Forest and Stream. 



A Weekly Journal of the Rod and Gun. 



Teems, $4 a Year. 10 Cts. a Copy. ) 



Srs Months, $2. j 



NEW YORK, SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 1894. 



j VOL. XLIL— No. 11. 



| No. 318 Broadway, New York. 



CONTENTS. 



Editorial. 



Trespass. 



Nets as Nuisances May Be 



Destroyed. 

 Snap Shots. 



The Sportsman Tourist. 



Dan vis Folks. -xxv. 

 Natural History. 



Man and Snakes. 

 Camp-Fire Flickerings. 

 Came Bag and Cun. 



Two Deer with One Bullet. 



Yellowstone Park Notes. 



Dixie Land — n. 



In West Virginia Covers. 



New Hampshire Notes and 



Notions. 

 Stop the Sale of Game. 

 A Mew Jersey Pheasantry. 

 Adirondack Foxes. 

 On Iowa Prairies. 

 A Game Refuge. 

 Here is a Bear Record. 



Sea and River Fishing. 



Nets as Nuisances. 

 Angling Notes. 

 She Didn't Lite Fishing. 

 Boston Notes. 



California Casting Tournament. 



The Kennel. 



Detroit Dog Show. 

 Bloodhounds. 

 Spaniel Club Meeting. 

 Boston Show. 

 Dog Chat. 



Answers to Correspondents. 

 Canoeing. 



Modern British Canoes. 

 Reforming the A. C. A. 

 Toronto C. C. 

 News Notes. 



Yachting. 



The Goelet and Bennett Cups. 

 Building at Nyack. 

 George Haliet Balch. 

 News Notes. 



Rifle Range and Gallery. 



Nitro in the Rifle. 

 Paterson Rifle Club. 

 With Eyes 64 Years Old. 

 Club Doings. 



Trap Shooting. 



Drivers and Twisters. 

 Spokane Rod and Gun Club. 

 Boone's First Annual. 

 Riverton vs New Utrecht. 

 McMurchy vs. Van Gilder. 

 Matches and Meetings. 



Answers to Queries. 



For Prospectus and Advertising Rates see Page vii. 



The Forest and Stream is put to press 

 on Tuesdays. Correspondence intended for 

 publication should reach us by Mondays and 

 as much earlier as may be practicable. 



TRESPASS. 



Iowa sportsmen are reported to be dissatisfied with a 

 •trespass law which has just . been enacted. Some go so 

 far as to declare that the law will not be observed by- 

 shooters; that the courts will not uphold it, and that the 

 next Legislature will repeal it. An examination of the 

 statute, however, shows that it does not differ in principle 

 from similar trespass laws which have long been in opera- 

 tion elsewhere. Its text runs: 



I Sec. 1. No person shall hunt, with dog or gun, upon the cultivated 

 or inclosed lands of another without first obtaining permission from 

 the owner, occupant or agent thereof. 



Sec. 2. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be pun- 

 ished by a fine of not more than ten dollars for each and every offense. 

 But no prosecution shall be commenced under this act escept upon 

 the information of the owner, occupant or agent of such cultivated or 

 inclosed lands. 



Laws of like tenor, forbidding trespass for hunting on 

 inclosed or cultivated land without first obtaining per- 

 mission, prevail in Arkansas, California (certain counties), 

 Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, 

 Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina 

 and West Virginia. In Kansas the prohibition extends 

 also to "the traveled or public road that adjoins such oc- 

 cupied or improved property;" and in West Virginia 

 under certain conditions it may be extended to unin- 

 closed tracts. In Maryland the trespass regulations are 

 county laws and bear especially hard upon non-residents. 

 Rhode Island limits the offense to shooting at or killing 

 game upon the land. 



In none of the States named is it necessary to post 

 lands or to give notice against trespass. Similar statutes, 

 but requiring that the land be posted or that notice be 

 given, hold in Kentucky (some counties), Maine, Massa- 

 chusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North 

 Carolina, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and the Dis- 

 trict of Columbia. In many instances the provisions of 

 punishment for violations are more stringent than in the 

 Iowa statute. 



