110 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Feb. 8, 1902. 
through their respective representatives that some action 
be taken during the present session, establishing certain 
winter preserves where the wildfowl can have two undis- 
turbed winter homes free from the hunter, one on the 
Atlantic and one on the Gulf Coast. If Congress would 
pass an act prohibiting the taking or killing in any man- 
ner of wildfowl within certain territory on each of the 
above mentioned coasts during the winter, say from 
November until 'May, it would seem that extermination 
might be prevented, and if this is not done, it can be 
but a few years before our wildfowl, like the wild pigeon, 
will be but a matter of history. 
I do not hunt wildfowl, preferring the upland sport, 
yet I feel sad to know how rapidly our wild ducks are 
disappearing. 
And now, your paper, I hope, with the other sports- 
man papers, will take this matter up, and not allow it to 
rest until we have protection for the wildfowl in their 
southern winter home. 
I feel confident that President Roosevelt would be 
pleased to put his signature to such an act of Congress. 
Let every sportsman and every one who loves the wild- 
fowl, so that he and future generations may continue in 
the taking of them, see that his representative in Congress 
knows his wishes and that he urges him to act accord- 
ingly. Wildfowl. 
Rochester, N. Y„ Jan. 31. 
Massachusetts Deer. 
Robert O. Morris in Springfield Republican, 
The Virginia deer, Cervus virginianus, after an ab- 
sence of nearly 80 years, has returned to its former home 
in Western Massachusetts, and residents of every hill 
town report their presence in constantly increasing num- 
bers, and occasionally one is observed in the river towns. 
The reappearance of the deer here is probably due mostly 
to the protection awarded them in Vermont for the past 
10 years, which has been the means of producing a large 
increase in numbers in that state, and many have wander- 
ed south into Western Massachusetts. The Revolutionary 
War was one of the causes of the extermination of deer 
in this vicinity. At that time there grew up a great de- 
mand for the skin of this animal, to be used for making 
buckskin breeches for soldiers, and at the same time on 
account of the war, firearms became much more com- 
monly used, and the men of that day became, with their 
^greater practice, better marksmen. 
I regret to see a disposition on the part of some of the 
farmers to prejudice people against this interesting and 
valuable animal, and some of the most ridiculous charges 
against it are made and published. One man claims that 
his Seckel pears have been eaten by deer. He is un- 
doubtedly mistaken: the real culprit is probably the red 
squirrel. These little rodents will pass by all other fruit 
trees until they reach one of this kind. They seem to 
have a voracious appetite for the seed of this fruit, and 
for the purpose of gratifying this taste will make a tree 
of this kind their feeding place as long as one pear is 
left. 
Another man said that deer had eaten up a field of cab- 
bages. This is very unlikely. It would be contrary to 
their usual habits for deer to eat this vegetable. Neither 
pears nor cabbages are the favorite food of deer. They 
feed largely on bark and buds of trees and are particularly 
fond of the aquatic plants that grow along the margins 
of ponds. I suppose they may occasionally do a little 
harm m some way, like every mammal and bird, but 
I cannot but believe that if it were possible to keep an 
actual account of their good and bad attributes, the 
balance would be largely in their favor. 
