Feb. 28, 1903.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
167 
Pheasants, Ducks, 'Migrating 
Squirrels. 
Bditor Forest and Stream: 
The Forest and Stream copies from the Utica 
'Observer a complaint of, let us hope the editor, and 
5iot the former, of the damage that is being done by 
(the Efil^lish pheasant; they are stealing all the chicken 
iJeed, This is a terrible state of affairs— for the chick- 
«ens> Some farmers I have in mind would get around 
•tints trouble by feeding both pheasants and chickens. 
Tlie average farmer where I was raised did not be- 
•grudge a little chicken feed, even if the birds and not 
the chickens got it. I have seen one of these farmers 
carry out feed or send me out with it to leave it where 
Bob White could get it. Let those New York farm- 
ers feed their pheasants until the law is off on them 
a year or two from now; then they will have them to 
shoot if they want them,- if not some of their friends 
will no doubt be glad to do the shooting for them. 
What those pheasants have eaten will never be missed, 
when the farmer comes to balance his books at the 
end of the year. It may happen that the birds may 
repay that farmer next summer for their feed; they 
may clean up a lot of insects for him that otherwise 
would destroy something for him that is of more 
value than chicken feed. 
It is curious how soon these birds find out that we 
■are not going to shoot them. Our ducks here furnish 
a good example of that; a week before the season 
closes it is almost impossible to get within gun shot 
of them; a few weeks after the law is on they could 
be killed with a club. 
A good many of them nest on the peninsula across 
the harbor from Erie, and come out on the bay to 
feed in shallow water. I have often paddled a small 
boat almost on top of a ilock of them before they 
would fly, and if I lay down in the boat and let it 
drift down to them I could get close enough to throw 
water on them. 
That squirrel migration across the Mississippi River 
actually took place. I was on, the river at the time 
coming up from New Orleans on a boat; and although 
I did not see it I was told all about it. Whether any 
one caught them by the tails or not I' do not know. 
They would have to be pretty well water soaked before 
I would catch any of them now. I once took a con- 
tract to get a lady a pair of young red squirrels; she 
wanted a male and a female; I got her four of them, 
but they left mj hands in the hospital for a week after- 
wards. Cabia Blanco. 
[Cabia Blanco tells us that this is Comanche for 
"'White Pony."] 
The Flying SquittcL 
This beautiful species is extremely variable; and 
several species are recognized by most writers on natural 
history. Mr. J. A. Allen, in "Monograph of North 
American Rodentia," recognizes one species with two 
varieties. "There is," says Mr. Allen, "no break in the 
sequence from north southward, either in size, color, or 
other characters, by which the group can be subdivided 
either specifically or varietally." 
As the flying squirrel is nocturnal in its habits, there 
are many gaps in our knowledge of its wavs and methods 
of life. 
On the evening of January 28, 1903, while observing 
the gambols of two flying squirrels kept for exhibition in 
the front portion of Mr. Carl Merkel's drug store at 
Charles City, Iowa, I observed an attribute of this species 
which I had never known before, and which I am not 
sure has ever before been published. 
- The two little animals were exceedingly playful, one 
of them especially. This one often amused itself in 
various ways, and would glide over the surface of the 
smooth polished perpendicular glass of the large show 
windows (perhaps 6x12 feet in size), and again would 
stop and remain stationary for a little while on the glass. 
At other times it would move slowly and leisurely. At 
all times, however, it lifted each foot from the polished 
surface by a quick, jerky motion, as though attached to 
it by suction, which it doubtless was. 
It would be interesting to hear, through the pages of 
Forest and Stream, from others having personally ob- 
served the habits and ways of this beautiful little animal. 
Clement S. Webster. 
Charles City, la. 
Pwrple Sandpipers? 
Prince's Bay, Staten Island, N. Y., Feb. 20. — On the 
i8th, when the thermometer was 13 degrees above zero, 
about 100 snipe were seen in a bunch trying to feed along 
the beach. The birds were short necked, very dark 
backs and short bill. They uttered a sort of tweet, tweet, 
as they ran around on the icy beach It was a very un- 
usual sight at this time of year. I Avould like to know 
what kind of snipe they were. A, 
[The description is, of course, too vague for us to 
identify the birds. We suggest that these may have been 
purple sandpipers (Tringa maritima), a seacoast species 
of north distribution found only very rarely as far south 
as New York.] 
The Ohio Wild Bird Law. 
From the Cincinnati Enquirer, Feb. 1, 
Benjamin Nelson, a well-known Fifth street merchant was 
found guilty by a jury in Squire McElfresh's court at Winton 
Place yesterday of exposing for sale an American "wild bird other 
than a game bird," and was fined $50 and costs. 
