AVG. IS, 1903.1 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
129 
Mr. McNabb was born in Kildonan, and is of Scotch 
parentage. He has been a user of tobacco from his youth, 
and b.eheves the constant use of the weed has tended to. 
lengthen rather than to shorten his life. He has Spent the 
greater part of his life out of doors, having made more 
than fifty voyages from Winnipeg to York Factory in the 
service of the Hudson's Bay Company." 
E. Hough. 
Ashland Block, Chicago, 111. 
Uncle Doc's Hammerless. 
"These yer hammerless guns seem all the go now," said 
Uncle Doc, "but they were small pertaters to the ham- 
merless I had one afternoon when I was a boy. Ever 
seen the old Queen's arm T got?" 
Most of us had. Up at his farm that slopes down to 
the Little Miami we had seen an unusually long old 
smoothbore which had, in Doc's father's time, been fitted 
with a percussion lock and shortened by a foot or so, and 
still had barrel to spare. , , . , 
After satisfying himself that we were acquainted with 
the gun, he continued : "1 used to stop school the sprmg 
term to help daddy on the farm ; but these younger chaps 
like Geofge [George was sixty-eight last birthday] 
had to keep on for they Wasn't, any rise alid rather in the 
road at home, and they sent 'em to school, to keep em 
out of devilment. One afternoon we wan't very busy, 
dad said I could go out and get some squirrels; and I 
took the old gun and fixin's and went down through the 
woods. As I passed the old stone schoolhouse I could 
s,ec the little folks in there all looking as though they'd 
rather be most anvwhere else. I couldn't blame 'era for 
wantin' to be out in the woods like I was, and pretty soon 
here come George. He'd •pied mc and ast the teacher to 
'go out,' and he went with me; didn't go to school any 
more that afternoon. 
"George, do yoti remember how, I'd let you shoot when 
we could get a rest shot at a squirrel? 
"We'd got a right fair bunch before that dad-burned old 
lock got out o' kelter, and I couldn't conger her up 'thout 
a file; so I took her of¥ and there I had a genuine ham- 
merless— the first one (^ver shot in these parts. 
"How'd 1 shoot? W'y, i had an.allfired big jackknife 
ahd t opened it up and gave it to Georgy ; arid when I'd 
get a squirrel t5 slt fSr his picter, I'd get rest side Of a 
tree and aim, hold steady and duek my hea.d down and 
say 'Ready,' and George'd hit the cap a clip with the 
handle of the knife, and t most always got niy squirtel. 
G.eorge'd llold ohe.lland up in front of his face fer fear 
Of Cap or powder *fore he'd crack her. 
"No, George, I won't forget about the pheasant. We d 
hunted down across Harner's Run and back of Cedar 
Banks. George he saw a bunch up on a lim' and showed 
me. I says, T)on't say a word or look that way. It's a 
pheasant,' and I walked him off another direction till we 
came to a leanin' tree and I got a good rest and a good 
sight and says, 'Ready,' and he cracked down on the old 
gun barrel, missin' the cap entirely. 'Durn yer picters 1' 
says I, 'why don't you hit her.' I was gittin' nervous, 
and I guess he was, too, fer he missed her agin. 'Dad- 
burn ye! can't ye hit her?' I got another .sight on the 
bunch, an' more by accident than anything else he hit the 
"Yes, we got the pheasant, i&t I hadn't been sightin' 
at his head like I did at the squirrels. I shot at the 
biggest bunch that time; and I tell ye, boys, 1 believe 
me 'n George and my old hammerless got the last 
pheasant in these parts at that shot. 1 never heard o' 
one since." . . 
And here George put in : "1 tell you, Doej it Jiist made 
me sick to have to go home without any of those squir- 
rels; but I knowed if I did dad'd lick me fer playin' 
hookey from school." Fifi. 
More About Game Preserves. 
1 Would recommend to the careful reading of Mr. 
William H. Avis the folloAving sentence from the pen 
of Didymus, who, in referring to the conversion of our 
wild forest lands into big private game preserves, says, 
"I also assert that it is foolish in policy, as it arouses 
bitter animosities, and the spirit of revenge which it in- 
cites is not in the interest of the owner or the preserva- 
tion of the forests, as the recent incendiary fires suffi- 
ciently proves." 