The trespass law is based upon the principle that the 

 possessor may control what belongs to him. If a man 

 owns or rents a house, he may forbid people to come into 

 it; if there is a yard around the house, he may keep them 

 out of the yard; and out of his garden and cornfield and 

 pasture and meadow and wood lot. His lands are his 

 own; he has the exclusive right to their use and enjoy- 

 ment and privileges, including that of taking the game 

 and the fish found on them. This is law and reason and 

 common sense. 



For the most part, taking the country over, the shooting 

 and fishing trespass laws are more honored in the breach 

 than in the observance. As a rule, the sportsman with 

 his gun or the fisherman with his rod climbs the fences 

 from the fields of one owner into those of another, and 

 makes his way for miles through lots and woodlands 

 without ever thinking of himself as a trespasser or being 



so regarded by the owners of the lands. Where the law 

 is enforced some good reasons usually exist for applying 

 it. The land owner may want the game or the fish for 

 himself or for some one else; he may not wish to have 

 Bob White's whistle silenced; he may have been tried 

 beyond all patience by insolent and rowdy ish gunners; he 

 may dread having his horses or cows disturbed by the 

 uproar of gunning; he may fear fires; in short, there are 

 a score of reasons, any one of which may be sufficient for 

 keeping the gunners out; and it is for him to decide this, 

 and for them to respect his decision. This is the rule, and 

 by it every self-respecting sportsman will be governed 

 despite the fact that the trespass regulations sometimes 

 cause unreasonable deprivation, minister to churlish self- 

 ishness, or fortify a dog in his manger. 



While a trespass law reasonably applied is decidedly for 

 the true interest of gunners and the game supply, there is 

 nevertheless much of hardship in this statute which has 

 been adopted in Iowa. The hardship consists in taking 

 away something which through long custom has come to 

 be regarded as a right. The Iowa sportsman has been 

 accustomed to hunt over the fields of others, not in defi- 

 ance of their prohibition but as a matter of course; and 

 quite as much as a matter of course have the owners of 

 the fields complacently permitted him to do so. Now the 

 statute steps in to forbid the hunting custom of the 

 country, declares it unlawful and renders the violator 

 liable to prosecution and fine. This is a new and un- 

 wonted condition of shooting, to which the sportsmen of 

 Iowa may find difficulty in accommodating themselves, 

 but which in the end may not prove more burdensome to 

 them than are similar laws to the sportsmen of other States. 



NETS AS JSUISANCES MAY BE DESTROYED. 



In commenting last week on the case of a netter who 

 sought to recover damages from a New York game pro- 

 tector for destroyed fishing nets, we made reference to 

 the Steele case in the Supreme Court of the United States, 

 of which we said, "It yet awaits decision; we believe that 

 the end will be to affirm the constitutionality of the 

 statute." On the very day that this was written, March 

 5, the decision was given out, and it does sustain the law. 

 We have procured the full text of the opinion; it is printed 

 in our fishing columns, and will repay careful reading. 



The case was that of the owners of certain fishing nets 

 who brought an action against a New York game protector 

 to recover the value of certain nets which as a protector 

 he had seized and summarily destroyed. The defendant 

 set up for a defense that the law gave him authority to 

 destroy the nets and directed him to do so. The point at 

 issue then was as to the constitutional power of the Leg- 

 islature to authorize the summary destruction of unlawful 

 fishing nets which it had declared to be public nuisances, 

 the plaintiff contending that such destruction constituted 

 the confiscation of property without due process of law. 

 The Supreme Court holds that the Legislature has this 

 constitutional power. 



The decision is one which will be hailed with general 

 satisfaction by all citizens, who as public officers or 

 private individuals and members of protective associa- 

 tions are engaged in conserving the food-fish supply in 

 inland waters. Those who have been most active in the 

 suppression of unlawful fishing contrivances know full 

 well the impediments that would be put in their way 

 under any other system than this of the summary de- 

 struction of nets. On the final result we congratulate in 

 particular the Jefferson County Fish and Game Associa- 

 tion, to whose alertness and ability in the conduct of the 

 case the public is indebted. 



Last week we recorded the decision in a State Court of a 

 case similar to this one. It is likely to be the last one 

 that we shall ever hear of. Unlawful fishing nets are 

 nuisances and as such may be summarily abated. 



