46 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[FEB. i, 1889. 



MAINE GAME EXPORTATION. 



Editor Forest and Stream; 



Noting the article printed iu issue of Jan. 31, over the 

 signature of "Anthony Morce," prompts me to reply to 

 some of the points made in that article. A part of that 

 article I heartily concur in, as a sportsman, a citizen of 

 Maine quite familiar with the interests of the State as 

 contained in the woods and waters of the State, and as a 

 member of the present Legislature. What Mr. M. writes, 

 so far as the fishing, or more properly, perhaps, the ang- 

 ling, interests of the State (and the State's interest is the 

 sportsman's interest as well), I heartily concur with. 

 But when he comes to the deer, I take issue with him at 

 once. As the result of both experience and observation, 

 I believe it is impossible to frame a law to allow the 

 sportman to "carry home his bit of venison or the head of 

 his big bull moose," and not allow the market-hunter to 

 market his spoils to almost any extent. That has been 

 a task attempted over and over again in Maine and else- 

 where, and with the same invariable result, and that re- 

 sult simple failure. 



All the. reason why August should not be added to the 

 open season, and that reason is ample, is that but a part 

 of the fawns are weaned, and capable of caring for them- 

 selves. Is not that a sufficient reason for a sportsman? A 

 denial of this fact by interested parties will carry no 

 weight with those who know. The reason for making 

 August part of the open season is simply to allow jack- 

 shooting to be indulged in. So far as I myself am con- 

 cerned, I am not in favor of making September an open 

 month, and for the same reason tbat I assigned for not 

 being in favor of August being an open month; but, of 

 course, in less degree. I have seen a doe shot in Septem- 

 ber with milk in her udders, which presented every ap- 

 pearance of being in active use to support a young and 

 helpless life, and that sight I beheld in Canada, much 

 further north than here. The writer of the article relates 

 a conversation in a Rangeley resort, when the guides 

 stated the position they occupy precisely. They 

 "wouldn't dare to do nothing." Certainly not; those 

 men do not guide for fun; they work for money. What 

 they might think, what they might believe, is' not con- 

 veyed in that conversation. But they would not dare to 

 take any measures which would injure them in the esti- 

 mation of their customers. And if some of that party 

 were to come to the woods to crust-hunt (and possibly 

 such a project was in the minds of some of the party, 

 hence the questions asked the guides), the guides would 

 "not dare" to do themselves injury in the minds of their 

 employers. The next sentence shows that the first-named 

 class of law breakers are not entitled to any consideration 

 whatever. Mr. Morce would not have us believe that, in 

 his opinion, the way to prevent law violations is to repeal 

 the law, so that the trout fisherman, who in summer 

 carries his rifle into the woods, may vary the terrible 

 monotony of catching trout in the proper season by 

 shooting deer in an improper season? 



For myself I can see but little difference between jack- 

 shooting in summer and crust-hunting in winter. Pos- 

 sibly the crust-hunter's method may be less cruel, because 

 he is sure to kill his victim in the deep snow, and the 

 jack-shooter is not only likely to inflict wounds upon 

 animals he does not get, but besides to kill a doe while at- 

 tempting under cover of night to obtain food to sustain 

 her system in the duty of nursing her helpless infants. 

 Of the two the crust-hunter is less cowardly. In this 

 same paragraph, where the first class of law breakers is 

 spoken of, occurs a most remarkable statement. It has 

 a familiar sound to me. Just such statements have been 

 made to men in my hearing. The most outrageous 

 stories are told by parties who wish to evade any and all 

 law. And the Commissioners! and the wardens! What 

 awful tyrannies they do perpetrate. 



