FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Jan. as, 1902. 
and T went for a short trip a few miles north of where we 
live. Ihe total cost to each, including car fare, pro- 
visions and rent of furnished cottage, was about $10 each. 
We did our own work as to housekeeping and hunting. 
Une of the party killed a deer the first day and also found 
tour bears in a den. He realized from those bears just 
about eight times what his trip cost. Any one can do 
the same on a similar trip, provided they get the same 
number of bears. 
It is said that the wealthy sportsman is in favor of the 
license; the higher the better it will suit him. He does 
not have to figure on the cost of a hunting trip. He is 
the man who gives his guide $50 extra for a shot at a 
moose, or even a buck. I know of an instance where a 
sportsman shot a deer from a canoe. He was so elated 
that he at once gave the high-priced rifle with which he 
°. 1 f d , t he billing to his guide. Such men say a license 
(if high enough) will keep out a certain class of sports- 
men? I think Maine will find out that it will, and it will 
be a large class, too. 
Again, it is said the license will keep out the over- 
eager sportsman, who always shoots at any indistinct 
moving object, and, when it proves to be a' man. with 
deadly accuracy. Perhaps it will work as well as the 
manslaughter clause, but there will be this difference— 
the license will have to be paid at the start; the man- 
slaughter penalty, so far, not at all. 
Personally, it does not matter what other States en- 
force against non-residents. It is some years since I gave 
up both fishing and hunting trips to Maine and the 
Provinces. I am content with what my native State can 
furnish. Here in New Hampshire we cannot offer non- 
resident sportsmen as much as some other States. Deer 
and bear are the largest game, unless one can get into 
Corbin's Park 
Since this State adopted the Forest and Stream's 
Plank, closing the market on grouse and woodcock, the 
market shooter's day of prosperity ended. We have 
never seriously considered the licensing of non-residents 
who may come here after our larger game. We think 
they pay for what they get. Should Maine enforce the 
hunting license. New Hampshire may follow. It will be 
a case of "If I can't play in your yard, you can't in 
mine. 
' Your interesting correspondent, Special, quotes a resi- 
dent of Maine as saying, "It is a shameful fact that nine- 
tenths of the game taken out of Maine by sportsmen is 
shot by^their guides." They are registered guides, and 
as I understand, registering means the annual payment 
of a nominal price, and that each guide so registered 
was to keep a strict account of what he or the men he 
guided did in the way of killing game. Why don't the 
fathers of this guide-registering business publish the 
accounts of their children? It would be interesting read- 
ing if truly written. 
Statements are published shoAving that thousands of 
dollars are left each year in Maine bv non-resident sports- 
men, also statements that game is increasing; the railroads 
advertise it, and so do the camp-keepers. The latter 
say you are sure of your limit of deer. The inference 
is that if you can't kill it your registered guide can, and 
will. You can have all the glory by paying for it If 
the statement of the Maine resident (as quoted by 
Special) is true (for my part I think it is), the registered 
guide is the one who needs looking after. 
Instead of a license, how would it work to make all ' 
game wardens justices of the peace, and put every man 
going out of the State with game under oath as to how 
he got it? It is very easy to say to the warden at 
Bangor or other places, "This game is mine, and I am 
going out with it." Testifying that it was killed by the 
so-called owner might embarrass some of them. 
_ C. M. Stark. 
Dumbarton, N. H., Jan. IB. 
an outrage. There is no more reason why a guide should 
be forced to pay a special license tax than a farmer or a 
mechanic. If the business is a legitimate one it should 
be made free; if it is illegitimate, then it should be 
suppressed. At any rate, it is high time to call a halt in 
regard to some of the game laws that are now going on 
our statutes. In view of the fact that human beings are 
frequently shot down for game, it becomes a question if 
enforced Jaw to protect men in our forests is not quite as 
necessary as a law to protect cow moose. 
The Lacey Act. 
A Maine View of It. 
From the Lewiston, Me., Journal. 
