Sept. 17, 1904.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
239 
following the hounds. The president's daughter, Miss 
Jean Dickinson, took the highest honors last spring at 
the Brookline riding school exhibition, both for riding 
and for skill in handling a horse. 
Work on the buildings is just beginning. The location 
was selected by J. C. Olmstead, brother of the late 
Frederick Law Olmstead, and Frederick H. Bond, Jr., 
as the achitect. The dormitory will have forty suites, 
most of them with baths, so visiting members and their 
friends will have all the comforts of civilization although 
in the heart of the wilderness. The limit of membership 
is fixed at 250, but of course only a small percentage of 
that number will be at the club at any one_ time. The 
chairman of the polo and hunt committee is F. Percy 
Williams, of Cheyenne, who has a pack of the finest wolf- 
hounds obtainable, is familiar with the grounds, and can 
break a broncho as well as any cowboy. 
The objects of the club, as described by Mr. Van Horn, 
are to provide "a restful spot in the Rockies where, in 
congenial companionship, gentlemen of the East and of 
the West may find rest, sport, and pleasure." _ Every one 
who has tasted the delights of the chase will wish the 
members, the fullest success in this novel scheme for 
utilizing the bounties of nature in the far away Rockies. 
At the same time it is to be hoped that they will not for- 
get the more humble sportsmen confined in stores, offices 
or work shops, who must, perforce of conditions, seek 
the recreation of field sports in near-by localities, and in 
ways that involve very moderate expense, and only for 
short periods of time. They consider themselves for- 
tunate if able to take the dog and gun into the covers 
for a half day's shooting a week, or for one or two days 
in a month. They are not less circumscribed in the en- 
joyment of angling. For such, in every State, the proper 
care, protection, and propagation of game and fish in 
near-by covers and waters are what count. Our more 
fortunate friends can aid mightily in this work, not only 
by contributing of their means, but by their influence in 
forming public sentiment in favor of salutary laws and 
their strict enforcement. 
In Massachusetts there are many conspicuous examples 
of men who, though accustomed to make large outlays 
to secure field sports for themselves, are always ready to 
do their share toward fish and game protection in their 
own State. I have 110 doubt the same is true in other 
States. 
Mr. Van Horn informs me that on the reservation are 
fine trout streams, and that the work of stocking them 
was begun three years ago, 1,000,000 fry having been de- 
posited each year. 
'The members are looking forward to the enjoyment of 
royal sport on the completion of the buildings next year. 
The enterprise has certainly been inaugurated under "the 
most brilliant auspices. Central. 
Boyhood Days in Illinois. — IL 
(Concluded from page 215.) 
One morning late in March the following spring, 
Uncle Tom came in and said: "It is time to sow oats, 
the blackbirds are coming." After breakfast I went out 
and saw a line of blackbirds flying straight north; the 
stream of birds was not over fifty feet wide, but it 
reached from the horizon on the south to that of the 
north, and continued without intermission for three 
whole days. I do not know whether they flew at night 
or not, but this was a sight that could be witnessed every 
spring for many years. But as the country settled up 
the birds seemed to stop with us, and while they came 
in droves, the great stream of birds going north was 
seen no more. And if they happened along about the 
time the farmer was sowing his oats, it was a race to 
see whether the farmers got their oats in the ground, 
or the blackbirds got it. Scare-crows would have no 
effect on them, and shotguns were almost unknown, so 
the children were, brought into play to keep the birds 
away until the oats could be covered with- the harrow. 
A few clays later the wild geese came, harrowing the 
sky, and they came by the thousand and alighted all 
around us to feed, and then hurried away to the far 
north. The ducks came, too, and every slough and 
creek and pond was full of them, and many of them 
stayed with us for weeks. 
Then came the wild pigeon. That was a sight that 
few men under fifty years of age can remember, and no 
man will ever see again. They came by countless 
thousands and were days and days in passing; and they 
came every year, without any seeming diminution in 
their numbers, until about 1865, when they ceased to 
come all at once and altogether, and I have never seen 
one since. Had they dwindled down in numbers, year 
after year, and finally ceased to come altogether. I could 
understand that man in his destructiveness had caused 
their extinction, but as they stopped coming all at once 
I have always been at a loss to acount for it. Did they 
take some other route, or were they suddenly extermin- 
ated by some disease, or other catastrophe? 