That the sale of game should be prevented at all times 

 is something for which the controlling sentiment of the 

 community may not yet be prepared, but the trend of 

 opinion is surely in that direction. The principle is one 

 which the most sanguine may not hope to see put into 

 practical and general operation for a long time to come. 

 Aud yet non-market laws are already in force in cer- 

 tain localities, notably in some New York counties. 

 Wherever tried this remedy for over-killing has proved 

 effective. Cut off the marketing of woodcock and 

 grouse and trout, and the good results are at once visible. 



SNAP SHOTS. 



Reports from the Great South Bay announce the re- 

 appearance this spring in those waters of canvasback 

 ducks in considerable numbers. Some years ago these 

 birds were frequently killed in the Great South Bay, 

 although — for whatever reason — canvasbacks have never 

 been abundant there as have redheads and broadbills. 

 What this reappearance may mean it is hard to say, but 

 it is probably a part of the general abundance this year 

 of ducks everywhere. If one were to believe a New York 

 paper, we should imagine the Great South Bay a marvel- 

 ously favorable feeding ground for these birds, since those 

 killed there are referred to as weighing 7£lbs., or about 

 three times what the usual canvasback weighs. 



The Virginia Legislature is debating the wisdom of 

 adopting a dog tax law. There are two sides of the ques- 

 tion, one stoutly defended by the dog owners and the 

 other advanced by the sheep raisers. The sheep men are 

 fortified by statistics supplied by Capt. J. C. Featherstone, 

 of the United States Department of Agriculture. The 

 figures show that during the year 1892 10,546 sheep 

 were killed by dogs in Virginia; the average value 

 of the animals killed was $2.55, and the total amount 

 $26,892.30. These figures are startb'ng, but they fail 

 to show the full damage done to the sheep industry 

 by dogs, for this constant menace deters farmers from en 

 gaging in the business. The Department of Agriculture 

 is authority for the statement that the sheep killing by 

 dogs in Virginia is only less than that in Ohio, which 

 State leads the Union. Common sense would dictate a 

 suppression of the curs in favor of wool and mutton. 



If there is any one thing that is calculated to make 

 newspaper publishers dissatisfied with their lot and appre- 

 hensive of the opinion which some folks must have of 

 them, it is to receive in the nlail from time to time 

 anonymous remittances of sums of money varying in 

 amount from eleven cents to eleven dollars, with not even 

 a decipherable postmark clue to the location or name of 

 the senders. For newspaper publishers who receive these 

 favors from unknown persons are aware that the senders, 

 who have thus parted with their money but not with their 

 names, probably are wondering why they do not receive 

 in return the goods ordered, and are indulging in alto- 

 gether unwarrantable suspicions concerning the integrity 

 of publishers. It will readily be understood that against 

 such suspicions the publishers have no redress. All they 

 have is the money. All they want is the name of the 

 sender. 



A correspondent writes in our columns to-day of a 

 game refuge which he has provided for ruffed grouse 

 by the very simple means of posting a tract of land and 

 keeping off from it all shooters at all times. This is an 

 expedient which has been resorted to in other in- 

 stances known to us with no less encouraging and sat- 

 isfactory results; in fact we have known of wide terri- 

 tories from which, save for such protected refuges, the 

 supply of birds would have been annihilated. In the 

 particular case cited by our correspondent the motive of 

 the game preserver was not a selfish one; and the thought- 

 fulness and providence shown by him are worthy of 

 commendation and emulation. 



These are the days when there is something in the ai 

 suggestive of trout streams. March 1 is the opening date 

 in some States; but even where the law is not up until 

 April fishermen have been whipping the streams and 

 playing many a fine fish— in fancy. One advantage of 

 the fishing excursion of reverie is that no rheumatic 

 twinges ever ensue. 



A reign of ruffianism has passed by in this city. [ By a 

 new statute the dogs of New York will hereafter be im- 

 pounded by agents of the Society for the Prevention of 

 Cruelty to Animals. The dog-catcher has had his day. The 

 old system was fruitful of imposition, robbery, personal 

 assaults, brutality; and was responsible for at least one 

 murder. 



It is curious that so many people who dabble in orni- 

 thology or entomology or mammalogy or ophiology or 

 conchology or ichthyology use the word "specie" as if it 

 were a singular of "species " ' 



