7 6 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Jan. £}5, 1816, 
TROUT FISHING IN WISCONSIN. 
Ashland, Wis. — Editor Forest and Stream: As I live 
on the shores of Lake Superior it is natural I should take 
an interest in the Forest and Stream, as there is prob- 
ably no better hunting and fishing territory so readily 
accessible as Ashland county and Bayfield county, Wis. 
I can catch a good string of trout any day in Hazard's 
Creek, a half mile from the end of the street car track. 
They are the wild brook trout in their native retreat, and 
not the liver-fed, sluggish fish called "trout" in cultivated 
ponds. 
I was going to challenge anyone to show a like con- 
dition of affairs so near a city of 20,000 inhabitants, but 
on second thought I don't believe there is such a chance 
to catch trout in the United States. Sitting outside one 
day by the Knight Hotel here I told a couple of guests I 
could catch wild tront within a mile and a half of where 
we were then sitting, or half a mile from the end of the 
street car line. This nearly paralyzed them with astonish- 
ment, but I furnished the baskets and rods and took them 
out. We were gone from the house two hours and a half 
and returned with a large and beautiful mess of trout, on 
which we dined that evening. The boys spent the rest of 
the evening writing home (East) about their fishing trip. 
In Lake Superior, all along the rocky shore on the other 
side of Chequamegon Bay, opposite Ashland, you can 
catch fine brook trout. Of course they come from the 
numerous trout streams emptying into the bay. But I 
have a boy who knows better than I do where the trout 
streams are. I think Forest and Stream has inspired 
him considerably. We have taken this excellent maga- 
zine for a long time. This keeps up our interest in fishing 
and hunting, and, as Ben says, prepares him for some of 
my tall hunting stories. But a poor fishing or hunting 
trip discourages us, and we stop buying Forest and 
Stream for a while, I have not seen a copy lately, as our 
last trip was not very successful. As Ben likes the paper, 
he endeavors to have me successful — well knowing that if 
I come back empty-handed I will denounce Forest and 
Stream as a fraud. So, on our last trip across the bay, 
while I had "set" my line and was eating dinner off to the 
left with my back to the line, Ben made himself busy 
about it. When I returned to the pole I found Ben eating 
his lunch in the distance, and noticed my pole bending 
toward the water. I supposed I had a prize. Ben said I 
bent over and crawled up quickly, as though I had a two- 
pounder. I grabbed the pole and made ready for a long 
fight, but drawing up steadily I found a stone instead of 
a fish. I stopped taking Forest and Stream then for 
three weeks, but I am on good terms with it now. 
Joseph Cover. 
Tri-County Association. 
Port Huron, Mich., Jan. 15. — A meeting of the Tri- 
County Fish and Game Protective League, comprising the 
counties of Wavne, Macomb and St. Clair, was held in 
Detroit last week. J. F. White represented the Port Hu- 
ron fishermen. A letter was read from Chase S. 03born, 
of Sault Ste. Marie, State game and fish warden, inform- 
ing the league that Henry L. Avery, of Detroit, had been 
reappointed county game warden and deputy game war- 
den for 1896. The announcement was received with sat- 
isfaction. Mr. Avery has been diligent and untiring in 
his duties, and the league is working hard to have his 
salary increased to $600 per annum. A. R. Avery was 
elected vice-president of the league and H. N. Botsford a 
member of the executive committee. J. B. McGregor, A. 
R. Avery and H. N. Botsford were appointed to represent 
St. Clair county in all matters pertaining to the league. 
It was the unanimous opinion that the work of Special 
Deputy Avery has been especially valuable. Fish now 
have a chance to breed and grow, and hook and line fish- 
ing is fast getting back to its old-time form on the St. 
Clair flats. 
FIXTURES. 
BENCH 8HOWB. 
Feb. 19 to 22.— Westminster Kennel Club's twentieth, annual dog 
show, Madison Square Garden, New York. James Mortimer, Supt. 
March 3 to 6.— City of the Straits Kennel Club. R. Humffrey 
Roberts, Sec'y, 6 Merrill Block, Detroit. 
March 10 to 13.— Chicago.— Mascoutah Kennel Club's bench show 
John L. Lincoln, Sec'y. 
March 17 to 20.— St. Louis Kennel Club's show, St. Louis. W. 
Hutchinson, Sec'y. 
April 20 to 23 —New England Kennel Club's twelfth annual show. 