About five miles from our house the pigeons had a 
roosting place. It was in a wite oak timber, which 
covered about a . thousand acres. They did not nest 
there, but simply rested on the journey. I visited that 
roost many a time when every tree seemed so full of 
birds that it would be impossible for another bird to 
find footing on it. I never killed one of these birds, 
and I never knew any one else to kill or disturb them. 
When the first snow fell that fall, my father took the 
old rifle and the old white horse, early in the morning, 
and went into the woods to hunt for deer and came 
home along in the afternoon with a fine buck tied on 
the old horse. The deer was skinned and dressed; and 
what we could not eat fresh was salted down, like pork 
or beef. The hide was tanned and I reveled in long 
strings of yellow buckskin for whip lashes and shoe 
strings, which I often put to other uses. 
It has always seemed strange to me, that my father 
did not hunt more; there was such an abundance of 
game of all kinds around us. Each fall when the first 
snow fell we had a deer, and on pleasant days in winter 
he would take the old rifle and go into the woods and 
bring home a great bunch of red squirrels. And on 
cold frosty mornings in winter he would sometimes 
bring in two or three prairie chickens with their heads 
shot off, and that was the extent of his hunting. 
Never but one deer in a winter. He seemed as care- 
ful and saving of the deer as he was of our own cattle. 
But that was not the extent of the prairie chickens that 
we had. He made traps out of lath, with a spring door 
at the top, and sprinkled corn in and around them, and 
we often took out from six to twenty chickens the next 
morning. But we never kept more than three, the rest 
being turned loose, and the way they would get away 
from that neighborhood, when turned loose, was a sight. 
These traps were about fifteen inches high, and the 
four sides were just the length of a lath, and they were 
always set in the field among the corn shocks. 
But if he would trap chickens, he would never plow 
a nest under when he found one in the field, but always 
left a good strip of land unplowed and allowed the hen 
to sit and hatch undisturbed. 
The prairie chickens were so abundant then, that it 
did not seem possible that the supply could ever be- 
come exhausted, and their booming in the spring morn- 
ings was like low rumbling thunder. I have seen them 
by thousands at a time, after they flocked in the fall; 
and when the fields or prairie was covered by one of 
these large flocks and you put them suddenly to flight, 
the sound was something terrific. But the country 
settled up rapidly and, before I cast my first vote, the 
pigeons and the prairie chickens were gone. Geese and 
ducks were seldom seen. The deer had crossed the 
Mississippi, and in the place of all these were corn 
and hogs. And from rambling through Elysian fields 
I turned to the drugery of the farm. 
A. D. McCandless. 
Guns and Gun Feats. 
Keller, Wash., Sept. 1. — Editor Forest and Stream: I 
have been very much interested in the discussion of the 
merits of rifles. 
My active experience with rifles dates back to 1853 ; 
it was then that I resighted the first rifle I used to any 
extent. 
And as to squirrels, I have been after them since I was 
big enough to follow my father when he went squirrel 
hunting, for I used to turn them for him, and when he 
would knock one out of a tree I would be the first one to 
light on it like a duck on a June bug. 
During my time I have used or resighted nearly, every 
kind of a rifle that has been manufactured. Among those 
I have resighted were two express rifles ; they were Deci- 
mal, 5, and the charge was 5^ drs. Curtis & Harvey's 
Diamond grain powder, and 300-grain bullet. They were 
brought to Idaho by Messrs. Croasdaile and Alex. Barring, 
with whom I went out on their first hunt for big game. 
They secured sheep, deer and elk, and were well pleased 
with the hunt. When we were in the woods I got them 
to compare their sights with those I had put on the 
Winchester I was using, and they had me resight their 
rifles. Then Mr. Barring had me make a set of sights, 
and these he sent to the London Field, which praised 
them editorially. 
As to the merits of the different rifles, breechloader or 
muzzleloader, if I were going to shoot for my life or 
money, up to 300 or 400 yards, I would, with fair condi- 
tions, shoot a muzzleloading rifle with a round ball. 
Quite a number of years ago Mr. Alvord shot a 200-yard 
match in California, and he used a match rifle with tele- 
scope sight, and made an 80-inch string at 100 shots, 
measured from the center of the bullet hole. I do not 
believe such shooting was ever done with a breechloading 
rifle. 
