Aug. 20, 1904.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
lificness of the hens and the best growth and certainty 
of life of the young birds. 
There is one alleged trait, however, concerning the 
habits of quail— that is to say their migration in the fall 
of which I am a total disbeliever. If quail migrate, leav- 
ing one section and travelling to another, the influx at 
their place of destination should add materially and vis- 
ibly to the supply of birds of that section, as the migra- 
tions of ducks and geese and snipe and woodcock cor- 
respondingly add to the visible supply in the south dur- 
ing the migratory season. There also should be a cor- 
responding diminution in the numbers of the section 
whence the quail migrate, and during migration there 
should be evidence that the birds are journeying, as 
shown by a general movement of all quail toward the 
southland in the fall, and the return flight northward in 
the spring. 
That quail do shift about in the fall is a fact, but, m 
my opinion, it is merely a readjustment to the conditions 
of the same habitat, enforced by the change of season 
affecting the cover and food supply. The sum total of 
birds in any grven locality remains precisely the same, 
just as the sum total of cattle, sheep and horses on a 
given farm remain the same summer and winter, though 
in summer they live in the woods and fields, while in 
winter they live in the barn. Dasby. 
The Redeeming Shot, 
The season of woodchuck hunting for 1904 is tapering 
to its close, I have killed a 'chuck as late in the year as 
October 18, and have heard of one being killed October 
27, but at any time in autumn so many of them have 
gone into their half year sleep that it is not worth while 
to hunt them. No doubt, many readers of Forest and 
Stream could make interesting report of woodchuck 
hunts enjoyed this season, and probably some would 
have done so if this sport were in as good repute as it 
deserves to be. 
One incident of this humble but enjoyable pursuit 
stands out among the memories of my more recent hunt- 
ing. I had scoured the country in vain all the afternoon, 
and placed as many miles between me and town as I 
could retrace by supper time. As I faced homeward, my 
eye turned naturally toward a big knoll in a pasture, a 
quarter of a mile away, already inspected on the way out. 
Smooth and close-cropped, it was always worth a glance, 
for woodchucks lived in it and could not forage over its 
rounded summit unseen. Sure enough, there was one 
feeding in plain sight, and I started for him. A large 
brook required a detour to a bridge, but once across_ I 
made straight for the knoll and sneaked carefully up its 
steep slope. I had lost sight of the game as I put the 
crown of the hill between us, and, on getting to a point 
of observation, found that he had gone into his burrow. 
Going as far down the hill as I could, and keeping the 
spot in sight, I watched for his reappearance with the 
usual uncertainty as to the time of that event, which 
grows more annoying every minute with supper nearly 
due, but miles away. I could not stand it long, and pro- 
ceeded down through the hollow and up a neighboring 
ridge. Of course, a parting glance was cast toward the 
knoll to see if anything had happened. 
Something had. A small, round object apparently lay 
on the smooth turf, evidently the head of a woodchuck 
watching me from his "peek-hole." Back I went into the 
hollow, not too directly at first, but more and more so, 
pondering the interesting problem how many more steps 
could be taken without sending the 'chuck down for good. 
Sixty or seventy yards from him I felt bound to stop, 
and took my best aim at the little dark ball that seemed 
to' lie up there on the short grass. At the crack of the 
rifle it vanished, but that was a matter of course with a 
woodchuck in the mouth of his "peek-hole," whether dead 
or alive, and I hastened up the hill to investigate._ Down 
in the darkness of the burrow something looked like hair, 
and I pulled up the victim and found he had "got it in 
the neck." A farm hand driving a team in the next field 
had stopped at some stage of the campaign to see the re- 
sult—what farm hand would not jump at such a chance 
for such a pause? I waved the defunct woodchuck 
toward him, he waved his congratulations to me, and 
I set out for home in better humor with myself. The 
difference between two small numbers cannot be great, 
but the difference between a petty victory and a petty 
defeat is considerable to the feelings of a hunter who has 
started homeward without a mark to his credit. 
The incident makes one of the pleasing brain-negatives 
that the gun-bearing rambler brings in from the fields 
to develop at will, whether or not he brings anything 
else— the long stalk, the varying prospect of results, the 
expectant laborer with his eye fixed as sharply as mine 
upon the mark, the gentle excitement of the shot, the 
satisfaction of the retriever, and the charm of the summer 
evening setting upon the quiet hills. Bristol Hill. 
Dove Shooting in Hawaii. 
