Avkit 2, 1904.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
271 
for different game. Now, suppose that the hawks re- 
lied solely, or mainly, on partridges for their food 
supply, how many birds would be required to supply the 
demand? Each individual hawk would devour several 
hundred birds in the course of a year, and the supply 
of partridges could not last a twelvemonth. 
It is also a fact of common knowledge that where 
guns are kept out of the fields for a few seasons, there 
is a marked increase in the number of available birds 
for the sportsman's purposes, notwithstanding the pres- 
ence of numerous hawks. 
It is doubtless true that before man came upon the 
scene, and interposed his meddling hand in nature's 
world, both hawks and game birds were far more 
numerous than now, and nature, unaided by man's de- 
vices, managed to maintain a fairly constant balance be- 
tween them. 
The writer has spent the greater part of his waking 
hours during half a century in the woods and fields,- and 
has seen hawks as well as owls in familiar association 
with most of the varieties of birds of this country, in- 
cluding some of the game birds, without any manifesta- 
tion of fear on the part of the birds, or of murderous 
intent on the part of the hawks. The occasions have 
been very rare when an attack upon any kind of bird 
by a hawk has come under my observation; and I have 
never yet witnessed an attack by a sparrow-hawk upon 
any kind of bird, though much familiar association 
between them is a matter of every-day observation. 
I once saw a shrike hammer the life out of an English 
sparrow, and I saw one of those misanthropical birds 
making persistent pursuits of a brown thrush, evidently 
with murderous intention; but bird tragedies of the 
kind named have been exceedingly rare in my experi- 
ence. 
When a pair of hawks have builded a nest and are 
rearing a brood in the neighborhood of a farmyard, 
if there are young chickens conveniently to be had, they 
will rely to some extent on that source of food supply 
for their young ones. This very natqral conduct of 
the hawk parents has brought upon the heads of all 
hawks anathema from the farmers and their wives. 
But the per cent, of loss to the chicken industry from 
this cause inust be very small. 
When man essaj^s to regulate the affairs of nature's 
domain by interposing his own destructive hand, ex- 
cept for the elimination from his vicinity of such 
creatures as his interests obviously demand the re- 
moval of, he is pursuing a blind and generally a vain 
course, and being ignorant of the hidden inter-rela- 
tions that exist between the wild creatures, with the 
checks and balances that nature has set up among 
them, one upon the other, man's interference is most 
likely to cause disastrous effects to all concerned, 
though he may not be able always to discern the rela- 
tions of cause and effect, as the result of his actions. 
Moral : When you raise your hand to destroy any of 
nature's children on suspicion of its being an enemy 
to man, if there is a doubt about its guilt, give it the 
benefit of the doubt— if you have made o mistake in 
so doing, it is not an irretrievable one — but life, once 
destroyed, can never be recalled. Coahoma. 
Mississippi 
The Florida License Law. 
Fort Orange, N. J., March 25. — Editor Forest and 
Stream: I have been in Florida since Januarj^, and have 
heard so many complaints from so many different 
sources, in fact hearing them from every non-resident 
with whom I have spoken on the subject, that I think 
it quite time to put these ideas in print, to see if, in a 
measure, a compromise cannot be effected to the satis- 
faction, and also to the best interests of all concerned. 
I have been warned' to keep my finger out of this 
"political pie." I have been told that the present system 
of fish and game laws was a pet scheme of Senator 
Frank Sams, of New Smyrna, in which he was very 
ably assisted by H. M. Flagler, our east coast railroad 
magnate. How true this is I, of course, do not know ; 
but until it is proven to me I shall not believe it; for, 
if they deserve their present reputation, they could never 
be guilty pf short-sightedness sufficient to put into force 
a system of laws which so bitterly dissatisfies every visit- 
ing sportsman. 
There are about twenty-five to thirty States in the 
Union that charge non-resident hunters a license fee. 
Florida excepted, the sums charged range from $10 to 
$40, Wyoming being the highest and Pennslyvania the 
lowest. The sums mentioned entitle the holder of the 
license to shoot upon every foot of wild land within 
the borders of the State by which the license was issued. 
These sums are not extortionate; no fault is found and 
no difficulty is experienced by these States with their 
non-resident brethren. But what of Florida, the winter 
hunter's paradise, and the saviour of the Northern in- 
valid, the State of all in the Union where the non-resi- 
dent should be treated fairly, and encouraged to travel 
over the entire country? What of Florida's game laws? 
