so 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
rjArr. 12, 1901. ' 
The Maine Game Law. 
Boston, Jan. 7.— The Massachusetts Legislature has 
assembled, but I cannot learn that any important changes 
in the fish and game laws are contemplated, and the 
marketmen are not vet mentioning any changes. The 
Ma ine Legislature came together Jan. i, but the Com- 
mittee on Fisheries and Game has not yet been an- 
nounced. Naturally Commissioner Carleton, Chairman 
of the Board of Fisheries and Game, will be tendered 
the chairmanship of that committee, since he is a member 
of the House. J. W. Brackett, of "The Maine Woods," 
will also be on the committee, without doubt. It now 
looks as though no important changes in the existing 
fish and game laws of that State would be made. Com- 
missioner Stanley is of the opinion that the laws are 
mainly well_ enough as they are. He says that the Com- 
mission believes that no more deer have been destroyed 
under the September license law than would have been 
illegally killed without it; that the law has brought in 
$3,900 for licenses. The Commission does not believe that 
any forest fires have resulted from this laAV, and this 
money has been used for fish and game protection. He 
does not believe that deer have decreased in Maine; that 
they have simply changed their location, for better feed- 
ing grounds, or for some other reason. He is very rea- 
sonable and conscientious concerning his position; says 
that the Commission has taken great pains in investigat- 
ing the subject of a decrease in the deer sitpply. Secre- 
tary Farrington's annual report says that the State has 
received for the year $2,109 for guide registration, $2,035 
for fines for violations of fish and game laws and for game 
seized and sold, $50 for taxidermists" licenses, $535 for 
camp proprietors' licenses, $3,900 for September shooting 
licenses and licenses for shipping of game without the 
ovyner accompanying it; a total of $8,429 The Com- 
mission has expended $17,834 for operation of fish hatch- 
eries and traveling expenses of the Commission, $533 for 
clerk hire, $395 for attorneys' fees, $725 for specimens 
for the State Museum, and $13,464 for the services of 
wardens; total. $32,851. He recommends that the Legis- 
lature authorize a larger amount expended for fish. He 
recommends that the Maine Fish and Game Association 
shall urge upon the Legislature adding $to,ooo to the 
fish and game fund, to be used for the better protection 
and propagation of fish and game. He very sensibly 
urges that the guides be held to stricter account to the 
State for their doings. He is aware that many come to 
Maine to kill moose and deer for market, and he suggests 
that the guides have aided in this market hvmting. He 
is right, and he would be doubly sure of his position had 
he been where he could have watched the Boston markets 
the past open season on big game in Maine. 
The Vermont Legislature, recently adjourned, made 
no important changes in the fish and game laws of that 
State. A few special enactments concerning fishing in 
certain waters were made. Special. 
New Hampshire Forests. 
Gov. Jordan^ of New Hampshire, comes from Coos 
county and appreciates the forestry situation. In his 
message to the Legislature, he sai's: 
"My lifelong residence in the north coimtry has filled 
me with a love for our beautiful hills which the passage 
of the years has only made the stronger; and I cannot 
look with unconcern upon the devastation which is being 
wrought upon them. In my judgment, the time has 
come to take positive and effective steps to assure to our 
State lor future generations those magnificent gems of 
mountain scenery which have won for our commonwealth 
the unique title of 'The Switzerland of .A.raerica.' The 
most immediately effective method of securing- the essen- 
tial benefits of forest preservation is for the State, by exer- 
cise of its power of eminent domain, to take to itself once 
more the ownership of its most desirable forest lands. Yet 
we must bear in mind the fact that these lands cannot be 
taken from their owners except for an adequate compen- 
sation. The lumber interests are great, and the greater 
they are, under present methods of operation, the worse 
it is for the State. The number of lumber plants is 831; 
capital, $12,329,843; total wages, $2,519,609; average num- 
ber employees. 8,932; value of annual product, $10907,438. 