In the news items appearing in this morning's paper, 
it is stated that the "dove shooters drove over to 
Mokuleia three mornings and took back 1080 doves in 
all as a result of their shoot. The birds are fat and 
plentiful." - 
Without knowing the exact number of "shooters (it 
is, in passing, pleasing to notice that you distinguish 
between "shooters" and "sportsmen") who participated 
in this slaughter, it may be that the writer is hasty in 
calling attention to this wanton waste. However, the 
gentlemen who shot nearly 1,200 doves in less than 
three days may reconcile their sportsmen's consciences, 
if the same have not already been submerged in the lust 
for slaughter, with the killing of so many birds and the 
sure extinction of all sport in this line in the near 
future, it is not for me to say; but the result of this 
indiscriminate shooting is what I desire to call your 
attention to. 
The beginning of this dove hunting season does not 
mark any new departure in the obtaining of enormous 
bags exceeding one hundred birds per man. Last 
season, reports were freely circulated, and boasts made, 
of record shoots where the bags were so large as to 
lead one to the conclusion that the "shooters" were 
either market hunters, under the guise of sportsmen, 
or were seeking to outdo themselves, and in this ef- 
fort had gone beyond the point where a true sports- 
man should take down his gun. 
Hunting in these islands has its limitations. Other 
than doves, pheasants, a few ducks and plover, there 
is nothing. The pheasant is not in large numbers, 
and but barely holds its own against the mongoose, 
and a good shot with a good dog can obtain but a 
very few birds in a day's hunt, and only in favorable 
spots and after much 'hard tramping. The plover are 
becoming scarcer every year and duck shooting is 
"practically only for those who support the preserves. 
Dove hunting, however, is easily accessible and open 
to all. The flights of the birds occurr principally over 
the rice fields after the rice has been harvested, and 
in this island the fields are readily reached along the 
line of the railroad. There is absolutely no protection 
for the birds, no limitations as to the size of the bag 
to be obtained except as may be dictated by the con- 
science of the man behind the gun; and while there is 
a statute requiring a license fee for hunting, hvis not 
enforced, and any person of whatever nationality has 
a free hand during the hunting season. 
Within the few days following the second of July 
there has probably been killed on this island at least 
2,500 doves at a low estimate. We know, of course, 
that the birds are now present in large numbers, and 
no appreciable reduction will be noticed this season 
even if this average is kept up while the opportunity 
offers, which will continue until the new crop of rice 
is planted. But it is patent to all that this cannot go 
on without a serious diminution of the number of birds, 
resulting finally, and within a few years, in the practical 
extinction of this sport, when "the birds will be neither 
fat nor plentiful." 
The experience of localities on the mainland amply 
supports the above statement. In nearly all the States 
and Territories there ar now stringent laws, which are 
rigidly enforced, not only in reference to hunting in 
season, but limiting the bag to a reasonable number. 
In all such places they have realized that they were too 
late in appreciating the situation, and that the protec- 
tion was afforded when there was but little left to 
protect. 
As we have no laws here to protect the sport, and 
as the laws requiring a hunting license is not enforced, 
the only recourse is an appeal to all true lovers of 
sport to remember that they are gentlemen and sports- 
men. — Honolulu Advertiser. 
m 
AND MVEK nSHIN 
Sea Trout and Salmon. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In common with all your readers who appreciate in- 
telligent writing on fish and angling, I enjoy the 
"Fish Chat," which Mr. Edward A. Samuels contributes 
to your columns. T was especially interested in that 
which appeared in issue of Aug. 6, for it treated of two 
subjects in which I have been intensely occupied ior 
the last forty years— I mean salmon culture and the so- 
called sea trout. . , 
After all the ignorance that has been written about 
sea trout it is refreshing to the Old Angler to find a 
man of such large experience as the author of With 
Fly-Rod and Camera" recording his conviction that 
they are undeniably our dear old friend the spotted 
brook trout, which has gladdened the hearts of thous- 
ands of anglers." As Mr. Samuels' researches of over 
thirty years in the New England States and Eastern 
Canada have led him to the conclusions which I have 
placed on record in your columns. I commend this in- 
stalment of his fish chat to the careful consideration of 
those who still think we have in Canada waters a species 
of trout distinct from fontinalis, which is spawned and 
brought up in the sea." . « ' ' , ' 
On the other subject which, for forty years, has en- 
gaged my anxious attention— that of artificial salmon 
culture as a means of restoring exhausted rivers and 
keeping up the supply of salmon in spite of the exces- 
sive fishing that is now pursued in all our best salmon 
rivers on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts— I regret that 
I must differ entirely from the opinions which Mr. 