The latest move of the Fish and Game Commission is 
the proposition to place a tax on every one who comes 
to this State for the purpose of either fishing or hunting 
a- " a ^ real , ^ any ioo] Propositions and laws 
from this source^ but tins one seems to cap the climax 
thL a ^"; dl - ty ^° n 5 °f the * reatest trees' Of wealth^ 
tX ♦ V he ste a d y stream of summer visitors who 
seek these shores and hills for a few days or weeksof 
J n and recreation. There are but few of thesTguest 
who do not like to occasionally take a fishing trip or if 
late m the season to take a run through the woods in 
quest of game To place a special tax on the™ guests 
would simply be to kill the goose that lays the gc den 
nibble on" TV/* think that Mai " e is thf only 
Pebble on the beach. There are other States that offer 
streams rt ? Wltll 13 her . ""rivaled forests, lakes and 
s .treams. The lower Provinces are fully the equal of 
Maine m this .respect, and they will be only too dad to 
welcome the visitors which we may drive a way Vermont 
o iJST Han T hire ar ? ^ bids for the^eople who 
of late have been coming to Maine. In our judgrhent 
theh recrea? on SU »^itpr s to seek other fields for 
tneir recreation, the American peop e are famous W 
rebelling against any unjust measures or petty extortion 
do sVtf 32 oVb **& c r° t0 Maine - a " d t^y wdl not 
Not on v that W ? to SUht ? h to ^ ^position 
ivot only that, but a large proportion of the neoole who 
come here for their vacation cannot afford to pay the nro 
fltese upper and nether millstones the snmLr ba3„« s o? 
Maine imirht lie ground into atpms The nJwj!T«i ■ 
stroy a large part of their yearly income 
From the Annual Report by T. S. Palmer, Acting Chief of the 
Biological Survey. 
The interest in bird protection aroused through the 
pasage of the Lacey act has extended to all classes and 
to all sections of the country. Never before has so much 
attention been given to game legislation, and intelligent 
interest in the subject has been clearly exemplified in 
the numerous improved game laws enacted at the recent 
sessions of the State Legislatures. Efforts have been 
made to place the subject on a higher plane and to secure 
greater uniformity in the laws, of adjoining States. In 
several instances these efforts, in which national organiza- 
tions have co-operated with State Legislatures and offi- 
cials, have met with marked success, as shown by the 
enactment of a practically uniform law for the protection 
of insectivorous birds in eight States and the District of 
Columbia. Greater uniformity confers a twofold benefit: 
It makes the State laws far more effective, and it 
strengthens the Federal statute which rests upon these 
local laws as a basis. Thus, it can safely be said that 
the Lacey act has been materially strengthened as a re- 
sult of the legislation of 1901. 
Additional Game Protective Legislation Necessary. 
The Federal statute has not only been the means of 
giving greater efficiency to local laws, but it has brought 
to light many weak points in both Federal and State laws 
which should be remedied by further legislation. Espe- 
cially is this true of the Federal statutes relating to 
Alaska, the Indian Territory, and the forest reserves. 
Alaska has practically no game law; the Indian Terri- 
tory is protected only by a statute enacted in 1832 which 
fails to meet modern requirements; and the forest reserves 
are greatly in need of a law which will either make them 
game preserves or provide for the establishment of game 
refuges m certain parts pf the reserves suitable for this 
purpose. These Territories and reservations constitute 
the natural ranges of most of the big game now remaining 
in the United States, and with adequate legislation may be 
made the means of preserving certain species indefinitely. 
Importation of Foreign Birds and Animals. 
With the cordial co-operation of the Treasury Depart- 
ment a system for keeping account of and exercising con- 
trol over wild animals and birds imported from foreign 
countries was devised and put into operation at the be- 
ginning of the fiscal year. Under this system, permits 
issued by the Department of Agriculture must be pre- 
sented to the proper customs officers at the port of entry 
before the animals or birds can be admitted. Large 
shipments and those containing species whose identity is 
in doubt are subject to examination by special inspectors 
and quarterly reports of actual entries from customs offi- 
cers, transmitted through the Treasury Department, fur- 
nish a check on the operation of the law. 
