Deo. 2 , 1895. 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



341 



had fooled him completely. After I found out what he 

 had done I lost about all the respect I bad for him and 

 had a big notion to throw him back — but I didn't. He 

 weighed just 4lbs. and I painted his portrait. 



I look at tbe picture once in a while, and then visions 

 of a new fly of tobacco sack yellow crosses my mind's eye. 

 I would recommend them as just the thing for big rain- 

 bow trout in swift water. El. Comancho. 



"the Mettml 



THE OREGON TROUT QUESTION. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



In your editorial comment (Forest and Stream, Dec. 

 7) on the construction given our trout law by our courts, 

 whereby any kind of trout may be taken from salt water 

 at any time of the year, and the consequent pernicious 

 results that must necessarily follow such an ignoble, im- 

 becile construction, you suggest that if myself and my 

 allies are shrewd we may yet make a case against some 

 of the trout sellers, and add: "There is one infallible test 

 of these fish as to the source of capture. If the trout have 

 the red spots they come from fresh water, for in salt 

 water the spots are lost." 



At the trial of the case before Justice Geisler authorita- 

 tive evidence was introduced to the effect that the trout 

 in question could not have been taken from salt water for 

 the reason that their spots and markings were bright and 

 as perfect as those of any trout in the upper waters of the 

 Moialla or Olackamas. But the court held that this was 

 only theoretical, while for the defense there was direct 

 and positive evidence that the trout were caught out of 

 salt water with hook and line in the testimony of the 

 party that caught them, and theory must defer to fact. 

 In other words, a lie well stated and supported by the 

 sworn declaration of a man that has neither respect for 

 his own solemn asseverations under oath nor for the 

 country that harbors him and affords him protection and 

 an opportunity to do it mischief will knock out the best 

 of theories — theories susceptible of complete demonstra- 

 tion and in fact already fully demonstrated by the obser- 

 vations, investigations and experiments of" earnest, 

 honest, painstaking, capable and conscientious scientists. 



Dr. Joi-dan, in a letter just at hand, points out plainly 

 and forcibly the net results. He says: "If people can 

 catch mountain trout in the Pacific at all times of the 

 year, the day will soon arrive when there will be no 

 trout. Why should they go to the mountains when the 

 ocean is inexhaustible?" 



Sorrowfully we are forced to the conclusion that the 

 only way to educate the American people in the matter 

 of protecting fish and game is to exterminate the fish and 

 game. Then, after it is all gone, maybe Forest and 

 Stream and its allies will not be regarded by the general 

 public as such villainous enemies of their rights, liberties 

 and privileges. S. H. Greene, 



Portland, Ore., Deo. 11. 



Nepigon and Saguenay .Rivers— Correction and 

 Note. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



Your compositor is ag'in' me. Otherwise why did he 

 shoot at the vital points in my Nepigon and Saguenay 

 sketch? He made Monsieur Duton out of Monsieur 

 Dutou and thereby crippled my nice little literary trick — 

 for who could translate Duton? Then he fiendishly 

 hunted over the article and made me inform botanists 

 that the gardener developed petals out of the stems of 

 roses, and ihus turned up the point of my moral. In all 

 of the rest of the article where a typographical error 

 would have been powerless there were no errors. My 

 kingdom for a Nordau to sic on to that compositor! 



It was my intention to add a foot note relative to the 

 color of Saguenay water. When the manuscript was 

 mailed to Forest and Stream I wrote to our Department 

 of Agriculture at Washington and also to the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture at Ottawa asking for an explanation 

 for the dark stain of northern river waters. From Wash- 

 ington I received a brief reply stating that the depart- 

 ment had no information on the subject. From Ottawa 

 I received a long personal letter from Secretary H. B. 

 Small, who kindly informed me that no official answer 

 could be given, but that he believed the stain to be caused 

 by the action of tannin. Acting upon this suggestion I 

 at once experimented by adding tannic acid to iron oxide 

 in a weak aqueous solution, and obtained a reaction 

 which gave tannate of iron and a color rather more red- 

 dish than that of river water. The next thing naturally 

 was to obtain a tannate of manganese in the same way. 

 This gave a smoky colored water. On mixing the solu- 

 tions of tannate of manganese and tannate of iron, and 

 allowing the mixture to stand in the light for a couple of 

 days, a precipitate formed, leaving the water stained the 

 old familiar color. From this experiment there seems to 

 be evidence that the stained water streams are colored by 

 tannate of manganese and iron principally, and the ex- 

 planation looks simple enough, for water percolating 

 through the dead bark of tannin bearing trees would take 

 tannin into solution, and this water percolating through 

 a soil containing manganese and iron would be pretty well 

 loaded with the tannate stain by the time that it had 

 reached a stream. In some unclean streams in peat 

 regions the color is due to vegetable matter in suspension. 