"But there is still another method of securing the main 
features of forest preservation which may commend itself 
to your minds as equally effective, and which is not open 
to objection on the ground of expense. It lies in the 
restriction of the' operations of private land owners in 
respect to the manner in which they shall utilize the 
forest product. Such an intervention I believe to be a 
proper function of the State through the exercise of its 
power of sovereign police, which is co-extensive with 
public health, morals, social order and property rights. 
T commend this phase of the subject to your earnest at- 
tention, indulging the hope that your wisdom will guide 
to the proper action. For myself, T consider no con- 
sideration paramount to that of putting an end to the 
existing conditions which obtain in our forest properties. 
The time is ripe for New Hampshire to act. Air, water 
and forests are the richest of the natural resources of 
man. We should take good care that the first be not 
vitiated, the next polluted, nor the last destroyed." 
"Weigfhts of Game. 
Gravesend Beach. — Editor Forest and Stream: I am 
a boy near fourteen yesLVs of age. My grandfather made 
me a present of a subscription for three years of your 
paper. Two years have expired. I have read of several 
men sending you the weights of partridges they have shot. 
I was hunting rabbits last week at Cordm, Long Island. 
As a partridge took wing, I shot at him and killed him. 
They say he is a very fine one, and when weighed at the 
grocery store at my home, weighed 25 ounces. 
Clarence H. Bateman. 
Address all communications to the Fqrest and 
Stream Publishing Company. 
Proniriirtors of shooting resorfs wjU find it pTOfitable adYertm^ 
Notice. 
AH communications intended for Forest and Stream should 
always be addressed to the Forest and Stream Publishing Co., and 
not to any individual connected with the paper. 
Proprietors of fishing resorts will find it profitable to advertise 
them in Forest and Stream. 
The New York Fish Commission* 
Fram Governor OdeWs Messfige.. 
The preservation of the forests, especially as a protec- 
tion to the water supply of the State, has been one that 
has received proper attention from the Legislature, and is 
of the greatest importance. The same care has also been 
extended to the protection of the fish and game interests 
and the shellfish culture along our coasts. The steps 
taken toward this end have u-ndoubtedly resitlted in great 
benefit. 
It seems to me, however, that two boards, one charged 
with the purchase of lands and the other with their pro- 
tection, must necessarily duplicate each other's work to a 
considerable degree, and that a consolidation would re- 
sult in a large saving. The Forest Preserve Board is com- 
posed almost entirely of officials elected by the people, and 
the Fish and Game Comtnission appointees of the Gov- 
ernor. The law governing the work of the Forest Pre- 
serve Board could be amended so as to permit the selec- 
tion of a member by the Governor, by and with the con- 
sent of the Senate, who with the two State officers now 
designated should constitute the Forest Preserve Board, 
and the powers and duties of the Forest, Fish and Game 
Commission could be transferred to the Board as thus 
constituted. The importance of this suggestion is reahzed 
perhaps more fully by placing before you the appropria- 
tion made for these boards last year. There was appro- 
priated by the last Legislature for the salaries and oflicc 
expenses of the Forestry, Fish and Game Commission the 
sum of $82,875. This includes the expenses of printing 
and publication of reports, salaries of Commissioners and 
employees and other expenses incidental to the main- 
tenance of such a department, but not the maintenance of 
hatcheries and legal expenses. Aside from the sum of 
$250,000 appropriated for the purchase of lands and ex- 
penses of the Forest Presence Board, there were expended 
for other salaries and office expenses over $14000, and 
paid for additional counsel about $12,000. The legal work 
of this department should be performed by the Attorney- 
General. 
The saving of expenses which would undoubtedly fol- 
low consolidation, amounting probably to $35,000, is cer- 
tainly enough to warrant careful consideration upon the 
part of the Legislature, and such legislation as will lead 
to this result is recommended. 
Public and Private Waters, 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
I have read with much interest the reply of F. A. C. 
in your issue of Dec. 15 to my article relating to public 
fash in private waters. 