This is the first trial and conviction under the new law, which 
was passed by the last Legislatvire forbidding the sale of Ameri- 
can birds of song and plumage for millinery pvirpose^. 
About two weeks ago the State Game Warden sent out orders 
to his deputies to seize all birds exposed for sale in millinery 
stores. Following this order, raids were made in Columbus. 
Toledo and this city. 
About a dozen downtown millinery establishments in this city 
were visited by Deputy Game Warden Charles I. Ryan and his 
assistant, Mr. Hennessy, and in each of the places birds which 
were offered to them for sale were seized, to be held as evidence. 
Warrants were sworn out later before Squire MeEIfresh, at Win- 
ton Place, and all the defendants gave bop4s for their appearance- 
It was decided by Chas. J. Fitzgerald, attorney for the Cuvier 
Club, and the State Game Warden to try each case separately. 
Mr. Nelson's case was selected as the first case to be tried, and 
after several continuances, the case was definitely set for trial 
by jury yesterday. 
Meanwhile the Toledo cases had been tried and disposed of in 
the Common Pleas Court of Lucas county. That court held that 
any birds seized under the new law could not be confiscated as 
are game birds when offered for sale out of season, thoxigh they 
might be held as evidence. The court also ruled that milliners 
who came into possession of birds before the law went into effect 
could not be held. Upon this latter ruling the Toledo defendants 
escaped punishment, each claiming that he had possession of the 
birds before the law went into eiTect. 
The Cincinnati defendants placed considerable dependence and 
confidence in the finding of the Lucas county Common Pleas 
Court, but this finding was entirely upset by Squire McElfresh 
yesterday on his charge to the jury. As Squire McElfresh in- 
terprets the law the possession of or offering for sale of any 
American wild bird other than a game bird is a violation of the 
law, and this finding, if sustained by the upper courts, means that 
the sale of birds for any other than scientific purposes in Ohio 
must cease. 
Nearly all the prominent downtown milliners were present at 
Mr. Nelson's trial yesterday. Attorney Nichols, for Mr. Nelson, 
sought to have the case dismissed on the ground that the affi- 
davit upon whicli the defendant was arraigned was faulty. This 
motion was overruled, and Deputy Game Warden Ryan was called 
for the State. 
He related how he ind Tiis assistant, Hennessy, had called at 
Mr. Nelson's store, and asked to be shown some birds for decora- 
tive purposes. He selected from a number of dead birds two 
birds dyed red, and one which proved to be a black tern, which 
he still held as evidence. He gave receipts for the birds he had 
seized, and told Mr. Nelson for what purpose he had seiz-ed them. 
The cross-examination sought to show that the black tern, or 
what remained of it, was not in fact a bird, but the plumage of 
one. Assistant Deputy Warden Hennessy corroborated the testi- 
mony of his superior. Prof. Charles Dury, the naturalist and 
taxidermist, qualified as an expert, and pronounced the bird 
offered in evidence a black tern. The cross-examination was 
again directed to show that what was offered in evidence was not 
a bird, but the plumage of one. Answering the question of a 
juror. Prof. Dury testified that the plumage offered in evidence 
was what was once a live bird. 
With this testimony the State closed its case. The defense then 
moved to instruct the jury to acquit on the grounds, first, that 
the bird submitted in evidence was not a bird, but only the part 
of one, which is not mentioned in the statute forbidding the 
sale of birds; second, that the State had failed to prove its case 
because the affidavit charged that the defendant had oiTered for 
sale three birds, while only one was offered in evidence; third, that 
the State had failed to show that the birds whicli were seized 
w^ere in illegal possession of the defendant. This latter ground 
was the one upon which the Toledo defendants were dismissed, 
but Squire McElfresh overruled the motion to dismiss. The de- 
fense then raised the point that the bird tern is not mentioned 
by the statute in the list of wild birds which must not be offered 
for sale. Mr. Fitzgerald read the statute which, after naming a 
number of native wild birds, says, "or any other wild bird other 
than a game bird." He contended that this provision included 
the tern, and he sought to recall Prof. Dury to prove that the 
tern is "a wild bird other than a game bird." This was bitterly- 
contested by the defense as unlawful, but Mr. Fitzgerald pro- 
duced an authority allowing his motion, and it was granted. Prof. 
Dury then testified that the tern is "a wild bird other than a game 
bird," which brought it clearly within the meaning of the statute. 