Robert T. Morris. 



Eighty Fish Portraits, Painted in Oil 



At the moment of capture and then lithographed in life colors, size 

 lSXlSin., can be obtained by subscribing to "The Fishes of North 

 America," an exhausfive work on American fishes and their modes of 

 capture, with nearly 3,000 illustrations of individual fishes. For $1.50 

 will be mailed Part I., containing two colored plates with introductory 

 chapters or the book. Descriptive booklets free. Address The Harris 

 Publishing Company, 19 Park Place, New York.— Adv. 



The Forest and Strkam is put to press each week on Tuesday 

 Correspondence intended for publication should reach us at the 

 latest by Monday and as much earlier as practicable. 



I REPORT YOUR LUCK I 



With Rod or Gun 



1 TO FOREST AND STREAM, j 



I New York City. | 



FIXTURES. 



BENCH SHOWS. 

 1896. 



Feb. 19 to 22.— Westminster Kennel Club's twentieth annual dog 

 show, Madison 8quare Garden. New York. James Mortimer, Supt. 



March 10 to 13.— Chicago.— Mascoutah Kennel Club's bench show. 

 John L. Lincoln, Sec'y. 



March 17 to 20.— St. Louis Kennel Club'a show, St. Louis. W. 

 Hutchinson, Sec'y. 



April 20 to 23 —New England Kennel Club's twelfth annual show. 

 D. E. Loveland, Sec'y. 



FIELD TRIALS. 



1896. 



Jan. 20.-Bakersfleld, Cal.— Pacific Coast Field Trial Club. J. M. 

 Kilgarif, Sec'y. 



Jan. 30.— West Point, Miss— U. S. F. T. C. trials. W. B. Stafford, 

 Sec'y. 



Feb. 3.— West Point, Miss.— Southern F. T. C. seventh annual trials. 

 T. M. Brumby, Sec'y. 



Feb. 10 or later.— West Point, Miss.— The Field Trial Champion 

 Association's first trial. W. B. Stafford, Sec'y. 



Sept. 2.— Morris, Man.— Manitoba Field Trials Club. John Wootton, 

 Sec'y. 



THE A. K. C. AND CROPPING. 



The matter of cropping and the action which the 

 A. K. C. may take thereon at itB meeting this week have 

 evoked much argument for and against cropping. In a 

 general way the arguments advanced in favor of cropping 

 touch all the degrees from fact to much of the fallacious, 

 the irrelevant, the absurd and the immaterial. The argu- 

 ments against cropping are founded on its cruelty, itsuse- 

 lessness, its harmfulness, its degraded origin, its violation 

 of modern humane sentiments, and possibly its violation 

 of established law, and in respect to the latter the law of 

 New York (Title XVI. of the Penal Code, Sec. 655) reads 

 as follows: 



"A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures, or cruelly beats or 

 unjustifiably Injures, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal, whether 

 wild or tame, and whether belonging to himself or to another, or de- ., 

 prives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or 

 neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink, or causes, 

 procures, or permits any animal to be overdriven, overloaded, tor- 

 tured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated, or 

 killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink, or who willfully 

 sets on foot, Instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of 

 cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, is 

 guilty of a misdemeanor. 



"Sec. 669. The word 'animal,' as used in this title, does not include 

 the human race, but includes every other living creature. The word 

 'torture' or 'cruelty' includes every act, omission or neglect, whereby 

 unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death is caused or per- 

 mitted." 



Here at the outset the question is confronted by the set 

 ruling of statutory law, which applies not to the dog fan- 

 cier alone, but to every human being within the State of 

 New York; and as nearly all States have similar laws, it 

 may reasonably be inferred that the same sentiment 

 which so universally established the law is in force every- 

 where. 



The question then is not one solely between the advo- 

 cates of cropping on the one side and the opposing canine 

 sentiment and powers on the other; it first is a question 

 whether in itself it is not unlawful under the laws of 

 the land. No doubt the law in specifying justifiable 

 mutilations had in mind those which were materially 

 necessary, as in castrating horses and bulls, etc.; but 

 whether a mutilation, made to gratify a whim or fancy, 

 would be considered justifiable, there is much doubt. In 

 fact, in analogous cases of mutilation to gratify a fancy — 

 that is the docking of horses' tails — everyone knows of its 

 established unlawfulness in most States and the swift 

 punishment which follows conviction. 