D. E. Loveland. Sec'y. 
May 6 to 9.— Pacific Kennel Club's fifth annual show. H. W. Orear, 
Sec'y. 
FIELD TRIALS. 
Feb. 8.— West Point, Miss .— U. S. F. T. C. trials. W. B. Stafford, 
Sec'y. 
Feb. 10.— 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, 
Sflc'y. 
Oct. 28.— Greene county, Pa.— The Monongahela Valley Game and 
Fish Protective Association's second annual trials. S. B. Cummings 
Sec'y, Pittsburg. 
CROPPING. 
A. K. C. Powers. 
It has been paraded with much affectation of earnest- 
ness that the A. K. C. has no right to meddle in the mat- 
ter of cropping; that it had no right to take any action 
which would harm a member; though whether one 
member had a right to harm all the others was wisely 
left sleeping. 
The second article of the A. K. C. constitution, aside 
from other pertinent legislation, in defining the object of 
the A. K. C, reads as follows: "The object of this Asso- 
ciation shall be the protection of the mutual interest of its 
members. It shall admit such clubs to membership, or 
persons as associate members, as may be deemed desir- 
able. It shall adopt and enforce such rules as shall tend 
to uniformity in the regulations governing bench shows 
and field trials, and to the proper conduct of persons 
interested in the exhibition, breeding or sale of dogs. 
Furthermore, it shall publish an official Stud Book and a 
Kennel Gazette." 
It is plain to those who will read the constitution of the 
A. K. C. that it has j urisdiction in the matter of cropping. 
It would seem that a delegate should know the constitu- 
tion of the A. K. C, and not be groping in the dark in 
representing his club. The argument of the absence of 
jurisdiction has not been dignified by even an attempt to 
prove it. It is possible that some members take it as a 
pretext to avoid the issue and a record. No doubt but 
what if it is settled that the A. K. C. has jurisdiction, some 
other pretext — no matter how absurd — would be seized 
upon as a makeshift argument. 
Of course, the A. K. C. should legislate for the benefit 
of its members. When a majority of the delegates vote 
to adopt or abolish certain things after careful delibera- 
tion, whose wishes should prevail: those of the majority 
or minority? 
It is claimed that to abolish cropping would work a 
harm to the specialty clubs which have jurisdiction over 
it or which have adopted it. It has not been shown that 
any harm would be done. The claim is empty. It has 
not been shown that any club has adopted it. It has not 
been shown that any specialty club has jurisdiction over 
it. That is, it has not been shown aside from assumption 
and assertion. 
But the issue on cropping is not a one-sided affair. The 
question is whether cropping is so obnoxious to the fifty 
odd clubs which make the A. K. C. membership that they 
will abolish it from their jurisdiction. The practice of 
cropping may do more harm to the forty-seven that it 
can possibly do good to the two or more specialty clubs, if 
good there be. 
The fanciers of cropped ears can still enjoy their ideas 
of the beautiful regardless of the A. K, C. The latter can 
say that it considers the mutilation harmful or obnoxious, 
and will not permit cropped dogs to participate in its 
benefits. Section 655 of the Penal Code covers all the rest. 
The question when broadened is not alone whether the 
abolishing of cropping would be harmful to a few specialty 
clubs, but whether it is not harmful to all the clubs in the 
A. K. C. membership. The mutilation is not a type. It 
is not a matter over which any specialty club can sustain 
a claim to jurisdiction. As individuals, nearly all the 
croppers admit it is not right, but as club members they 
claim it should not be abolished lest it harm some one's 
financial interests; yet in their official capacity they make 
speeches in support of it, disclaiming all cruelty, and thus 
they cannot believe their own speeches, since their con- 
victions are otherwise than their speeches. 
A few skirmish on the outskirts, making wry faces, re- 
ferring to the ancients, yet steering quite clear of the 
issue and the moderns, and particularly steering wide of 
Sec. 655 of Title 16 of the Penal Code of the State of New 
York, and similar laws of all the other States. 
The ripht inheres in every organized body, which has a 
legitimate existence, that it should protect itself from un- 
friendly forces from within and without it, which may or 
do threaten its peace, safety or integrity. The A. K C. 
has that right quite as much as any other body, and exer- 
cises it. The fancy of the individual cannot be set up as 
against the public good. It would be most absurd to as- 
sume that an organization was to remain passive while 
forces affecting its peace, safety or integrity were in 
action. Nearly all public bodies w hich have been properly 
organized have specifically adopted rules against harmful 
agencies, the A. K. C. being no exception. 