This puts the whole case in a nutshell, and as "the 
sentiment is sound, because it is built upon the fipunda- 
lion of truth," it may possibly convince Mr. Avis that 
there are two sides to this game preserve question, as 
well as to most other questions, and that those who 
have dared to differ with him as to the wisdom of his 
method of forest, fish and game preservation, are not 
necessarily hypocrites, envious souls, or haters of the 
rich, 
I do not agree with those who think the private 
game preserve is necessary to preserve fish and game 
for future generations. If preserves are necessary let 
them be State or national preserves, and let everybody 
stand upon an equal footing with respect to them. 
But as far as I am able to judge, preserves of any 
sort are not a necessity in the Adirondacks, where 
game of all kinds is more than holding its own. Our 
game laws, which are made better and still better, and 
more stringent as occasion demands, shows that the 
people are alive to the subject of game preservation, 
and need no help from the private preserve owner. At 
the same time there is no objection to that class of 
preserves that are built up out of lands which were 
originally liarren of game and fish, which are stocked 
at the owner's expense, and which are used to propa- 
gate game and fish with the ultimate object of in- 
creasing the general supply. The owners of such pre- 
serves are philanthropists, who deserve, and who gen- 
erally receive the heartfelt thanks of their countrymen. 
The objection is to .the grabbing of vast tracts of wild 
forests and waters which are well stocked with game 
and fish, by persons who have no other thought or in- 
jtent than to exclude others from enjoyments which they 
want exclusively for themselves. 
There is no parallel between such preserve owners 
and the farmer who posts farm lands. In the case of 
the farmer the posting is done in comparatively thickly 
settled districts to preserve his crops, fenees and stock 
from injury. Then it is a matter of record that the 
farmer almost invariably grants the privilege of shoot- 
ing and fishing on his lands to those who ask for, and 
who do not abuse the privilege. In the exceptional 
cases where the farmer arbitrarily excludes everi'body, 
he has been denormced in unmeasured terms and has 
found no Avis to defend his action. If we apply Mr. 
Avis' system of reasoning in making a deduction from 
this fact, we much reach the conclusion that the farmer 
is not defended because he is poor, and that these 
preserve owners are defended because they are rich. 
Who ever heard of one of these preserve owners 
granting the privilege of shooting and fishing in his 
preserve to all applicants on the condition that they 
behave themselves like gentlemen? Why the mere ask- 
ing for such privilege would be resented as an imper- 
tinence. It is this difference between the farmer and the 
preserve owner that causes all the bitterness against 
the preserve owner, while there is none against the 
farmer. 
It seems to me that those who advocate tnrning over 
to the millionaire preserve owner the preservation of 
our forests, fish and game, cannot be aware of the ex- 
tent and intensity of this bitterness, or how certain^ It 
is to spread and intensify as more and more of our wild 
forest lands are fenced in and the opportunities for 
recreation are more and more curtailed. 
Now I ask in all candor, and with envy and hatred 
toward none, is it wise to advocate a policy which is 
almost certain to bring ruin and destruction on the 
very things which we wish to preserve? Is it just to 
advocate a policy which gives to the few that which 
is necessary for the well being, and which of right 
belongs to the many? 
Is it patriotic to advocate a policy which is un- 
American in principle and an insult to the intelligence 
of our people? 
I think that these questions shoidd have careful and 
impartial consideration so that wise and intelligent 
action may be taken. 
Personally, I have but little interest in this matter, 
aside from a desire to see right and justice prevail. 
I certainly harbor no feelings of envy or hatred of 
the rich as a class. Many of my best friends are peo- 
ple of wealth, and I heartily agree with Mr. Avis 
that many rich people are using their wealth to make 
the world better and happier. On the other hand, many 
rich people are using their wealth solely to gratify 
their own selfish desires regardless of the rights and 
well-being of their fellow men. I believe it to be the 
duty of all good citizens to rebuke those who use wealth 
in the latter way. Education first and an intelligent 
use of the ballot afterward is the correct way to ad- 
minister this rebuke. Jos. W. Shtoter. 