We have had very little experience with them here in 
our generation, but our ancestors in Western Massa- 
chusetts and elsewhere in the state had them as neighbors 
for nearly 200 years, and by the tenor of the laws they 
passed regarding them, we must believe that they con- 
sidered them as animals worthy of the best protection 
pearly as 1693. the Puritans finding, as they expressed 
it, the killing of deer at unseasonable times of the year 
very much to the prejudice of the province, great num- 
bers having been hunted and destroyed in deep snows" 
they enacted the first game laws of Massachusetts, mak- 
ing it unlawful to kill deer between the 1st of January 
* * 1S « J U X under a penalty of 40 shillings for 
the first offense, j£ 3 for the second, and £5 for the third, 
and if the offending person was unable to pay this he 
was to be set to work until the fine was paid. Two years 
later the open season was shortened. In 1718 a law was 
enacted by the General Court, providing for a close season 
for three years, prefixmg to the text of the law this re- 
Snir ^ h £ rCaS ' the depth 0f snows in some lafe 
winters hath been so great a s hath occasioned the des- 
truction of a great part of the deer in this province to 
fnVTrn^t^ saic * creature (*hich is both harmless 
IE ™y Preserved and increased." In 
at^ic Vver ' X f ° r k,1Img , 3 d l er ollt of seaso " was fixed 
in M^chZ i ge SUm f °- r t J hose ^ and each ^n 
men to enfnr^ V Va i S re( * UIre / appoint two discreet 
leased [ -Sd \ L ll^i i" d m 1763 their P ower was 
increased and the name of deer reeves was given to them 
ItjtTktrlZ*?* f ft? t0 T S -° f wfsIefn^Massa: 
?n t!tR%£ M the , fact of T the election of these officers 
M ulftSff Legislature passed a law mlk- 
w g 1 " nJawtuI to kill deer m Hampden, Hampshire ari r1 
Franklin counties for the term of five years 
decessorsTere Z'SV* the h V P^d'by our pre- 
aecessors here, mostly farmers, who had a life Tntio- *v 
At tS nresent^S ^ tHey P Ut l ?° n these ^imals 
/vc me present time many spec es of birds are unitmHv 
condemned by some nennle ; fl L 1 unjustly 
as deer A fnrn?^ P lu !, same car eless manner 
rib aeer. a tarmer told me that he was ha vine- the nio-hf 
MLS 
fond of young poultry. ' ey are Ver ^ 
I was once on the mountains west of Westfield when 
in^^&^^T^ a - ? a " ^o was'sfand" 
ing near shook his fist at him, with this exclamation- 
I would hke to get your scalp for kill nf my hem" ; 
N§1T, <1 H fow* M ever 1« W 0 , gj^ 
exception ; his favorite diet is not of that order ; frogs, 
mice, snakes and insects furnish his daily bill of fare, 
and he renders valuable service in destroying some of the 
large moths that are the great enemies of shade trees. 
The Cooper's hawk would be the bird most likely to have 
destroyed these hens. 
I heard a sportsman say to his victim, as he ended the 
life of a red-shouldered hawk that he had wounded and 
captured : " This will stop your killing quail around 
here." The poor hawk had probably never tasted quail 
in his life, unless he had run across a dead or crippled 
one. They are not quick enough to catch a healthy quail 
if they wished, and in an indirect way they are protectors 
rather than destroyers of this game bird, as the red- 
shouldered hawk often kills black snakes, which are great 
destroyers of the eggs of quail, as well as of other birds, 
and many a nest is broken up by them. Goshawks, 
Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks, are the only kinds in 
this vicinity that destroy quail in any appreciable num- 
ber. 
All these things teach us that we should not too speed- 
ily condemn either beast or bird ; we have none too many. 
There is no living thing that will not occasionally do 
some harmful act, even the most useful bird may destroy 
a beneficial insect, but if all have a fair trial and the faults 
and virtues of each bird or beast are well understood, 
public opinion would condemn very few. 
One of the principal attractions of the country, to many, 
is the wild life : there found, and without that, to some 
it would be dreary enough. The sight of a deer bound- 
ing over a distant field, a hawk sailing gracefully in the 
air. a gull wheeling over an expanse of water, — all such 
things add beauty and interest to the landscape. 
The Maine License Proposition 
Boston, Feb. 3. — Interest continues in the suggestion 
made by Commissioner Carleton to require non-resident 
sportsmen to pay a license to hunt in Maine. Former vis- 
itors to that State are discussing the proposition. The 
Maine papers are full of articles, all generally leaning 
against a license, except such as would create an exclu- 
sive hunting aristocracy, and except the residents of that 
State who are willing that non-residents should pay the 
cost of fish and game protection. The writers suggest 
many features; some of them novel, to say the least. 
One is to make hunters pay for every head of game 
they kill; say, $2 for deer and $ro for moose. This plan 
would not be obnoxious like a license system; the free 
American idea would not object. The successful hunter 
would cheerfully pay a small fee toward the care of the 
game in a State where he has been successful, while the 
unsuccessful hunter would go home without the feeling 
of disgust that having paid for a license and got nothing 
naturally inspires. Another suggestion is to tax every 
rifle taken into the State, as well as require residents to 
pay a moderate gun tax; no rifles to be allowed in hun- 
ters' hands in close season. 