The A. K. O. is thus placed in the peculiar position of 

 being able to abolish the practice within its jurisdiction, 

 but not able to indorse it without a possibility of running 

 counter to the statutory law; and as the trend of public 

 opinion is toward a more general and stricter observance 

 of the humanities, it is possible that in the future crop- 

 ping may be specifically unlawful. 



Having set forth the broad scope of the question, the 

 Seriousness of which is readily apparent, and which strips 

 it of the sentimentalism so liberally charged — though why 

 one man has not quite as good aright to be sentimental as 

 another has to be fanciful is not explained — we will now 

 consider it in its narrower bearings, as set forth by differ- 

 ent writers. 



First of all, it is maintained by a few advocates of crop- 

 ping that the matter is one which should be passed on by 

 the specialty clubs of the' cropped breeds; that to them 

 properly belongs the jurisdiction in the matter. 



On the face of it this seems to be a plausible plea, but 

 on analysis it has not a leg to stand on; for, first of all, 

 the specialty clubs have already passed on the question by 

 their acts, their literature and their usages. Second, any 

 action of a specialty club would have but a limited effect, 

 as it would carry no penalty and would generally be con- 

 fined to its membership. It would not be representative 

 of public opinion. Type and related matters could very 

 properly be left to the club, but a question of mutilation 

 is one in which the public at large has asserted its in- 

 terest. 



As the scope of a specialty club is necessarily confined 

 to establishing a type and promoting the interests of the 

 breed it adopts and represents, it can have no other than 

 advisory influence outside of the interests of its own breed. 

 Even within its own scope it has no arbitrary powers. 

 For instance, the world at large may accept a specialty 

 club's standard or not, as it deems fit. The specialty club, 

 being a club of individual experts or promoters of the breed , 

 may have the confidence of the people in it as a club, 

 which embodies the highest knowledge and friendly in- 

 terest toward the breed it champions, and its dicta may 

 be accepted as the highest expositions in respect to such 

 breed, or they may not. The acts of the specialty club 

 may not even be accepted as final by its own members, 

 and if the minority as individuals choose to foster some 

 type differing from the type adopted and set forth by the 

 club, there is no penalty for it. Often the members of a 

 specialty club are few in number, and reside in a small 

 section and form a provincial group, strong in their own 

 environment. As the specialty club is composed of indi- 

 viduals, sometimes few, sometimes many, but never com- 

 posed of all the individual owners or admirers of the breed, 

 often differing radically on club matters, it will readily 

 be perceived that the acts of the specialty clubs carry no 

 more force with them than the public at large voluntarily 

 concedes. 



On a question of cropping, in which all dog fanciers 

 and the public at large are interested, since it involves 

 questions of humanity, the issue if left to a specialty club 

 would be settled by a vote of the members, and as the pub- 

 lic thus could not have a voice in the matter the results 

 could not be satisfactory to all. 



Specialty clubs do a great deal of good within their 

 province. The only point raised here is that they are 

 confined to too narrow a field to settle questions of com- 

 mon and general interest. To settle a question of hu- 

 manity on a basis of a fancy for a certain type would not 

 satisfy the humanitarian. 



A. K. G. Letters. 

 In the American Kennel Gazette of November, on the 

 subject of cropping, there appear letters from Messrs. 

 Wm, J. Bryson, Chicago; Geo. W. Schenk, Lyons, Iowa; 

 M. R. Fonda, New York; F. P. D. Brereton, sec- 

 retary of the Bull-Terrier Club; and Clifford Wood, of 

 the Great Dane Club. As these letters embody many of 

 the main points advanced, it may be proper to here con- 

 sider them. 



W. J. Bryson. 



Mr. Bryson is well known in the bench show world as 

 an owner of bull-terriers and an active officer of the Mas- 

 coutah Kennel Club. He most unreservedly denounces 

 both docking and cropping. He stigmatizes them as 

 senseless and cruel and a relic of barbarism. He says: 

 "This brutal and disfiguring operation is simply the result 

 of ignorance, and introduced by dog fighters. Now, if a 

 man wants to be brutal enough to keep a dog for the pur- 

 poses of fighting, let him keep his dog in his own circle." 

 He adds: "I am in favor of the A. K. C.'s proposed rules 

 to prohibit the cropping of dogs' ears and hope the same 

 may be passed." 



This is from an owner and admirer of the breed, and it 

 dwells not upon the commercial interests at stake, or the 

 value of a morbid fancy, but upon the principles of 

 humanity. 



Geo. W. Schenk. 