Samuels expresses in his last contribution to your 
columns. I dislike, as much as Mr. Samuels does, all 
newspaper controversy, and will confine my present re- 
marks to a few matters of fact within my own knowl- 
edge which knowledge is within the reach of Mr. 
Samuels, and of any one who will take the small trouble 
to obtain it. But when an inquirer approaches the 
subject with the declaration, that he "regards the arh v 
ficial reproduction of fish as one of the greatest achieve- 
ments of the nineteenth century, and nothing that can 
be said will ever cause him to believe otherwise," it will 
avail little to inform him that, so far from fishculture 
being an achievement of the nineteenth century, it 
is but the resuscitation of a very old art practiced by 
the Chinese, the ancient Romans and the mediaeval 
monks, with better results than the modern practice 
has shown. I wonder if Mr. Samuels was serious when 
he pointed to the hatching of chickens in an incubator 
as analogous to the modern process of fishculture. If 
he was serious I can only regret that he so entirely 
ignores the conformity to nature in the one process, 
and the series of unnatural processes necessarily fol- 
lowed in the other. 
Be this as it may, I have great faith in "facts and 
figures," and if Mr. Samuels will produce some that 
will bear out his assertions regarding the Merrimac and 
the Penobscot Rivers, I will give them due considera- 
tion. Meantime, I repeat, advisedly, what I stated in 
your issue of July 16: "That there is not, so far as I 
can discover, a particle of evidence to show that the 
increased number of salmon in these rivers came from 
the fry planted." As to the Liverpool, Port Medway 
and Port Mouton Rivers, in Queens county, Nova 
Scotia, which Mr. Samuels cited as showing "visible 
results" from the fry planted in them, he now says, 
in answer to my statement of facts made from my own 
personal knowledge, that every one he interviewed 
agreed that great benefits had resulted. The boatmen, 
the guides, the Indians, all agreed with the statements 
of the residents in the neighborhood. Mr. L. S. 
Ford, the fishery overseer of the county, assured 
him, "that all the rivers that came under his super- 
vision had greatly benefited." • Thus much for hear- 
say! Now let us see what the "facts and figures" say. 
The Bedford hatchery, from which all the fry that ever 
went into these rivers oame, was started in 1S7& I have 
before me the Report of the Canmiij^uqn of Fisheries 
for that year, from which it appears that the catch of 
salmon in Queens county was 40,000 pounds. The re- 
port for 1902 is also before me, and it shows that, after 
twenty-six years of fry-planting in Port Medway, Port 
Mouton, Liverpool and other rivers, the catch of sal- 
mon in Queens county was 20,200 pounds— just one- 
half that of 1876; which shows that even the overseer 
of the county was ignorant of the "fact and figures! 
As to his distinguishing the progeny of the planted 
fry from the progeny of the native fish, I can only 
envy him his great perspicacity. The ova hatched in 
the Bedford house in my time, came from River Philip, 
in Cumberland county, Sackville and Musquodoboit, in 
Halifax county, East, Middle and West Rivers, in 
Pictou county. Of late years the reports say they come 
principally from St. John Harbor. Perhaps Overseer 
Ford can distinguish the progeny of each river, where 
the fish vary in weight from fifteen pounds to thirty 
pounds! 
Mr. Samuels admits that a large portion of his in- 
formation has been gathered from hearsay. What in- 
formation I have on the subject is derived from my 
own experience among the hatching houses during 
twenty-two years of official life, and since from the re- 
ports of the commissioners of the New England States, 
and from those of the Fisheries Department of Canada. 
If any more authentic sources of information exist, I 
would be glad to be informed how I can get access to 
t IrTyour issue of the 6th inst. Mr. W. B. Mershon tells 
of the poor fishing he had in the Grand Cascapedia. I 
have beside me a letter from an angling friend, which 
says: "I was away five weeks fishing the Grand Cas- 
capedia. In all this time four rods killed only eleven 
fish. Such a poor season was never known." From 
the Nepissiquit and Restigouche come similar reports 
of poor fishing, both on the coast and in the rivers. 
Yet all these streams have had the assistance of fry 
from the hatching houses. In the Restigouche and its 
tributaries the fishery reports of the department at 
Ottawa tell us that in the last thirty years 3?&34>00o, 