G*N=EV0C1RT, Aug 5. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
What can anyone who knows anything of history thinlc 
of Raymoiid S. Spears' statement that "In France this 
same question of game preserves flamed into revolution." 
The infei-enge is that game preservation was the cause 
of the French Revolution, or at least was one of the main 
Causes. Of course everything pertaining to the old 
regime was inveighed against, but game laws were noth- 
ing to the citizens of Paris, who would not know a grouse 
ffom a small barnyard fowl if he saw them alive. Paris 
and the other gfeat Citlea were France in those days, and 
in writing for people who do not know, it is unfair to 
talk of game preservation as a cause of the Revolution, 
To those who do know, it is absurd. 
I observe Mr. Spears is left to fight his battle without 
mueh assistance. There are not many of tlie supporters 
of Forest And Stream who like anarchistic and com- 
munistic teachings. "H" does indeed try to say something 
in favor of his chief, but gets out of his depth at the 
first step. He supposes "it is generally known that nearly 
all the tillable land in England is owned by a score or 
two of the lordly old families to whom it has descended 
from feudal times," and also tells us that "scarcely any 
grain is raised in the country, for the reason that very 
little land is obtainable by the working classes to raise 
it on, and England must import her brcadstuffs and lose 
a great proportion of her population that ought to be kept 
to enrich the nation." It would hardly be possible for 
one to lay bare one's utter ignorance more completely 
than "H."' has done in these few lines. Time is wasted 
on such as he. 
I have used a gun and rod for many years. I love the 
woods, but I detest this mi.xing up of talk of love of 
nature with love of slaughter. It seems to me hypocriti- 
cal cant. You can travel through most game preserves 
unarmed and welcome. It is only he who "loves the 
grand old woods" so weU that he wants to murder its 
denizens who raises an outcry about game preservation. 
I have had a great deal of pleasure in seeing how 
close we could drift to a deer feeding at the water's edge 
before it took the alarm, and I have watched the move- 
ments of wild game with a gun across my lap which I 
would not use, and had more enjoyment than in killing. 
Lexden. 
Michigan Citv., Ittd 
CiiAKLESTOWN, N. H., August 7. — I can only attribute 
the great number of deer seen in this vicinity, on both 
sides of the Connecticut River, within the past two 
3rears, in one case seven in a herd, to the overflow of 
the Blue Mountain Park twenty miles north of here, 
established by the late Austin Corbin. I think this in- 
crease is of itself evidence and argument in favor of the 
game preserve, for it does not seem possible that all 
these animals should have come down from the north end 
of the State beyond the White Mountains. 
VON W. 
All communications intended for Fokbst and Stkeak should 
always be addressed to the Forest and Stream Publishing Co., 
New York, and not to any indi»idual connecte4 with the paper. 
Who Protect the Game and Why. 
Buffalo, N. Y., Aug. lo. — Editor Forest and Stream: 
In Mr. Thayer's article in Forest and Stream of Aug. 
8, there are a few points made which I cannot let pass 
without having a word to say. He quotes from Mr, 
Charles L. Paige in July 4 number: "In many cases it 
is the men who kill animals directly who are most ac- 
tive in preserving and increasing the animals for a 
useful purpose. The men who shoot game are at the 
present time the men who are most earnest in the 
efforts to protect and provide for it." Mr. Thayer 
says, "Does Mr. Paige mean this for a joke?" I do 
not know whether he intended it for a joke or not, but 
I should say he most assuredly did not. Does Mr. 
Thayer mean that it is a joke that sportsmen protect 
game for a "useful purpose," or that they protect it 
only to kill it. If the former, I claim that it is for a 
useful purpose that sportsmen hunt and kill game; if 
the latter, I think Mr. Thayer is carrying it a little too 
far. I pretend to be a sportsman, and as such as just 
as much interested in the protection of game in parts 
of the country where I never expect to kill any, as I 
am in localities where I expect to derive direct benefit 
from' its protection, and I think if my hunting days 
were over I should still be interested in its protection, 
and if I understand myself correctly, from a sports- 
man's standpoint. 