I am inclined to think that people generally, including 
your correspondent, are apt to be mistaken as to the rights 
of riparian owners and as to the rights of the public in the 
waters of streams which are essentially private, and I 
may in the near future call further attention to the laws 
of this State and the decisions of our courts on these 
points. 
I desire, however, to correct at the present time what 
seems to me to be a manifest error in the communication 
from F. A. C, and that is in regard to his classification of 
rivers and streams. 
In his article he states that water courses, not including 
ponds and lakes, may be loosely divided into three im- 
portant classes: i. Those in which the tide ebbs and 
flows. 2. Navigable rivers and streams. 3. Streams not 
navigable. 
As to the first, he is correct, and that includes but one 
stream in this State — ^the Hudson River up to the city of 
Troy. 
His second classification, "Navigable rivers and 
streams," strictly speaking, would include but few 
streams, and all of them too short for serious considera- 
tion. 
Outside of the Hudson River the rivers and streams of 
this State should be classified as follows: 
First. Those which are navigable, and that includes, as 
the word "navigable" implies, streams "which may be 
navigated or passed in ships or vessels" (Webster). 
Second. Streams not navigable with boats, but which 
are subject to certain easements or privileges acquired by 
user. This includes all those streams or parts of streams 
which for years have been owned in fee by the riparian 
owners, subject to the easement or right of certain per- 
sons to float or drive logs down the streams when the 
waters permit, either to saw mills located below or for 
the purpose of forming into rafts for shipping them to 
market. 
In these streams the public has no right, and the ease- 
ments are confined to those owning or occupying lands on 
or adjacent to the streams through which alone their logs 
or lumber can be driven. There are but few of these 
streams now remaining in this State, at least outside of 
the North Woods, and the noted streams rising in or 
flowing from the lower water shed of the State of Ncav 
York have never been subject to this easement except in 
two or three cases, and then to a very limited extent, and 
if this classification is correct, then the third class, "streams 
Which are not navigable or subject to an easement or right 
by user," will include most of the streams in the State of 
New York. 
I quite agree with F, A. C. as to the right which a per- 
son has in the public highway, when he says that no 
person has "the right to dig bait by the roadside- without 
the consent of htTO who owns to the middle of the road" — 
that would be tr-eapa^ss ; but no peVson claiming the rifht to 
use t-l^^ l^ighwaiK; wo.ui4 have the right ^istxihut^-'^l^^g 
or in it snakes and skunks, for that would pollute it and 
injure the value of the adjacent lands, and the same rule 
applies to streams which belong to the riparian owners, 
subject to easements or rights acquired by user. No 
person floating down a stream of this kind on a raft of 
logs has the right to take a fish which might be in the 
waters flowing over the lands of the riparian owner, for 
that would be trespass, nor to deposit in these waters big- 
mouthed black bass or carp, for that would pollute them 
and injure the value of the adjacent land, and the same 
rule applies to the public, which is simply an aggregation 
of individuals. But after all, this side discussion, in which 
we differ on some points, does not settle tlie principal 
question which I raised in my communication, and that 
was, What do the Commissioners mean by public and 
what by private waters ? They can easily define what they 
mean by these terms, but so far as I have been able to 
find out, they have never done so. 
I have written this article with great hesitancy, fearing 
that I might be regarded as not being in sympathy with 
the good work which has been and is being done in this 
State. But then there has been bad work, fearfully bad 
work, done in the past also, for which neither the present 
Commis sioners nor Mr. A. N. Cheney are in any way 
responsible. 
Some years ago the supervisors of this county appointed 
a committee on fish, which continued for three years, and 
of which the writer was chairman. We carefully ascer- 
tained the nature of every considerable pond and stream 
in the county and restocked many of them with the fish 
natural to_ them, and never permitted any waters to be 
stocked with fish which might destroy or be injurious to 
the native fish, and in this we respected the rights of 
riparian owners. On the other side of the Hudson River 
the fish have never been furnished to a committee, but 
direct from the State on individual application, and it has 
resulted in a wholesale destruction of private streams 
and waters, including scores of miles of the finest trout 
streams of the lower water shed of this State. 