; In view of the fact that the law was unknown to many 
importers at the time it went into effect, that the importa- 
tions were often made at remote ports of entry, and that 
in many cases a delay of a few hours might have meant 
serious loss in the case of tropical animals arriving at 
northern ports during the winter, it is gratifying to note 
that only one or two complaints have been received of 
losses due to delay, and that for these the Department 
was not responsible. Everything possible has been done 
to facilitate . prompt entry. Arrangements have been 
made by which permits may be had on telegraphic re- 
quest, so that within an hour after the receipt of the 
request the collector of customs at any port of the United 
States can be notified that the permit has been issued 
Special inspectors, who can, when necessary, examine 
consignments immediately upon arrival, have been ap- 
posed at six of the most important ports, viz., Boston, 
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and 
ban Francisco. Finally, the list of species which may be 
imported without permits has been materially extended 
.During the first three months after the law went into 
operation, permits were required for practically all for- 
eign animals, birds and reptiles. On September 13 iqoo 
however, an order was issued by the Secretary of Api- 
culture which exempted on and after October 1 1Z00 
thirty of the largest and best known animals, three well- 
known groups of birds, and all reptiles. The object of 
this order was to avoid the trouble and annoyance inci- 
dent to securing permits for the importation of well- 
known harmless species. It was intended that this list 
should include no species that could not be identified 
without the aid of experts, but as a few animals requiring 
permits have been brought in under the names of one 
or two species m the excepted list, further slight modifi- 
cations may be necessary. 
During the year 186 permits were issued, covering the 
entry of about 350 mammals, 10,000 birds and thirty-eight 
^ Pt, i CS ; J he reptl! f S m , dude on] y those arriving during 
the first three months of the fiscal year, and the number 
of mammals is much smaller than it would be had there 
been no order of exemption. Among the birds were 626 
pheasants, 4,237 quad, about 1,000 other game birds, and 
4.147 cage birds. Among the importations of special in- 
terest may be mentioned a young giraffe from West 
Africa, several chimpanzees, and some Cuban flamingoes 
Ihe numbers given are somewhat in excess of actual 
importations. Applications for permits frequently con- 
tain merely estimates of the number of animals or birds 
expected, and, through deaths en route or failure on part 
pf foreign agents to fill orders, the number actually arriv- 
ing in any consignment .is apt to fall short of that desig- 
nated in the permit. g 
The law has accomplished the main object for which 
it was enacted, namely, the exclusion of Ihe mongoose 
and similar pests. Moreover, through its enforcement 
Certain important nformation has be*n obtained \ r^Zl 
ln gthe importation of live birds and of cage birds for 
exhibition. It appears that a considerable trade in Old 
World pheasants is conducted with the Province of 
Ontario, the birds being imported chiefly by way of 
Detroit and Niagara Falls; there is also a regular trade! 
tn live Chinese quail at the port of San Francisco, where' 
more than 4,000 birds from Hongkong were brought in 
for market purposes and sold to Chinese residents of the 
city between December, 1900, and June, 1901. Cage birds, 
are imported chiefly from Germany, Australia, China and 
Japan, through the ports of New York and San Fran- 
cisco, and many parrots from Mexico and Central Amer- 
ica are landed at New Orleans and San Diego. 
So far as known to the Department, only three speci- 
mens of the mongoose were imported during the year 
Une of these arrived at Philadelphia on the steamer 
Urania, from Jamaica, on May 20. Within twenty-four 
T^iTVf w . as . kll led and deposited as a specimen in the 
Philadelphia Academy of Sciences. A second mongoose 
reached San Francisco in June, 1901, and was promptly 
destroyed A third was reported from Los Angeles, Caf 
m June, but investigation showed that it had arrived 
several months previously from some port on the Gulf 
coast, and had died in January. So fas as known at 
present there are no live specimens of the mongoose 
in the United States, except a few in confinement in 
zoological gardens. A strict enforcement of existing 
regulations should effectually prevent the entrance of 
this or any other pest. 
Interstate Commerce in Birds Killed or Possessed in 
Violation of Local Laws. 
During the year numerous cases of violation of game 
laws have been called to the attention of the Department, 
ot which fifty-seven have received careful investigation. 