Simply this, and when you consider the situation as a 
whole, and study the laws from beginning to end, they 
are everything but Simple. There are forty-five counties 
in the State of Florida, fourty-four of which charge 
$10 each to the non-resident sportsman for the privilege 
of hunting only within the borders of the county issuing 
the license. It is a county affair in Florida, and costs 
$440 for shooting in fourty-four counties of the State 
in the same season; and as to the fourty-fifth, LaFayette 
county, if one shot there this entire year it would cost 
him $366 for so doing, or if you shot in that county 
through the regularly prescribed open season of four 
months it would cost you only (?) $120 for that county 
alone. 
Again, one is not allowed to carry game across any 
county line. He is not allowed to take his legally killed 
and dearly paid for game to any place within the 
boundaries of the State, as he would be in any other 
State in the Union. Considering these laws, do you 
Wonder that all non-residents call them an outrage and 
an imposition on themselves, and a reflection on the 
fairness and common sense of the Florida citizen? This 
may be harsh criticism, but can anyone say that it is 
not, at least in a measure, a just one? 
Why not make this a State instead of a county affair? 
Why not charge a license fee which is reasonable and 
v/ithin everyone's means, and let the license issued cover 
the whole State? It is easily seen how such an act 
would benefit Florida, and the railroads and steamer 
lines in particular. 
A great many more sportsmen would come here to 
hunt, and, not being satisfied with a certain locality, 
would go from place to place, hunting in them all; 
thereby not only using up a great deal more time, but 
a great deal of money as well, and all because one 
license would cover this entire trip. _ Is it not easy to 
understand how beneficial this additional circulation of 
money would be? I will venture to say that there isn't 
a single non-resident in Florida at this moment who 
wilr not agree with every word I have said, and a 
majority will add more to it and make it all the stronger. 
Everyone, of course, knows that ninety per cent, of our 
sportsmen here do not buy a license to hunt, but it 
js a well-known fact that if a State license law were 
adopted seventy-five per cent, of this same number would 
gladly pay $15 for the privilege of shooting where he 
pleased within the borders of Florida. Therefore, there 
IS nothing that the citizens of Florida can do which 
will be of such material benefit to the State as a whole 
as to put this hunting industry in the hands of State 
officials, and empower them to appoint a head game 
warden for each county, together with deputies sufficient 
to the demand of complete protection, something which 
at present is not known in any part of the State. Charge 
$15 for a license to cover the whole State. Make all 
the wardens and deputies State agents for the licenses, 
and answerable for either the sale or return in good 
condition to the State Game Commission, and have the 
money realized by the sale of licenses paid into the 
State Game Commission, and paid out by them for 
wardens' salaries and other necessary expenses for the 
protection of the game, under the supervision of the 
governor and council. 
There would not then be the temptation to hunt with- 
out a license that there is to-day, and even if one were 
tempted to do so the protective system would be so 
complete as to render such a thing an impossibility. 
Under this system the game would thrive as it does in 
other States, the hotels and railroads would be much 
better patronized, and, above all, the patrons would be 
better satisfied and more willing to call again. 
There is a great deal more that can be said upon this 
subject, but I shall wait for a reply to this before putting 
the rest in print. S. Fred Cummings, 
Licensed camp-owner of Square Lake, Maine. 
Wolves and Forest Reserves. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In Mr. Anderson's letter on "Wolves and Forest 
Reserves," published in, the issue of Feb. 20, Mr. 
Anderson makes such astounding statements, that I 
cannot let them pass unchallenged.' 
Mr. Anderson intimates that my remarks were in- 
tended to stir up opposition to the Yellowstone Re- 
serve. I can assure Mr. Anderson that I am, and al- 
ways have been, in favor of the reserve, and did what 
I could to help to have it established. But a little 
plain talk on the situation seems needed. 
Mr. Anderson says that there is no decrease in 
the number of settlers by reason of the reserve. The 
best answer to Mr. Anderson is found in the fact that 
wherever one goes on the reserve are found abandoned 
ranches, tumble down fences, filled up irrigation ditches, 
and deserted houses on which appears the notice, "This 
building has been taken possession of by, and is the 
property of, the United States, all persons are thereby 
warned against trespassing thereon." 
Some time before the present Yellowstone Reserve 
was established. Forest and Stream published my 
ideas on the subject. I then pointed out that north- 
western Wyoming, on account of its cold summers, was 
a hay and cattle country; that at least 320 acres was 
necessary to make a ranch that would support a family; 
and that without the grazing rights on the range, the 
ranches were valueless. I also suggested that no con- 
siderable bodies of - agricultural land should be in- 
cluded m the reserve, and that care should be taken 
not to interfere with the rights of settlers. Had my 
suggestions been followed, the present situation would 
have been avoided. 