I have often attended shooting matches where it took 
center to get sixth choice. The shooting was done with 
muzzleloading rifles at 40 and 60 yards, 40 offhand or 60 
with rest. The six choices were, first four took the four 
quarters of the beef; the fifth took the hide and tallow, 
and the sixth took the lead. 
During the Nez-Perce war, the Indians at the first fight 
secured fifty-four Government Springfield carbines. There 
are few better rifles made, and I think that all that saved 
most of us at Cottonwood was the fact that they had been 
using any kind of old rifles, most of them Winchester 
model '66, and they had been used to holding over at any- 
thing like long range, and they had not got used to the 
way the carbines shot, as most of their shots passed over 
our heads. 
After the war was over, three of us sent to the Sharps 
Manufacturing Company and bought three long-range 
rifles ; they cost us $90 each there, and when we got them 
together, with loading equipment and some ammunition, 
they cost us, laid down in Lewiston, $135.50 each. We 
used them for a few years, but I never liked them ; they 
were too big and too long, shot too' much ammunition, 
and the recoil was heavy after they got a little dirty, as 
soon occurred if one was among game. 
The most accurate shooting breechloader I have used 
or resighted was the .38-55 Marlin, with metal-patched 
bullet. This would come nearer shooting the bullets into 
one hole than anything, and had it not been too heavy, I 
should have kept it as long as I wanted a large caliber 
rifle. With it I have barked eight squirrels without a 
miss ; and I shot it at six deer and probably 100 grouse, 
and never shot at a thing with it I did not kill, although 
I had to' shoot one deer twice. I had it fitted with a 
Malcolm telescope sight, which I found to be perfect for 
rest shooting, but rather slow for the mountains. I sold 
the rifle but kept the sight, which I will fit to a .22, for 
there is little big game left, and all the shooting we now 
do is with a .22. Few hunters have any idea what a rifle 
a .22 is. I went hunting on Labor Day six years ago, and 
shot nine times with a Marlin .22 long rifle cartridge and 
killed six grouse, all shot through the head, and two deer, 
one shot through the head and the other I broke its back. 
There were five of us out, and the other boys got two 
Franklin grouse. 
The next Labor Day I went out alone, and I killed four 
sharp-tail grouse at three shots and six blue grouse at 
six shots, and a buck that dressed 182 pounds, at 175 
yards; and this with a .22 Stevens Favorite. Both these 
.22 were sighted with the Lyman peep sight and a silver 
front sight filed down till very thin," not half the thickness 
of a dime. 
With the atmospheric conditions favorable, I do not 
think there is a cartridge made that will make a better 
target up to 500 yards than the .22 long rifle. 
In regard to revolvers, I have never been without one 
since 1853, and I have killed all kinds of game with 
them. I never found any other cartridge revolver that 
shot as accurate as the old Colt Navy .36 caliber with the 
round ball. I never could understand how it was you 
could load them with the round ball and then shoot them, 
and they would shoot where you held them; then load 
them with the same amount of powder and the conical ball 
and they would shoot 6 inches high in 20 yards, and it is 
the same with the S. & W. revolvers of to-day. I have 
had the S. & W. .32-44 and the .38-44, and the .44 target, 
and they all will shoot 6 inches higher in 20 yards with 
the conical ball than they will with the round ball. 
Yesterday I was out and I shot twice at grouse; one 
shot was about 40 yards, the other not quite so far; I hit 
both heads. 
As to the sights, there is nothing that compares with the 
Lyman peep sight ; and if a man's eyes are normal, he can 
file the hind sight down till it has the hole in the peep 
half filled out, and he will have the quickest sight ever 
used, and one that is as near perfect as it is possible to 
make it; for then when you put the bead on the target 
you have the same as three dots in a row, and they are 
a great help in keeping from canting the rifle to the right 
or left. I used mine that way till my eyes got so old that 
I could not see the front sight. Now I have to use a 
small aperture, so that I can see but one front sight. 