I am not writing in any spirit of discourtesy. I wish 

 Mr. Morce to understand that I am addressing him 

 through the Forest and Stream as one sportsman would 

 address another. 1 am only trying to do my part, feeble 

 though the attempt may be, to create a proper under- 

 standing among sportsmen who fish and shoot for sport's 

 sake. But how it is that one possessed of such a degree 

 of intelligence as Mr. Morce shows himself to be in the 

 article I am both criticising and commending, can, in ap- 

 parent sincerity, put upon paper such an unjust, mis- 

 leading and necessarily untrue statement as that doubt- 

 less told him by some lawless, greedy hotel keeper and 

 guides, is totally incomprehensible to me. A moose was 

 killed, out of season presumably; a guide reported the 

 fact to the Commissioners; the warden demanded the 

 fine; and though the man who killed the moose had left 

 the State, and consequently could neither be arrested, 

 prosecuted nor fined, the hotel keeper and the guides 

 made up the amount themselves and paid the fine which 

 was not and could not have been imposed, because 

 the guilty party was out of the State, and hence out of 

 the reach of the law; and then that yarn runs on saying 

 that the visitor was not permitted to know even that a 

 fine had been levied. Why, I did not suppose that the 

 editor of our paper would allow such statements to be 

 made through its colums. See its absurdity. As though 

 a man under such circumstances could be fined without 

 arrest or trial! Or that one of those awful wardens had 

 authority to levy and collect a fine, even in case of an 

 arrest, to say nothing of levying and collecting a fine on 

 a man in another State, and out of the reach of Maine 

 authorities. The supposition which it was intended that 

 Mr. Morce should entertain, by the spinners of that pre- 

 posterous yarn, was that the hotel-keeper and his guides 

 felt that it was more for their interest to make up the 

 fine from their own pockets than to have the moose 

 killer angered by any inconvenience which should result 

 from his lawless violations of statutory provisions. And 

 again, if any such demand was made by a warden, and 

 if a sum was paid as alleged, it by no means follows that 

 the poacher was relieved from liability of arrest and con- 

 viction should he again visit the State and thus place 

 himself where the laws of the State could reach him. 

 These statements as to what things wardens have done 

 similar to this are being constantly repeated, and I wish 

 to state that wardens have no power to levy or receive 

 fines without process of law, under the statutes of the 

 State of Maine. 



Then follows another hotel keeper's statement that 

 simply gives the whole thing away. "One may says to 

 me, 'I would'nt give any tiling to catch trout after the first 

 day or two, but I'd rather kill one deer than catch all the 

 fish in the lake,' etc.," then goes on to state that if they 



were allowed to kill in August and September they 

 would "mighty soon put a stop to crust-hunting and 

 hounding too." Ah! would they? The same hotel keeper 

 gives the refutation of that when he says sportsmen (?) 

 won't chase moose through the woods with the natural 

 uncertainties which following game in a sportsmanlike 

 manner entails. If killing moose and deer were allowed 

 in August, the same sort of "sportsmen" would demand 

 that dogs be used to drive them into the water, so that 

 he might have the satisfaction of shooting them while 

 lazily sitting in a boat. 



Then follows the remarkable statement, for one living 

 within the bounds of civilization to make, that killing a 

 deer at any season is not wrong by natural laws. If so, 

 why does nature provide that it is so difficult for wolves 

 to follow does when they are nursing young? This 

 natural provision is all that enables fawns to escape the 

 fangs of wolves at all, to say nothing of other predatory 

 animals who hunt by scent. I submit that, when nature 

 makes such provision as that, man, who is supposed to 

 be gifted with reasoning powers far above quadrupeds, 

 cannot make the assertion quoted above, and say that 

 there is not a natural law against the killing of animals 

 and fishes at such times as they are engaged in perpetu- 

 ating their species. The same sort of reasoning would 

 justify the taking of trout from the spawning beds. 



Mr. Morce brings up again the idea of putting in force 

 a shooting license system. That would seem the most 

 just system that could be devised. But these words in 

 the U. S. Constitution would seem to dispose of that 

 scheme effectually— "The right of the people to keep and 

 bear arms shall not be infringed." 



1 will ask Mr. Morce, in conclusion, to pardon me for 

 these comments on his article, written over a name not 

 my real one. But. as a member of the present Maine 

 Legislature, I do not wish to attract attention tome indi- 

 vidually. NOR'EAST. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



I see the Commissioners of Maine are asking the Legis- 

 lature to give them a good, square non-exporting law. 

 Such a law for the prevention of the shipping of game 

 to the markets of other States is doubtless a good thing, 

 but if it is applied to sportsmen from other States, it 

 probably will have a tendencv to keep them out alto- 

 gether. I spent nearly all of last October in northwestern 

 Maine, going there with the hope of killing a moose and 

 a caribou, and certainly I thought I could bring out the 

 head and antlers of any game I killed. Had I killed a 

 bull moose or caribou, I should have brought out the 

 head and mounted it myself, and would have prized it 

 very highly (they would be of no value unless of my own 

 killing). As the weather was stormy about all the time, 

 my trip was unsuccessful. I saw and killed two does 

 and a buck. These deer were killed before I had been a 

 week in the woods, but had I killed the buck a day or 

 two before coming out I should have tried to bring him 

 home whole. None of this game was wasted, it all being 

 taken to Danforth's Camp. 



