protection called for concerns only special 

 interests. It is not equitable that the State should keep 

 guards and watchmen over waters which are the chief 

 source of revenue to keepers of public resorts, but which 

 do not contribute to the market supply of fish. Those who 

 reap the benefit in such cases should pay a fair share if not 

 the whole of the cost. Nor can we conscientiously recom- 

 mend in a time like the present, when the taxes on most of 

 the lands in the State are so largely disproportionate to the 

 income, that unnecessary charges should be put on the 

 treasury by the creation af additional officers. The present 

 force of protectors, if properly supported in the manner 

 suggested, is adequate to the work to be done. Experience 

 suggests that a different adjustment of service should be 

 made; and this will probably be done when the appointments 

 shall be renewed or revised next summer. 



In those parts of the State where there is only small game 

 to be protected, the local officers and clubs ought to be able 

 to enforce the law. In the great deer country and in the 

 region of the large waters of the border and of the interior, 

 the bulk of the force should be placed. There are lakes like 

 Oneida, Cayuga and Keuka, of such size and of such re- 

 markable fish-bearing qualities that they require constant 

 watching. Where there are lakes lying wholly in one county, 

 or in parts of adjoining counties, they may be provided for 

 under that clause of the game laws which gives power to 

 Boards of Supervisors to furnish protection. The provision 

 referred to is as follows: "Each of the Boards of Super- 

 visors of this State shall have power to raise by tax, in the 

 same manner as other taxes are raised for county purposes, 

 such sum not exceeding one thousand dollars in any year, as 

 they shall deem proper, to further aid in the enforcement of 

 the provisions of this act." 



Extract from Section 35, Revised Game Law: 



These boards have authority also, given by the same sec- 

 tion, to apply all fines (except the moities to which the pros- 

 ecutor is entitled) under the game laws '"Either for the 

 employment of special detectives or the payment of rewards 

 for the detection or arrest of offenders." 



The mode of action under this provision would be for the 

 sheriff to appoint a special deputy for service at the particu- 

 lar water or district to be protected or for the whole county. 

 The compensation of such officer to be provided for by the 

 Board of Supervisors under the ample provisions made by the 

 law quoted. Detectives to aid the special deputies might be 

 provided and paid by the same authority. 



The Commissioners would feel relieved if the Legislature 

 should devise some other adequate means than the" present 

 for the supervision of the protectors' force. This duty was 

 put upon them, not by any request or wish of their own, but 

 in the belief probably that the Business was more properly in 

 their line than in any other of the existing departments of 

 the government. They have endeavored to discharge their 

 duties with an eye single to the public interest and "without 

 fear or favor or the hope of reward." They receive no com- 

 pensation for their services. The time of one of their number, 

 who was deputed to act for the whole board, has been occu- 

 pied in this official labor practically to the exclusion of all 

 other business for three years, and his ability, mental and 

 physical, has been taxed to the full measure of his duties as 

 a public officer and a citizen. The force is well organized, 

 and its machinery is working smoothly and efficiently. 

 Therefore, the transfer to a new head would not involve the 

 labor and care it has been to the Commissioners. They have 

 all on their hands they can be reasonably required to' do in 

 attention to the interests of flshculture, for which they were 

 especially appointed, and have a right, therefore, to ask to 

 be relieved from other official burdens. There should be a 

 responsible head to this force— some officer whose especial 

 duty it Bhould be to direct its movements and to see that all 

 its members are faithful to their work; and such an officer 

 should be so compensated for his services that he could afford 

 to devote his whole time to them and be held to full respon- 

 sibility for his work. A chief game protector, to be appointed 

 by the Governor or by the Attorney-General or by the For- 

 estry Commissioners, or to be selected from the whole force 

 of the game protectors, would serve the purpose. 



In the opinion of the Commissioners, the department of 

 game protection should have its head in the office of the At- 

 torney General. So many questions arise as to the construc- 

 tion of laws and of practice, that the highest legal authority 

 of the State ought to be available to secure the wisest action. 