Mr. H. M. Widney, of St. Jo, the general manager of 
the celebrated Indiana party, has been drawn out in a 
letter to the Maine Woods. He declares that he managed 
a party of law-abiding citizens of his State who greatly 
enjoy sport in the Maine woods; but he does not like 
being misrepresented as his party has been misrepresented 
by Senator Macfarlane. He says that he does not wish 
to take up the license question, pro or con, but that a 
reasonable, true sportsman would not object to a reason- 
able license justly imposed. "But if exorbitant laws 
are passed, you will be likely to meet opposition you have 
not thought of, namely, a contest in the United States 
courts. It has been the opinion for some time that laws 
granting one citizen of this grand, free country of ours 
privileges that you tax others for, is, in substance, class 
legislation; or, in other words, tariff for revenue between 
States, and, if contested and carried to the United States 
Supreme Court, could not stand the test." As to the 
statements of Senator Macfarlane concerning the num- 
ber of deer killed by his party, Mr. Widney says that 
they are entirely wrong. He says : "Not caring to travel 
1,100 miles for a day's sport, we aimed to be choice as 
to what we killed, and only as a last resort did we draw 
a bead on anything smaller than a well-formed buck." 
He says of their guide, Mr. F. L. Shaw: "He was always 
on the alert to have all of the boys enjoy the time, but at 
the same time cautioning all to keep within the limit of 
the law. We certainly honor the gentleman for his good 
and true citizenship." Special. 
The New York Game Law, 
We commented last week on the decision of Justice 
O'Gorman in the cold storage case, and pointed out that 
the text of Sec. 33 of the game law actually protected 
all wild birds except named species, and the birds for 
which there is an open season. Under the law as it 
stands, birds having an open season may be taken only 
under authority of a naturalist's permit. The section un- 
der review reads : 
Sec. 33 [as amended 1901].— Wild birds (other than the English 
sparrow, crow, hawk, crane, raven, crow-blackbird, common black- 
bird, kingfisher, and birds for which there is no open season), shall 
not be taken or possessed at any time, dead or alive, except under 
the authority of a certificate issued under this act. No part of the 
plumage, skin or body of any bird protected by this section shall 
be sold or had in possession for sale. 
We have received from a correspondent, who, being a 
member of the bar, is familiar with the construction of 
statutes, the subjoined comment upon the subject. It 
will be seen that this writer arrives at the same conclu- 
sions that were expressed in our last issue, except that 
he appears to have read Sec. 30 hastily, for there is in 
it no provision respecting possession. Our correspondent 
writes: 
The question is purely one on the construction of the 
English language. I am of the opinion that while the 
two words "am" and "no" are grammatically antithetical, 
that, in the construction of these two sections, the sub- 
stitution of "no" for "an" in the section mentioned, 
works no injury and leaves the law whole. 
Let us chart this seeming paradox, starting with the 
1000 law. Section 33 of Chapter 741 of the laws of 1900 
reads as follows} "CeTtain wild birds protected: Wild 
birds QtjtySf \h$$ tfc^ ?ngU$ sparrow, crow^ hawk, * * 
kingfisher and birds for which there is an open season, 
shall not be taken or possessed at any time, dead or 
alive, except under the authority of a certificate issued 
under this act. No part * * * etc." 
This is plain. "Other than" means in this section a 
division of ene class from another, and wild birds are put 
in a class opposed to that containing the English sparrow, 
crow, etc., and birds for which there is an open season. 
Split the sentence up and it reads: Wild birds shall not 
be taken or possessed at any time dead or alive, etc., 
but this shall not apply (this being the equivalent of 
"other than") tothe English sparrow, crow, hawk, etc., 
and birds for which there is an open season. Section 30 
opens the season on plover, etc., therefore that they class 
with the sparrow and others, so far as this section is 
under discusion, is a fair grammatical construction of 
Section 33. 
In the laws of 1901, Section 30 remains practically in- 
tact. Section 33, however, undergoes the metamorphosis 
alluded to by Justice O'Gorman by substituting "no" for 
"an," as indicated above. Let us now reduce this sen- 
tence to its lowest terms by the same process of elision. 
Wild birds (elide that portion of the section from 
"other than" to "season") shall not be taken or pos- 
sessed at any time dead or alive, etc. This certainly pro- 
tects wild birds. _ Then substituting "but this shall not 
apply" for its equivalent "other than," we have remaining 
in the section-sentence this: But this shall not apply to 
the English sparrow, crow, etc., and birds for which 
there is no open season. But there is an open season for 
plover, etc., and therefore they are excluded from the class 
denominated wild birds and included in the class with 
the English sparrow, etc. 