According to the non-export law I should not have 

 been allowed to bring out any part of these deer. But 

 can such a law be enforced? I have read of a recent case 

 which came up in Michigan (where I think there is a 

 non-export law). A sportsman went into the State and 

 killed some game, which he attempted to send or take 

 home. He was arrested, but carried the case before the 

 Supreme Court of Michigan, and the court ruled that as 

 the game was killed legally it was the property of the 

 party killing it, and he could dispose of it as he saw fit. 

 If this is the decision of the court of Michigan, would it 

 not be similar in a bike case in Maine? It is a strange 

 law truly, which says to the sportsmen from other States, 

 You may go into our woods, spend your money freely, 

 kill one moose, two caribou and three deer; you may 

 leave this game in the woods to rot, burn it in your 

 camp-fire, or bury it, but you shall not take any part of 

 it out of the State to your home, where it mav be of some 

 benefit to your family or your friends. As Fhave said I 

 spent nearly a month last fall in Maine, and had made 

 arrangements to go again in December, but owing to bad 

 weather gave it up. I am now looking up a favorable 

 place to go next fall, and I am willing to spend a month 

 or six weeks hunting for moose or caribou, but if I am 

 not allowed to bring home any part of the game I kill I 

 shall give Maine a wide berth, and look for some more 

 favorable State. 



Certainly, none of the spoilsmen who go into the 

 woods will try to bring out a cartload of game. The 

 head, antlers and hide of a bull moose or caribou will 

 make a pretty good load to pack out; or, if deer only are 

 killed, the carcass of one will cost them all it is worth by 

 the time they get it home. What say some of you who 

 have been there? C. M. Stark, 

 Dunbabton, N. H. , Feb. 2. 



PRO BONO PUBLICO. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



In ( your issue of the 31st ult. is a letter from "G. B. 

 W.," of Leon Center, on "Diminution of Game," urging 

 more active interest, more push and energy, for more 

 protective game laws. In his last three lines'he declares 

 himself opposed to prohibiting "spring shooting." 



If this killing in breeding time is not protection with 

 a vengeance, what is it? The trouble with the game laws 

 at present arises from too much of this kind of individ- 

 ual sentiment and unwillingness to forego any personal 

 privilege for common advantage. The moment a purely 

 protective law is passed there comes a flood of sports- 

 men (?) from all over the State, insisting upon exceptions 

 as to their "locality" or their own conveniences, by which 

 all real benefits of protection are lost or obscured. "G. 

 B. W." may well and profitably mature his reflections 

 by the fact that the way to "protect is to protect;" that 

 protection means restrictions for all persons and in all 

 localities during breeding time. Leon Center or elsewhere 

 not excepted. 



In recently turning over the files of your valuable 

 paper (issue of Sept. 15, 1887, p. 145) there came to notice 

 a communication on New York game laws as much to 

 the point now as then. "G. B. W." is cordially referred 

 to the views there expressed, and if he or others of like 

 sentiment are really earnest and practical in a desire for 

 protection, they must manifest a willingness to submit to 

 greater limitations upon the killing privilege in common 

 with all others pro bono publico. Till then it is probable 

 that he will wander more and more disconsolate over the 

 hillsides with his gun growing heavy and tired, and his 

 game bag growing empty and light. Obiter. 



MICHIGAN GAME AND FISH WARDENS. 



THE first biennial report of the Game and Fish War- 

 den of Michigan has just been made. There are in 

 addition to the chief warden 151 deputies. The report 



The work of "enforcing the statutes of this State for 

 the protection and propagation of birds, game and fish" 

 was entered upon immediately after my appointment, 

 and as shown by the monthly report filed in the office of 

 the Secretary of State April 27, 1887, there were thirty- 

 five arrests made for violations of the game and fkh laws 

 m the first month of the existence of this department, 

 and several trials were had and convictions obtained 

 before the end of the month. In view of this state- 

 ment, it is needless to add tbat prior to t e pa- sage 

 of the game warden act, but little attention was 

 paid to the game and fish laws and thev were gen- 

 erally disregarded. The sentiment of * the people 

 regarding them soon changed when it brcame gener- 

 ally known that they were to be enforced, and in 

 the place of open and flagrant violations the department 

 had to deal with offenders who covered their violations 

 as far as possible. This clearly demonstrated the neces- 

 sity of the aid of competent deputy wardens in each 

 county to make complaints and secure evidence sufficient 

 to convict guilty parties; and this in turn showerl the 

 need of some provision by which the deputy wardens 

 might be assured of proper remuneration for services 

 performed and expenses necessarily incurred. 



The game warden act leaves it to the boards of super- 

 visors of the respective counties to fix the compensation 

 of deputy wardens, and in most of the counties of the 

 State the supervisors have voted a fair compensation and 

 have given their support to the work of the department. 