And in this matter, by the way, however much we all 
may differ on the matter of cropping, let us all rejoice at 
the proper juncture with those timorous, though discreet, 
individuals who are astride the fence accumulating a 
hoarse bellow, the which to discharge later when they fall 
off pleasantly on the safe side, the successful side, whether 
it be for or against. 
Dr. Foote's Resolution. 
The resolution which is to be presented at the next A. 
K. C. meeting, and which is to abolish all mutilations 
after a certain time, is faulty in its ironclad requirements. 
There are mutilations which are justifiable and there are 
others which are accidental. It is justifiable to cut off a 
dew claw, since it is more or less a constant source of 
trouble to the dog; is often sore, yet being pendulous and 
•rudimentary, causes no serious pain in its removal or 
afterward. Rounding the ears of hounds can be defended 
on grounds of utility, as can also the docking of spaniels' 
tails. Till these matters are definitely settled, the resolu- 
tion should be qualified to read "justifiable mutilations," 
then it would conform to the law and to the humanities. 
Cropping and the Law. 
The duty of considering cropping as being opposed to 
the law of the land is unpleasant, though necessaiy. It 
is regrettable that circumstances exist which make una- 
voidable such consideration of it. It is regrettable that 
any practices in the kennel world should in the eye of 
the law be in the same category with cock-fighting, dog- 
fighting and the host of other wanton cruelties which it 
covers. There is a humiliation in discussing fashion, 
cruelty and law all under the head of cropping, when the 
law condemns it in terms too plain to be misunderstood, 
and there are dog fanciers, on the other hand, who seek 
to ignore it or dispute it. No doubt but what the law is 
not generally known, nor its sweeping force understood. 
Dog fanciers have been advocating the elevation of the 
dog to a higher place in public esteem. They have ap- 
pealed to better classes of society and have sought for the 
canine world an atmosphere of greater refinement. De- 
served success attended their efforts. The dog has grown 
more and more in public appreciation. He has been con- 
ceded an intelligence akin to that of man, and better 
than ever before the public knows that from time imme- 
morial his friendship and fidelity have been proverbial. 
In the advancement of the dog in public favor individuals 
of the kennel world have many times been convicted of 
wrong-doing, but their acts were considered individual 
and were never countenanced by organized clubs. Were 
clubs to advocate violations of law what would the effect 
be upon the public mind, aside from all consideration of 
doing right for its own sake? 
Bench shows have been great object lessons for public 
instruction. At them could be seen the dogs, their 
owners; in short, the kennel world. In the future the 
bench show has its mission as in the past. After the 
direct issue on mutilation and cruelty has been raised so 
publicly, and the law is found to be so stringently against 
it, can any club advocating mutilations hope to hold pub- 
lic favor? Will the esteem of a law-abiding public be 
with those whose law-abiding is in question? 
To the end that the law and its bearings on the subject 
may be placed in their full light before the kennel world, 
Forest and Stream recently sent a member of its staff to 
interview on this subject Mr. John P. Haines, the presi- 
dent of the American Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals. 
In this connection it will be necessary to show how 
much at variance is the law governing mutilation and 
cruelty with the law as expounded by Mr. Clifford Wood, 
delegate of the Great Dane Club, in his speech delivered 
at the recent A. K. C. meeting. It is but fair to mention 
that Mr. Wood's speech did not do him justice. As he 
disapproves of cropping it is probable that he had no faith 
in his own arguments against it. He seemed to presume 
more on a false estimate of the intelligence of his 
audience than upon sound argument, law or merit. 
In regard to the A. S. P. C. A., Mr. Wood stated that, 
on consulting the Society's counsel, he had learned that 
the Society had secured no convictions for cropping. So 
ambiguous is this statement that one is left in doubt as to 
whether the Society had tried cases and lost them or had 
not tried, or what you please. He could not mention any 
cases, no, but be knew there had been cases. In short, it 
was all vague and general; glittering irrelevancies, 
On this point Mr. Haines said that there was not the 
slightest doubt of the unlawfulness of cropping. The 
great trouble was in securing evidence. Cropping was 
done guardedly in secret, out of the public sight and the 
sight of those who would testify against it. There was 
not the slightest doubt about the meaning and efficiency 
of the law. A conviction was merely a matter of catch- 
ing the offender and securing evidence. He was quite 
sure that convictions had been secured for mutilating 
dogs. The law in its general term, "unjustifiably muti- 
lates" or "injures," covered definitely all mutilations and 
cruelties. To give the law vitality it was not necessary to 
enumerate all cruelties or mutilations specifically. 