Perhaps it may be as well right here and now to go to 
the bottom of this whole business of stocking the waters 
of this State with fish. 
In the latter part of the fifties I was interested with a 
friend in the propagation of brook trout, and he suc- 
ceeded, as I remember, before Mr. Seth Green engaged in 
it, but he had the State behind him, and the result was 
that for a time the small concerns did not as a rule find 
the hatching of trout profitable. 
Since then I have kept in pretty close touch with what 
has been done toward the stocking of the waters x)i this 
State, and, in fact. otiiU of our States and of Canada. 
The interest creat^^ by the success of Seth Green was 
followed by an interest in legislation, but as any one will 
see who will take the trouble to look over our old game 
and fish laws, running back say thirty years or more, there 
has never been any ef^ort made to protect or increase our 
common food fishes, and by these I mean suckers, yellow 
perch, pickerel and other fishes commonly found in our 
small ponds and ordinary streams, and yet these fish have 
in the past furnished not only sport but food to thou- 
sands of the people living in the country districts. Their 
rights and interests, however, have never been consulted, 
but our legislation has been mostly in favor of individuals, 
and clubs, and the owners of preserves who have prac- 
tically controlled in their own interest nearly all the legis- 
lation of this State. 
In 1894 the Senate Committee on Fish and Game visited 
the principal parts of this State with a view to suggest- 
ing amendments to the law, and at my suggestion they 
endeavored to ascertain what had been done toward the 
propagation or protection of common food fishes. 
The universal answer was, no:hing, coupled in many 
instances with the statement that private waters and 
streams had been largely destroyed because the State, 
without the consent of the riparian owners, had stocked 
these waters with destructive kinds of fish. 
The owners of the thousands of miles of private streams 
in this State cannot combine for their protection, and the 
resuk is that these streams as they bought them and have 
the right to own them haye been forever destroyed. 
Some six years ago I was before the Senate Committee 
on Fish and Game and said to them substantially, "Gentle- 
men, there has never been any legislation in this State 
looking to the protection or increase of our common food 
fish such as suckers, pickerel, perch, sunfish, etc., which 
abound naturally in all of our ponds and streams, and 
which are prized for sport and food by thousands of our 
farmers and their laboring men, and they get just as much 
sport in taking them on an off day, or after the day'i; 
work is over, as the accomplished angler does in taking 
trout or salmon with the fly, to say nothing of the amount; 
of food which they furnish for the farmer's table, and I 
beg you to consider the rights and comfort of this great 
body of our citizens, and at least protect the private 
waters owned by them from injury or destruction by the 
introduction of other fish under the pretense of stocking 
public waters without the knowledge or consent of the 
owners." 
I also called their attention particularly to the fact that 
the whitefish industry in Lake Ontario had in the past 
yielded an annual income claimed to be over $200000, yet 
this fish had been practically destroyed, and that no effort 
had been made to replenish this lake with this most 
magnificent food fish. 
To show how far I was then correct in my statement, I 
refer to the following extract from a most exhaustive 
article read by Mr. Frank N. Clark, of Northville, Mich., 
at the meeting of the American Fisheries Society held in 
July last at Wood's Holi, entitled "Methods and Results 
in Connection with the Propagation of Commercial Fishes 
for the Great Lakes," and in which he says, referring to 
this State, "Fewer whitefish fry have been planted in 
Lake Ontario than in any other of the great lakes; the 
value of its commercial fisheries suffers proportionately. 
The whitefish fishermen have practically abandoned the 
lake." 
In 1889 I visited Fort Niagara at the head of Lake On- 
tario, stopping at the hotel on the Canadian side, and we 
had Cisco only, the landlord informing us that the white- 
fish had practically disappeared from the lake years be- 
fore, and that he had erased trying to get them. 
Some years ago a inoyei;ne^t was started in Rochester 
for the purpose of protecting and restoring our food fish, 
but why showU it^ aecessaify fop ^.rivate indiviidu;$i.ls tfj ' 