When it gets so that I cannot hit the head of a grouse 
on average of six out of ten, then I'll have the telescope 
on my rifle; but as long as I can beat the rest of the boys 
without the telescope, I shall be content to use the 
Lyman peep sight. Lew Wilmot. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
There is no one who is so qualified to- testify in the 
affirmative as the one who does a thing. The one who 
tries and fails has no evidence. The person who did not 
see a thing that others saw is a poor witness. I can get 
the affidavits of two or three dozen men in this city to 
the statement that a stranger calling himself Bogardus 
(not Captain Bogardus), on our common, repeatedly 
tossed an empty can some 15 feet high and hit it five 
times with balls from a .22 repeater before it touched the 
ground. Yet one of your contributors recently men- 
tioned this feat as an impossibility, as he put it, a pipe 
dream. We were not all dreaming. We could hear the 
balls hit the can, and the punctured cans were in evi- 
dence. He broke bluerocks with one barrel of his shot- 
gun, then broke the largest piece with the second barrel, 
stating before the trap was sprung just what he would 
do. Likewise he nipped a small piece out of first one, 
then the other, side of a target ; and took a piece out with 
one barrel, then broke the target with the second, after 
telling us what he would do. Now who' will say the 
feats we saw him perform were . impossibilities ? 
G. W. Cunningham. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
We gun cranks and yarn-spinners are a queer lot, after 
all. When we get into a gabfest over some question of 
shooting or of natural history, in the free-for-all columns 
of Forest and Stream, some of us wax mighty "tetchy," 
and read into one another's letters meanings that cannot 
be extracted from the text. Then we jump the other fel- 
low good and hard and demand to know what he means 
by his insinuations. This peculiarity has cropped out no- 
ticeably in the "myth-busting" symposium. A fellow can't 
ask an innocent question without being accused of doubt- 
ing some other chap's statements. Recently I said that 
the debate between several correspondents had left me 
puzzled, and I asked why the wind of a rifle bullet that 
kills a squirrel or injures a man will not blow out a 
candle? Mind you, I believe that the wind of a bullet 
will blow out a candle, but there are others who' assert 
the contrary. 
Now Cabia Blanco says I have fired a broadside at 
him and conies back at me with facts concerning the 
effects of cannon balls, which I never dreamed of ques- 
tioning. Queer that he did not see that I was talking 
only about the candle-snuffing feat, and did not even sug- 
gest a doubt of M. D.'s statements. I cannoht see where 
there is the least ground for disagreement or debate be- 
tween Cabia Blanco and myself. If he will show me 
that a rifle bullet hitting the wick of a candle does not 
put out the flame, it will still be up to him to explain 
why, before calling on me to answer questions that are 
irrelevant to the subject. Suppose I have or have not 
dodged three-inch shells or been around where ten-inch 
guns were fired; what has all that to do with candle- 
snuffing? Nobody need answer that question — it an- 
swers itself. Just for a novelty, let us stick to the point 
and refrain from drawing far-fetched inferences. 
Quien Sabe. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
Now that the squirrel-barking case is reopened, permit 
me to say, with all due respect for the decision heretofore 
rendered, that the testimony of competent witnesses like 
Messrs. Frazer, Rushton and Barnes, is entitled to more 
consideration than most of the testimony on the other 
side. Mr. Frazer's observations of the vital tenacity of 
squirrels confirm my own, some of them being almost 
exactly parallel to the case I cited in my original "myth- 
busting" article in the Evening Post, around which this 
controversy rages. It appears to me that Mr. Frazer has 
demonstrated by the scientific method that the legendary 
feats of markmanship are fanciful exaggerations, and that 
the cases of squirrel barking cited by a few correspond- 
ents as of their own experience were probably accidents 
or imperfectly observed facts. The testimony of those 
who tell what their grandfathers told them is negligible, 
and I do not think the sentimental faith of the admirer 
of an entertaining writer of reminiscences can be treated 
as evidence at all. 
It is strange that none of the faithful, who came so 
valiantly and clamorously to the rescue of the squirrel- 
barking legend, has had a word to say in support of the 
candle-snuffing story. And yet the assertion that Ken- 
tucky riflemen habitually snuffed candles at fifty yards 
without extinguishing the Harne is made as positively as 
the other. Audubon says in so many words that he saw 
the thing done. Is not his evidence as conclusive on 
the one point as on the other? If we are bound to ac- 
cept one story because Audubon told it, we cannot reject 
the other. 