Mr. Schenk misses the real point at issue — that is, the 

 uselessneE7 and cruelty of the custom. He objects to any 

 action on the part of the A. K. C. prohibiting cropping, 

 and adds: "I have at present thirteen great Danes and 

 intended to import a stud dog, but under the circum- 

 stances I would be foolish to do so; in fact, I shall quit 

 breeding if such a rule is passed, for great Danes un- 

 cropped will not be admired and are unsalable." 



As Mr. Schenk's ideas do not concern the matter further 

 than the expansion and contraction of his pocket book, 

 his opinions may be dismissed as being purely commercial 

 and outside of the issue. 



M. R. Fonda. 



Mr, Fonda, although an owner of a cropped dog, is on 

 record in opposition to cropping. Touching its artistic 

 features, which are made so much of by its admirers, he 

 says: "While I like the appearance of cropped ears better 

 on that breed (great Danes) when well done, I venture to 

 say that in three-quarters of the cases the job is very poorly 

 done. I know the ears of my own dog were miserably cut. 

 That it is a cruel practice goes without saying. Anyone 

 who has seen the poor puppy writhing in agony under 

 the shears, or suffering for weeks afterward with its ten- 

 der ears, cannot for a moment doubt that. Moreover, the 

 necessity for the operation has almost passed away. It is 

 justifiable only as a measure to prevent laceration in the 

 hunt. I will not consider protection in fight, for any 

 man who fights dogs is not fit to belong to any kennel 

 club. I apprehend opposition to a reform in this matter 

 by bull-terrier and great Dane owners, but trust they will 

 be defeated. But they will soon get used to long ears and 

 their dogs will be the better for it. There are too many 

 men in the dog business for money only, the sooner they 

 are weeded out the better. The true sportsman is am- 

 bitious for the welfare of his dogs." 



The foregoing and other letters show that there is not a 

 unity of sentiment on the cropping question among great 

 Dane and bull-terrier owners and admirers, and that there 

 are those who tolerate it because it is conventional with 

 a class, yet who personally believe it is cruel and useless. 

 They w ould oppose it were there a general movement 

 against it. No more valuable testimony of its cruelty 

 could be obtained than that of the owners of cropped 

 dogs, men who know the pain it inflicts. 



F. P. D. Brereton. 



Next in order is the letter of Mr. Brereton, secretary of 

 the Bull- Terrier Club of America, who, in official behalf 

 of his club, remonstrates against the A. K. C. disqualify- 

 ing after a certain date dogs which had been cropped, and 

 sets forth their reasons for remonstrating as follows: 



"That bull-terriers having been cropped for many years, in fact, 

 ever since the breed has become a fixed one; that in consequence it 

 was unnecessary to pay particular attention to the ear-natural, nor 

 has there been any such recognized; and that natural ears appear of 

 every known description, from the semi-erect bat wing to the pendu- 

 lous ear of the btagle. 



"To disqualify now would be to upset the work of 75 or 100 years. 

 The fact that the English Kennel Club now has this rule in force is an 

 added reason why it should be left alone here for the present, as they 

 have yet to establish the ear, before even breeding, to produce It. If 

 the same task be attempted here there will in all likelihood be two 

 specimens of natural ear evolved, giving rise to endless confusion and 

 wrangling, as it is not likely that ail fanciers and breeders will adopt 

 the same ear as desirable to breed to. 



"Still further, it is our opinion that in a few generations, if cropping 

 be persisted in, nature, aided by judicious cropping, will stop revert- 

 ing to such useless and unsightly appendages as most bull-terriers' 

 ears naturally are." 



The reasons are badly chosen. If the bull-terrier has 

 been cropped 1 'ever since the breed has become a fixed 

 one," how can Mr. Brereton possibly know "that natural 

 ears appear of every known description, from the semi- 

 erect bat wing to the pendulous ear of the beagle?" Such 

 universal and immemorial clipping of the ears in youth 

 would cut off at the same time all knowledge of their 

 mature forms. 



He adds that "to disqualify now would be to upset the 

 work of 75 to 100 years." What work? Clipping ears? 

 He admits that they have established no type of ear. It 

 seems that, instead, it is time to perfect the type of dog 

 and establish a typical ear. If cutting off parts of a dog 

 make a type, then the knife and shears are more potent 

 than breeding. 



In "Stonehenge on the Dog," bearing date 1873, on page 

 167 is stated : ' 'The points of the bull-terrier vary greatly 

 in accordance with the degree of each in the specimen 

 examined." That is rather an indeterminate statement 

 as compared to what is claimed by Mr. Brereton for the 

 work of 75 or 100 years, 