Ut those taken up, eight resulted in conviction * thirty- 
three are awaiting action by the courts, eight are still in 
the hands of the Department awaiting further evidence 
and eight have been dropped for want of evidence. These 
cases originated in twelve States and Territories, viz,, 
Arkansas Indiana, Indian Territory, Iowa, Kansas, 
Maryland Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South 
JJakota, lennessee and Texas, and involved the seizure 
of 11,040 quail, 974 prairie chickens, 387 miscellaneous 
game, and 2,608 plume birds, or a total of nearly 16,000 
birds. Of the 41 cases acted upon by this Department, 14 
were referred to local authorities and 27 were transmitted 
to the Department of Justice for prosecution in the 
federal courts. As a rule, the causes of action have 
arisen through shipment of birds killed in violation of 
local laws, and the large proportion of cases still undis- 
posed of at the close of the year is due to the fact that in 
most instances attention was not called to the offenses 
until several months after they were committed; more- 
over, it frequently happened that the most important fact 
—the shipper s name— was unknown, and the Department 
was called upon to assist in obtaining the necessary evi- 
dence, often a very slow and tedious process. 
The aid of the Department has been sought in con- 
nection with the enforcement of the provisions against 
illegal shipment of game to a greater extent than was an- 
ticipated. Such aid has been freely rendered, though it 
has been the aim to confine action merely to supplement- 
ing the efforts of local authorities, and to refer cases to 
State authorities for action, whenever possible The 
provisions of the law are such that violation of the Fed- " 
eral statute necessarily involves a previous violation of a 
local law and it is possible, therefore, to prosecute cases 
either in local or Federal courts. Whenever conditions 
have been favorable to success in State courts, or the evi- 
dence in the hands of the Department has been such as 
could be used in a prosecution in such courts, the case 
has been promptly turned over to local authorities; other- 
wise it has been referred to the Department of Justice 
In this connection mention should be made of the cor- 
dial co-operation of Federal and State officers, as well 
as railroad and express companies, game protective asso 
ciations, and various individuals. These have rendered 
every assistance in their power in the enforcement of the 
federal law. Important aid has been received from the 
Mate game commissioners or wardens of Illinois, Iowa 
Maine, and Michigan, by the American, Pacific, United 
States and Wells Fargo Express Companies, and by the 
Game and Fish Protective Association of Maryland, the 
League of American Sportsmen, and the American 
Ornithologists' Union. 
Of the cases above mentioned, fifty-four involved game 
birds and three non-game birds. The first case under 
the Lacey act reported to the Department was one in- 
volving the shipment of seventy-two young prairie 
chickens from St. Louis to Chicago in July iqoo Thes- 
birds were shipped under a cipher address, without state- 
ment of contents on the package, and were intercepted 
in transit* so that neither the carrier nor the consignee 
could be held responsible, and as the shipper could not be 
located the case was dropped. The first case acted upon 
by a Federal court involved the shipment of a small 
package of millinery samples (containing among others 
seven gulls and terns) from Brownsville, Texas, to New 
nrnn^Tr 7 7 December, iqoo. The shipper was indicted, 
promptly plead guilty, and paid his tine, and the case 
was concluded within a few weeks after it was first 
reported. 
A case which perhaps attracted more general attention 
than any other was one based on information received 
r^rrL tn P S m f nt l" ^ The Was 
referred to the local authorities in Baltimore for action 
ll/^lf d ^/ he Se , 1ZU ?' e and confi scation of 2,6oo plume 
Marvl fl nd er Th f0r m ™ ]ati ™ of the State law of 
Maryland. The case was prosecuted through three courts 
by the Maryland Fish and Game Protective Assocfatfon 
and the dealer was compelled to pay a fine of $100 anri 
costs. This action attracted widespread attention " the 
millinery trade and brought the Department into corre- 
as^citbf ^.^-V^tesale * 
eastern cities. The wholesale houses in Baltimore 
promptly withdrew gulls and terns from sale, and assur- 
ances were received from the Millinery Merchants' Pro- 
XT? IVe v A t SO p^°^ fr0rn ]e:1 ding houses in Boston 