In his charge Squire McElfresh instructed the jurors, and 
cautioned them to bear in mind that the fact that the birds may 
have been in possession of the defendant before the law went into 
effect must cut no figure in the verdict. He told them that if they 
found that Mr. Nelson had offered for sale any "wild bird" or 
"the plumage of any wild bird other than a game bird," they 
must find the defendant guilty. 
The jury was out about five minutes, and returned a verdict 
of guilty. Squire McElfresh read the statute, which fixes the 
punishment at not less than ?25, nor more than $200. He then 
assessed a fine of ifoO and costs, which will aggregate over $100. 
The defense fought for a stay of execution, which was protested 
against by the State on the ground that the Squire had no such 
power. Mr. Fitzgerald insisted upon execution being taken at 
once and sending the defendant to jail if the fine was not paid. 
The defense dared the State to go to such an extreme. Squire 
McElfresh finally allowed the defense ten days to prepare a bill 
of exceptions, and agreed to hear arguments on the motion 
Wednesday morning. 
He allowed Mr. Nelson to go without requiring a new bond. 
This over, the defense demanded the birds which had been seized 
by Deputy Game Warden Ryan, but Attorney Fitzgerald refused 
to allow him to give them up, saying that thev will be offered for 
evidence in the Common Pleas Court, to which the finding of the 
jury will be appealed. There were intimations of an action for 
damages by the defense. 
Considerable bad feeling was shown on both sides, and the 
prosecution of the other cases that are pending may develop 
something more than warm words. 
§mie §^g md gum 
— ® — 
Proprietors of shooting resorts will find it profitable to advertise 
them in Forest and Stream. 
Ontario Fish and Game. 
A paper read by Edwin Tinsley, Secretary and Chief Warden 
of the Ontario Game Commission, before the North American 
Fish and Game Protective Association. 
Since our last meeting good progress has been made in 
the great public work in which our Association is actively 
engaged. It gives hope for the future for game pro- 
tection, when so many States are abolishing the bar- 
barous practice of spring shooting, and prohibiting the 
sale of many valuable and decreasing species of game. 
Recent action has been taken to procure concerted 
measures for the better protection of two of our most 
valuable and vanishing game birds, the woodcock and 
wood duck, so far, I regret to say, without any appre- 
ciable results. Sportsmen in general are interesting 
themselves in the most important matter. Any measures 
must be general to be effective in perpetuating these 
species. It would be of no avail to have close seasons for 
these grand birds in the northern portion of this continent 
for several years, and allow unrestricted slaughter in the 
South. 
There has been considerable controversy during the 
past year as to the right or wisdom of the system of 
non-resident licenses. The license system is the only 
measure that will enable sportsmen of moderate means to 
indulge in field sports in the future. The acquisition, 
by wealthy men, of imtnense tracts of the best game lands 
of our respective countries proves how rapidly and 
dangerously we are approaching the undesirable systems 
of European countries, in which fish and game are ex- 
clusively for the favored few. Had more respect been 
paid to the laws of nature in the past there would have 
been far less of the public domain in private preserves, 
from which the general public are debarred. Vandals, 
who claim to be sportsmen, are largely responsible for 
the increase of private preserves, and also for the neces- 
sity of a stringent protective system. This class— I can- 
not truthfully call them men — who during the tourist 
season invade a neighboring cotmtry or State and form 
pools, the apology for a man catching the most fish dur- 
ing the day takes the results of such pooling, immense 
quantities of fish being daily left to rot on the shores or 
dumped into the waters. There are others who during 
the close seasons abuse the privileges accorded men, as 
tourists, by shooting everything in sight, from the poor 
little fawn to the lordly moose, in a spirit of sheer de- 
structiveness, leaving the carcass to rot. Surely the 
State or Province would be more than justified in re- 
quiring a license fee from these characters to pay the 
costs of the espionage their wrong doing had necessitated. 
States or Provinces do not allow strangers to enter their 
respective timber lands and take their timber without 
paying an equivalent therefor. The same rule applies 
with equal force to game and fish, both being valuable 
assets of the States or Provinces, the same as timber. 
The protection of fish and game should be self-sustain- 
ing. This can only be accomplished by those doing the 
hunting and fishing paying the cost of the sport provided 
for them. This, as a rule, would have the beneficial effect 
of keeping the public domain for the public, atid make the 
task of buying or leasing large portions of public lands 
for private preserves more difficult. In justice to those 
hunting on non-resident licenses, they should certainly 
be allowed to take home at least part of the game killed 
by them. I am more than ever convinced that the general 
adoption of licenses for shooting game is the only means 
of insuring even a moderate supply of game in the future. 