Mr. Thayer goes on in reference to the work of the 
Biological Survey, which, of course, is doing a grand 
work, and says, "and that as a choice of evils, it often 
joins ranks with sportsmen, preferring to keep up a 
species even for them to decimate rather than to see it 
vanish altogether." This is compliment enough, al- 
though Mr. Thayer designates it as a "choice of evils," 
but, nevertheless, he admits that it is the sportsmen 
who have done the most to keep up the species. In 
joining with the sportsmen, the Biological Survey is unit- 
ing with the strongest force in game protection, 
whether that is exerted to preserve the game for "use- 
ful purposes," or that they may kill it. The results 
are what count. It is the sportsmen who are limiting 
the bags. It is the sportsmen who passed the laws to 
protect the bull moose, and it is the sportsmen who 
have passed the laws to protect species for a period of 
years in sections where those species are liable to be- 
come extinct. This may not be scientific protection, 
but it is using pretty good judgment. 
Mr. Thayer contrasts "the naturalist striving to save 
it to study and admire," and "the sportsman, on the 
other hand, that they may kill it." I would like to ask 
if there are not naturalists who are sportsmen and 
sportsmen who are naturalists? I think a good per- 
centage of the sportsmen are naturalists to some extent 
or other. Has not the sportsman the capacity to study 
and the soul to admire game in its wild state? A true 
sportsman has no desire to kill all of the game he 
sees. Science is indebted in many ways to sportsmen 
and hunters for much of the knowledge acquired about 
game. Dixmont. 
m mid ffiv^r ^bJ(mg. 
Proprietors of fishing resorts irill fiad it pro€table to advertiaa 
them in Forkbt akd Stkxaii. 
Why Not? 
Much has been written, much more has been left 
unwritten, because it wouldn't be printable, and still 
there rankles in the breast of many manly men unsaid 
things of "field companions." The subject is so broad 
and so diversified in general results that to my mind a 
general discussion can never cover it. Individual na- 
ture alone seeking a kindred spirit can best create 
many problems instead of solving one. 
A gentleman was recently pointed out to me in a 
cafe as being a fine sportsman, the best of fellows at 
home and at the club, but a hermit in his hunting. I 
afterward met this man and spoke to him of his repu- 
tation and habits a-field. He smilingly replied, "Well, 
I have tried them all, and they won't do. Why there 
is Mr. A. I -simply love that man; he is the best ever, 
and I want to keep on loving him, and the only way 
to do it is to leave him at home." 
We all know a Mr. A. or two, the world is full of 
them; on the other hand I believe there are a goodly 
bunch of "Col's," men who should wear the soubri- 
quet from manly actions on the field of flush and flut- 
ter, or the streams of "laughing waters." I personally 
know some A.'s and some Col's. "So do we all of us." 
Observation teaches us that in recent years it is be- 
ing discovered that she, who pours our coffee, and to 
a greater or lesser degree plays the harp that brings 
the best music to. our destinies, she whose gently touch 
makes love mirrors of our dogs' eyes, she who believes 
we need a new gun to wear away the effects of our 
burdensome business cares more than she needs a new 
ftjr coat, she whose admiration for the delicate, makes 
the fly-rod more beautiful to her, as it seems so to fit 
her entire nature— she may be the one in whom we 
shall find an ideal companion for our outing. 
Why not,, then, take her along, thus brightening the 
sunshine and intensifying our pleasures in camp and 
a-field. She will take the coaching and the complain- 
ing with the same equanimity. It gives one the chance 
of "knowing it all" more than in any other walk in 
life; she bows to his supreme prowess; one kill in 
twenty makes a double hero of him instead of a "dub" 
in faster company; excuses are all framed with reason; 
and he comes home only to find that the front door 
should be enlarged to admit his expansive self. Then, 
too, that mountain air, and the fatigue of the trip 
cause [efreshing sleep to her, and cares of home drop 
into insignificance. Of course, she cannot go so far 
nor so long as her bigger and more rugged other self; 
yet a little tramp is to her what a long one is to us. 
She can't wade a rushing stream, but most streams 
have their pools, and some pools are beside a delight- 
ful bat^k. And then conges the bass fishing in a boat, 