This leaves them, under that section, without protec- 
tion, but fortunately Section 30 is still law, and by the 
provisions of that section they cannot legally be killed 
or possessed from May 1 to August 31. 
Amicus Curiae. 
Pokt Richmond, N. Y., Jan. 27. 
The Chesapeake Bay Dog* 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
By a mischance, which I greatly deplore, certain in- 
teresting examples of intelligence in this breed of 
dog were omitted from the chapter on this breed in my 
recently published book, "American Duck Shooting." The 
first of these deals with a dog owned by Mr. J. G. Mor- 
ris, of Ea'ston, Md. 
Mr. Morris was shooting from a floating blind not far 
from the shore, and his dog on the shore was gathering 
the birds as they fell, taking them to the land and putting 
them in a pile there. Mr. Morris' blind was just off a 
fence, which ran down into the water between two fields. 
The dog had made his pile of ducks close to this fence, 
and near the water's edge. In the same field with the 
dog and the ducks were confined some young cattle, and 
the path which they used to go to water passed close to 
the fence against which the dog had collected the ducks, 
by which he lay. 
As the day went on, the young cattle, following this 
path, attempted to go down to water, but when they 
approached the dog he got up and drove them away. This 
was repeated several times, for the cattle persisted in 
coming down to the water by their usual path, and the 
dog would by no means permit them to approach his pile 
of ducks. At last the situation became so annoying to 
the dog that he rose to his feet, took a duck in his 
mouth, jumped over the fence into the adjoining field, and 
leaving the duck there, jumped back and got another 
one, and continued this until he had transferred all the 
ducks to the other side of the fence, when he again lay 
down by them. The next time the cattle attempted to 
come down the path to water, the dog paid no attention 
to them, but permitted them to go down and drink. 
To my mind, this was a clear case of the reasoning out 
by the dog of a special remedy for a set of conditions 
that were entirely new to him, and so ijg very well worth 
putting on record. 
A second incident took place on a marsh in Currituck 
Sound, where my friend Mr. C. R. Purdy was shooting. 
Harrison, the watchman for the marsh, had a dog named 
Grover, that he had reared from a puppy, and kept with 
him on the island. He was a useful animal to Harrison, 
and brought him an income of perhaps $75 to $100 a sea- 
son from the sale of the cripples which he recovered. 
Harrison was accustomed to shove around the marsh 
morning and evening, letting the dog run along the shore 
while he pushed his light skiff close to the shore. When- 
ever the dog crossed the trail of a cripple that had gone 
into the marsh, he would follow it, bring the bird out and 
deliver it to Harrison. In this way each week a consider- 
able number of birds were recovered, which otherwise 
would have gone to feed the minks and the coons. 
On the particular occasion referred to the birds were 
flying very well. Flock after flock of widgeon were 
coming up to the decoys in the narrow pond, where Mr. 
Purdy was tied out, and a number of birds were being 
killed. The flocks came so frequently that it was im- 
possible to recover the wounded birds, which fell in the 
marsh, but the gunner, his boatman and Harrison watched 
them, and counted five that went down at different dis- 
tances before the flight lulled. When the birds stopped 
flying, the dog, without a word from any one, started 
off across the pond and into the. marsh, and making five 
trips, brought back to the blind five widgeons, which he 
had marked down and recovered. Then he lay down by 
his pile of ducks. 
To any one familiar with the work of these dogs, the 
accurate marking down of the birds will not appear re- 
markable. But that he should have made five trips and 
brought five birds — all that there were — and then should 
have stopped, does seem odd. Those who witnessed the 
performance believe that he counted the birds, and knew 
when he had brought them all, but perhaps it is not neces- 
sary to assume this. 
What seems possible enough is that the dog, having 
marked down these birds, may have carried in his mind 
the different directions in which they went, and have 
remembered them all. For a man, this would be a difficult 
task, but it must be remembered that the dog had all his 
life been accustomed to doing just this thing, and the 
recalling of the several spo\s in, w^h, the, hirds &U may 
h,a.ye been, natural ei\oujjh. 