 This would be the more desirable a3 there is a reluctance on 

 the part of many district attorneys to perform the duties 

 which the law imposes on them in regard to suits brought by 

 the protectors. While the majority are faithful, there are 

 those who are indifferent. Some are overburdened with 

 duty, which they regard as more important, and are really 

 not able to attend to such cases, and there are a few, the 

 Commissioners are sorry to say, whose sympathies are more 

 with the offenders than with the law. The unpleasant duty 

 fell to us during the administration of Governor Cleveland, 

 of making formal complaint against two district attorneys 

 for refusing to do what the statute plainly required of them. 

 Pressure of business requiring first attention prevented action 

 on these complaints during Governor Cleveland's term, but 

 they are still pending in the executive department. 



The moral effect of a prosecution is often lost by the delay 

 in bringing cases to trial. The resources of the protectors 

 and the patience of witnesses are exhausted in attending 

 courts to try cases which are put off to serve the convenience, 

 or whim of a district attorney. In some counties there are 

 cases which have been on the calendar for two years. The 

 protector has been several times present with his witnesses, 

 and it would puzzle the district attorney to explain why the 

 cases have not been brought to trial. In the city of New 

 York there have been more than twenty suits pending for 

 two years, and the district attorney has never found time to 

 attend to one of them. In some «ountieB the protector has 

 had to employ counsel on his own responsibility in order to 



get his suits before the conrts. In such cases, though he 

 may succeed in getting trials and verdicts in his favor, it is 

 uncertain whether he can hold his claim for moities of the 

 penalties, which are so necessary to make up the shortage of 

 his expenses. If the game laws are to be enforced, it is im- 

 portant that the district attorneys cobperate promptly and 

 efficiently with the protectors. The law does not excuse 

 neglect in a prosecuting officer any more than it does in a 

 protector. It is useless for the latter to spend time and 

 money in getting up cases that are never to be tried, or are 

 put oil till the chance of conviction is lost. 



The ingenuity of the practical poacher in dodging the 

 penalty of the law makes it doubly necessary that the prose- 

 cuting attorney should be always watchful. Cases occur 

 where the shrewdest are outwitted. One is reported from 

 Steuben county where the protector detected a man in un- 

 lawful fishing. He lost no time in bringing suit, but before 

 process could be served, the poacher had procured a friend 

 to complain to a neighboring j ustice. The willing defendant 

 pleaded guilty, and was fined a small sum. When in the 

 course of regular proceedings issue was joined in a court of 

 record, thejdefendant pleaded the justice's judgment as a bar. 

 Though it was apparent from the evidence that the proceed- 

 ings were not only collusive, but otherwise irregular, with 

 a strong suspicion of fraud, the court held for the defend- 

 ant. Ihe case was taken to the General Term, where the 

 judgment was, strangely enough, affirmed, the court sustain- 

 ing the technicality and overriding the merit. This was a 

 case, too, where the district attorney performed his duty ably 

 and faithfully. It was not his fault that "the law's an ass, 

 but it was the misfortune of the people of the county, who 

 had to pay the costs. There was a similar case in Oneida 

 county lately, where judgment was given in favor of the 

 prosecution on all the points. 



AMENDMENTS TO THE GAME LAWS. 



The many amendments proposed at each session of the 

 Legislature to the game laws, and the frequent passage of 

 some without due consideration of the merits or of their 

 coherence to the general plan, have been a source of per- 

 plexity and confusion in the.execution of these laws. The 

 Legislature is constantly appealed to to make exceptions to 

 useful general provisions, in the interest of particular 

 localities. The indiscriminate granting of these applications 

 is not wise. If a separate law were made for each county 

 that asked it. the result would be enforcement in none. Ex- 

 ceptions in statutes make profitable work for lawyers, but do 

 not promote law, and they are a stumbling block in the way 

 of honest effort to enforce it. 