 The compensation awarded ranges from $2 per day for 

 time actually spent, to an annual compensation of $1,000. 

 In other counties (notably Saginaw, St. Clair, Alpena, 

 Macomb and Missaukee), the supervisors have persistently 

 refused to compensate the deputy wardens in any man- 

 ner. In other counties the compensation awarded is so 

 meager as to be of little value as an incentive to work. 

 For obvious reasons this has rendered it quite impossible 

 properly to enforce these laws in such counties; and this 

 provision regarding the compensation of deputy wardens, 

 or rather a lack of such provision, I regard as one 

 defect in the game warden act which should be reme- 

 died. A provision granting the deputy wardens the 

 fees of sheriffs for like services, and leaving it to the 

 supervisors to allow such further compensation as they 

 will, would improve this branch of the law and secure 

 good service by the deputy wardens in counties which now 

 grant no compensation. In this connection I desire also 

 to call attention to the need of at least three State depu- 

 ties to assist in securing competent county deputies, and 

 proper work on their part, and to do special work in 

 localities where the sentiment is opposed to these laws, 

 and to assist generally in the work of the department! 

 The need of this and other revisions of these laws may 

 be emphasized in the proper time and place. 



I have said that during the first month after the crea- 

 tion of this department there were 35 arrests made for 

 violations of the game and fish laws. The trials of many 

 of these parties did not take place until the following 

 month, and the monthly report for May 25, 1887, shows 

 that out of 65 arrests up to that date there were 59 con- 

 victions, and the fines and costs imposed and paid 

 amounted to $344.83. The arrests during the month of 

 June, 1887, numbered 28, the convictions 25, and fines 

 imposed amounted to $173.78. It seems unnecessary to 

 call attention to each month's report. During the first 

 six months after my appointment, the number of arrests 

 for violations of these laws averaged 39 a month, and in 

 each month nearly all of those arrested were convicted. 

 The average number of arrests during the last nine 

 months has been 24, and the average for the entire 21 

 months that the department has existed is 23. 



A monthly report has been required from each deputv 

 warden, upon blanks prepared for that purpose, showing 

 all arrests made, the offense charged, the result of trial 

 and the fine and costs imposed. These reports show that 

 from March 15, 1887, when this office was created, to Dec. 

 15, 1888, there have been 482 arrests made for violations 

 of the game and fish laws. Of that number 398 were con- 

 victed, either upon trial or by pleading guilty, while 

 eighty-four were acquitted, discharged, or the cases nolle 

 prossed. 



The fines imposed upon conviction vary from $1 to 

 $50, and the total fines and' costs paid by these offenders 

 aggregate $5,632.11. In many instances the magistrates 

 released the offenders upon suspended sentences, while 

 fourteen of those convicted served short sentences in the 

 county jails in lieu of payment of fines. 



The monthly reports show that the offenses charged 

 against these offenders are quite evenly divided between 

 the game and fish laws. The violations of the game 

 laws for which arrests were made number 243, and the 

 violations of the fish laws number 239. A large propor- 

 tion of the violations of the game laws have related to 

 deer and quail, while the offenses against the fish laws 

 are about evenly divided between unlawful spearing, 

 the use of unlawful nets and the use of dynamite. 



Three cases arising under these laws have been taken 

 to the Supreme Court. In the first (People vs. Kirsch) a 

 conviction for illegal fishing was affirmed and the consti- 

 tutionality of the act uneler which the complaint was 

 made was declared. In the next case (In re Moore) the 

 Supreme Court granted the discharge from custody of a 

 party convicted and imprisoned at Mt. Clemens for fish- 

 ing in inland waters with a net, contrary to one provision 

 of Section 2, Act No, 265 of 1887, upon the ground that 

 such provision was not covered by the title of the act, 

 No opinion was filed by the judge in this case and there 

 was a general misapprehension as to its extent and mean- 

 ing. It was generally declared that the entire fish laws 

 had been declared void. The department, by c'rculars 

 and letters and through the medium of the pre*s, cor- 

 rected this erroneous report of the decision as soon as 

 possible, and the law, with the exception of the one pro- 

 vision referred to, has been enfoiced as far as possible 

 and violators prosecuted. 



The third case appealed to the Supreme Court was that 

 of the People vs. O'Neil (39 N W. Rep. 1). Tne convic- 

 tion of the respondent for selling quail after the eight 

 days' limit was reversed upon the ground that the quail 

 were purchased in Missouri and that our laws apply only 

 to Michigan game, although not so limited in express 