One very important point had been settled by repeated 
decisions; that is, that fashion does not justify mutilation. 
The plea that a mutilation is a fashion or a fancy is no 
good in law. This is a very important point in reference 
to cropping. Thus to plead that it is a fashion is no de- 
fense in law, and to plead that it is a preventive of canker 
has no support from law, veterinary practice or common 
sense. 
Mr. Wood held that the English law, under Which con- 
viction and punishment were secured in England, was 
different from the law in this country. Here he is wrong 
again. The English law does not specifically mention 
cropping. The general terms of it are much like those of 
the American law. Before a conviction in England was 
made the same difficulty was encountered in obtaining 
convictions, that is, obtaining evidence. The efficacy and 
intent of the law were never in doubt. 
Mr. Wood held that the English law had nothing to do 
with the American law. Wrong again. The English 
law and decisions in these matters are recognized as pre- 
cedents in this country. But is our humane law, sup- 
ported by the sentiment of society, any different from the 
English law? Are our standards of humanity different 
from the standards of a similar race of people? It has 
been said that the matter should rest till a conviotion was 
made before cropping was abolished. A conviction has 
been made in England beyond all doubt, under a law 
similar to our own, by people who speak the same 
language as ourselves and whose interests in dog matters 
are similar and equal to and possibly greater than our 
own. 
There is no merit in obedience which comes only from 
the strong hand of the law in action. Obedience then is 
compulsory. It is much better to graciously and volun- 
tarily abolish the offensive practice. All the credit then 
would be with the dog fanciers themselves. Wait till the 
law compels obedience and the credit is not with the 
fanciers. A few who base their conclusions on the recent 
vote of the A. K. C. may think that the matter is defi- 
nitely settled. It is far from settled. That vote was but 
a beginning. Those who are interested would do well to 
think of it deeply and wisely. 
The A. K. C, instead of meddling in the matter of 
cropping unwarrantably, is endeavoring to help the 
specialty clubs and all the clubs to set themselves right 
before the world and the laws of the land. Advocacy 
which contemplates a violation of law is not a proper ap- 
peal for public countenance. 
A Test Case Desirable. 
' If a test^case were made it would undoubtedly settle the 
point definitely. If cropping is lawful and beneficent 
there is much to gain and nothing to lose in a test case. 
Mr. Haines was asked what would be the probable out- 
come of an exhibition of cropping, a test case made before 
the officers of the Society. His answer was prompt and 
earnest. He said he would arrest the man at once. He 
said further that he would give $50 reward for informa- 
tion and evidence of cropping that would lead to convic- 
tion — the direct evidence is all that is necessary to pro- 
cure conviction. 
Here now is an opportunity to act as well as talk. Take 
some cocaine and scissors and balsam and other delect- 
able things which confer so much pleasure to the dog in 
having his ears cut off, then slice away, explain that it 
makes a type and prevents canker, then take the $50 re- 
ward. The chances are a million to one that conviction 
and the penalties will follow; still they might not, for 
has not Mr. Wood said that the Society has Becured no 
convictions. 
No one will make a test case. No one dare make it. 
The affectation of belief in the law's incompetency is 
sham. The fact that dogs are cropped in secret goes to 
show a recognition of public disapproval, and the offen- 
siveness, inhumanity and unlawfulness of the mutilation. 
A Cure for Warts. 
Providence, R. I. — Editor Forest and Stream: Ham- 
den (see his cure for warts in a recent issue of Foeest and 
Stream) is evidently one of those men to whom "one 
swallow constitutes a summer." But when he has puzzled 
his brain over the uncertainty of medicines he will have 
less faith in alum water. Remedies are usually given credit 
which have produced like results in similar cases after 
repeated applications only, and to use valuable space with 
guesses reminds me of a cure for warts given me when a 
boy by an old lady. 
Her remedy was: Roast three chestnuts (and only 
three), bury them under a stone on the north side of a 
barn. I employed her remedy and kept my warts. Just 
here let me say if Hamden understood the physiological 
action of the drug he applied to the stumps of the ampu- 
tated warts or growths, namely, nitrate of silver, he then 
would see why the vegetations were removed. The silver 
applied caused an extra flow of saliva, which became in 