Two instances occurred at the last session where haste and 

 want of proper consideration led to serious mistakes. One 

 was in case of salt-water striped bass, which was by inad- 

 vertance inhibited at the season when it was most service- 

 able to consumers. The other was to make an open season 

 for trout in one section of the State a month earlier than in 

 another, and thus to permit trout to be taken in one place, 

 but forbidding its transfer, for consumption, to another. 

 One of these errors has been corrected by an amendatory act. 

 The other should be corrected in the same manner. Beyond 

 these cases there is but little need of amendatory legislation. 

 Steps should be taken, however, to eliminate from the law 

 the inconsistencies, contradictions and crudities that have 

 crept in in the course of frequent amendment. This may be 

 best done by the appointment of a commission of not more 

 than three experts, representing the different interests 

 affected, to prepare a concise, consistent and clearly ex- 

 pressed code, and report to the Legislature at the next ses- 

 sion. Such a commission need not be an expensive one. 

 Three competent men may be found for this service who 

 would willingly perform it pro bono publico, for the simple 

 consideration of their actual expenses. 



THE DEER LAWS. 



No problem connected with game protection has been so 

 difficult of solution as that of preserving the deer of the Adi- 

 rondack forest. Up to a period of about ten years ago the 

 deer laws were practically a dead letter. Jack hunting in 

 early summer and the still more detestable practice of crust- 

 ing in the winter, for the pitiful spoil of the hides, were car- 

 ried on with impunity, till growing scarcity drew attention 

 to the need of more rigorous measures for repressing these 

 murderous methods. The passage of the law in 1880 for the 

 appointment of State game protectors was the outcome of 

 the situation. Even the few examples made the first year 

 produced a check, and offenses which had been committed 

 before with impunity were done now only by stealth. It 

 was the interest of all classes of legitimate hunters to break 

 up crust-hunting, and the repression of this evil was not 

 difficult. Under the operation of these saving influences the 

 stock soon showed signs of augmentation. In the autumn 

 of 1883 it was not unusual to see in the daytime deer feeding 

 on the shores of lakes much frequented by tourists, where 

 none had been seen before for many years. Hounding, 

 which had been forbidden by a legislative act in 1877, had 

 been meanwhile again legalized. It had been always the 

 favorite mode of fall hunting, and with the replenishment of 

 the game it grew to proportions never known before. In 

 1883 the woods, from the Black River waters on the south 

 to the St. Regis on the north, resounded with the baying of 

 hounds, and the spoil of the hunter was great. The success 

 of this year greatly stimulated hounding in 1884, and the 

 destruction was estimated from careful sources to have been 

 greater than it has been from illegal modes in any previous 

 year. Deer appeared no more on the shores of frequented 

 lakes. The baying of the dogs had driven them to their dis- 

 tant fastnesses in the forest, whence they emerged only when 

 forced out by their relentless canine pursuers. 



The passage of the anti-hounding act of 1885 was the 

 heroic remedy applied to this case. It was doubtless the 

 only logical remedy presented and it had the approbation of 

 the best moral sentiment. But it did not please the hunters 

 and was especially distasteful to the "gentlemen sportsmen" 

 who loved the excitement of the chase and could afford to 

 pay for the noble sport of shooting a frightened and fagged 

 deer at short range in the water. It was especially unpop- 

 ular with the guides, who seemed to imagine that they had 

 vested rights in the deer and thought they should be per- 

 mitted to hunt them "for revenue only," against all comers. 

 As it was an object of greater profit to the guide to hunt the 

 deer in this manner, it was to his interest to discourage other 

 modes. So the guide became the ally of the game protector 

 and gave him information and aid in his work. But when 

 hounding was again made unlawful, the guide became indif- 

 ferent, if not hostile, and so far from aiding to punish viola- 

 tors, was often a violator himself. With these obstacles to 

 encounter, it is not to be wondered at that the enforcement 

 of the law has not been entirely successful. The protectors 

 have done what they could, working with scanty resources 

 in a hostile country. 