Those who object to paying a reasonable license fee are 
not sportsmen, but belong to that numerous class who are 
always on the alert to procure something for nothing. If 
all hunters and tourists had in the past honestly obeyed 
the game and fish laws of our respective countries, the 
S3 stem of licenses would not have been necessary, and 
the expenses of espionage would not have to be provided 
for. All who have given the question of fish and game 
protection the consideration it deserves, will admit that 
the fish contained in our magnificent lakes and rivers, 
and the game of forest and field is a most valuable herit- 
age left us by nature for the purpose of being used wisely 
and well for the benefit of all. Nature makes few mis- 
takes and intended her laws to be observed, and exacts 
severe penalties for the violation of them. 
It is well known that large portions of the United 
States and Canada are not adapted for agriculture, or even 
for grazing, purposes. The rocks may be rich in mineral 
deposits that may in due season be discovered, the valu- 
ables extracted, the mines deserted and afterwards unpro- 
ductive for all time. But, on the surface of these rocks, 
and in the lakes and rivers intervening there exists a per- 
petual and natural productive source of wealth in fish 
and game. We are told that good government consists 
in doing the greatest good to the greatest numbers. Then 
it is evidently the duty of our respective Governments to 
introduce measures to perpetuate a valuable heritage in 
the interest of the majority, and wisely prevent its total 
destructioi\ in a few short years, to satisfy the greed and 
rapacity of a few. 
If the wild lands composing the public domains are to 
remain open to the public in our respective countries and 
the game protected, an equitable system of hunting 
licenses has become an urgent necessity and will be found 
to be the only practicable solution of the problem of 
game protection. We who have enjoyed for many years 
the pleasures and healthful recreations in field, forest and 
streams should consider it an imperative duty to do all 
possible to enable posterity to have the benefit of such 
health-giving and manly recreations. It is the duty of the 
State to perpetuate all that has a tendency to make manly 
men of the rising generation, men who will uphold the 
honor and dignity of our respective countries. 
I take the liberty of sajdng — without fear of contradic- 
tion — that the inherent love of field sports so long pre- 
vailing in Great Britain has been a powerful factor in 
creating that grand empire on which the sun never sets. 
No other country has produced such offshoots, with their 
glorious love of liberty, viz, your own United States, 
Australia, New Zealand and last, but not least, our own 
Dominion. We should endeavor to imbue our sons with 
the love of nature, educate them in nature's complete 
work, by taking them with us on our annual outings, 
teach them to do that which is just and right to God and 
their fellow men, and become the peer of any man on 
earth. 
Open Season for Moose, Cariboo atd Virginia Deer in 
Ontario, J902. 
Previous to 1896 there was no resident license required 
frcm residents of the Province to legally enable them to 
hunt and kill deer, the law allowing each hunter to kill 
two deer. In the remote districts we had no means of 
knowing whether hunters killed two or twenty-two, so 
long as they were able to get the deer out of the woods 
to the respective shipping points. The Ontario Game 
Commission, perceiving the urgent necessity of restricting 
the shipping facilities, advised the Legislature to pass the 
present effective license and coupon system, making it 
illegal for common carriers to transport any deer, moose 
or caribou, or any portion of same, without having at- 
tached one of the two coupons issued with each license. 
This change has the twofold effect of affording more 
protection fbr the deer and has more than provided the 
cost of such protection. Notwithstanding the very large 
number of deer killed in the northern portion of the 
Province, we have good ground for believing that they 
are not decreasing. During the open season of 1901 the 
Canadian Express Company carried the large number of 
2,372 deer, being an increase of 878 compared with open 
season of 1900. The number carried by the Dominion 
Express Coiiipany in open season of 1901 was 129, making 
a total of 2,501. 
The Canadian Express Company during the open sea- 
son of 1902 carried 2,286 , 86 less than last year. The 
Dominion Express Compan}' carried 240, being an in- 
crease of 1,111 compared with 1901, being a total of 2,52^ 
an increase of 25 over season of 1901. The above figures 
convey an imperfect idea of the number of deer killed an- 
imally in the Province, full one-half of those procuring 
licenses having their deer conveyed from the woods to 
their respective homes by teams. There being nearly 
10,000 hunters hunting under licenses and settlers' per- 
mits, each being allowed to kill two deer, it is safe to 
assume that at a very low computation 10,000 deer are 
killed in Ontario during the open season, in addition to 
those killed by Indians and settlers iit unorganized dis- 
tricts, who are allowed to kill for their own use during 
the whole year. I feel justified in saying tliat tkot ks* 