Ten years ago, Northwestern Wyoming was practi- 
cally unsettled, and the bulk of the settlers have come 
m within the last seven years. Owing to the distance 
from land offices, the difficulty in getting witnesses, and 
the expense, it was the custom among the settlers to 
put ofl: filing upon their lands as long as possible. As 
each settler was allowed a homestead of 160 acres, and 
a desert claim of the same amount, and as a desert 
claim must be brought under cultivation and final proof 
made mside of four years, while seven years was al- 
lowed on a homestead, nearly every settler located his 
desert claim on the land easiest reclaimed, taking the 
poorest part of his ranch for the homestead. 
While this condition of affairs existed, the Yellow- 
stone Reserve was established, and every settler who 
bad not filed his desert claim was out the best part 
of his ranch. Many left the country at once, others 
are now engaged in an almost hopless endeavor to get 
a title to their lands. In addition to this the reserve 
was established in May, and it was late in July before 
any definite information as to the reserve could be ob- 
tained. During this time many settlers had located 
ranches. These last were promptly ordered off the: 
reserve, and their improvements confiscated. It is es- 
timated that m northern Uinta county, which comprises 
that part of the reserve directly south of the Park 
30,000 acres of first class hay land would now be under 
cultivation, had the settlers actually on the land at 
the time the news of the reserve had been established 
was made public, been allowed to remain 
If Mr. Anderson is ignorant of these facts, it is but 
additional proof, were such needed, of his unfitness for 
the position he holds. And I am informed, that on 
the eastern side of the reserve the situation is much 
the same. At any rate, the people over there are kick- 
ing up an awful row. 
As to Mr. Anderson's statement, that the same 
amount of stock is on the reserve, I challenge him to 
publish the amount actually allowed on the reserve as 
against those kept off. Last summer tens of thousands 
of acres of grass went to waste, though the stock was 
ready to eat it, and this winter thousands of tons of 
hay have been sold for the cost of putting it up, or are 
rotting m the stacks, simply because the stock cannot 
be summered on the reserve. I expect to burn 200 
tons of standing hay next fall that should be worth 
SIX dollars a ton; and on hundreds of acres of land I 
shall not even turn the water, because of Mr. Anderson's 
management of the reserve. 
The people of Wyoming are not opposed to forest 
reserves. A very large majority in this part of the 
reserve asked that it be established. But they had no idea 
that hundreds of thousands of acres of valuable grazing 
and hay lands would be included, or that settlers actuallj 
living on the lands would be removed. The people of 
the State have demanded, through the governor, that 
Mr Anderson be removed, and a competent man put 
m his place. 
Making a royal progress through the reserve during 
the summer months, attended by a retinue of would-be 
bad men loaded down with firearms may be im- 
pressive, but It is a mighty poor way to administer a 
territory larger than many eastern States. 
ihe woU question is a very important one to the 
stock raising States. During the last ten months 
Wyoming has paid $40,000 in bounties on wild animals 
In addition nearly all the stock associations and large 
stock ranches pay bounty of from $10 to $20 for all 
wolves killed on their^ range. In Montana, last year 
26,000 sheep were killed by wolves. A conservative esti^ 
mate of the losses in these two States caused by wild ani- 
mals puts the total expense to the stock men includin!^ 
bounties, at half a million dollars a year. In ?he fSf 
of figures like these, Mr. Anderson's 'dumber of wolves 
killed by the ranges," and "pack of dogs for hunt- 
ing mountain lions upon the reserve," are rather amus- 
ing. I have been hunting lions with dogs for sevenTeen 
se"?harthe 'slo hundred, but neter could 
see that the stock on hand decreased much. As to the 
wire th77aV? " u "'^^-"^ ^^'d -^^-^i 
cZlZ ftJ V.^ ^ ^'■^^t t^a^t of mountain 
country, thinly settled, and intended to be kept so. It 
IS well stocked with game to furnish food, and every 
attempt is being made to have as little hunting done 
thereon as possible The cougar are already thefe; and 
the wolves have found out its advantages and are 
coming in in droves. u are 
The large bounties are not paid on wolves killed on 
the reserve, and the State bounty is too small to temot 
trappers for that alone. In addition, the State, urged 
