32 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Jan. 14, 190S. 
preface (p. 5) it is stated, "There has been a dedme m 
the South Atlantic States and an increase in the Western 
Gulf States. Within the past few years the raising of rice 
in Louisiana and Texas has developed into one of the 
leading industries of that region, and has given great 
value to lands heretofore used only for grazing, and to 
water which had been allowed to waste into the Gulf of 
Mexico. During the past ten years the United States have 
produced less than half the rice consumed m this country, 
the average importation for that time being 172,736,057 
pounds per annum, having a value of $3,io5.90o- vVitn 
the present large importation and the increasing use _ot 
rice as a staple food rather than a luxury, the possibilities 
for the expansion of this industry are unlimited. Une 
of the chief obstacles that the rice producers have to con- 
tend with and a factor that materially reduces his prohts, 
is the voluntary red rice, the greatest bane of the rice 
grower. This is described on page 71 of the bulletin as fol- 
lows : "In harvesting, more or less seed falls to the ground 
especially at places where sheaves have been stacked and 
along the driveway from the fields to the barnyards, ihe 
seed that is not destroyed by sprouting and burning re- 
mains in the ground and grows up with the following 
season's planting. This voluntary plant produces red rice, 
so called because of the pink cuticle next_ to the kernel 
The great objection to red rice is that it is soft, so soft 
that ?t cannot be milled, and is, therefore, unmerchant- 
able The grain scatters out readily, and, reseeding the 
field, produces more and more of its kind In some in- 
stances it has increased so rapidly and taken so hrm a 
hold on the ground that it has been necessary to leave 
whole fields idle for a year or more in order to free the 
ground from, this noxious plant." The rice growers en- 
deavored by every known method to prevent the loss en- 
tailed bv this scourge to the industry, but the greatest aid 
that they might have in keeping red rice under subjection 
has never received proper attention. , 
Nature provides certain classes of birds that eat red 
rice voraciously, and thus remove it from the planters 
fields and prevent it from doing any damage. Among 
these beneficial birds none do more good than wild ducks 
and o-eese "Practically every species of wild duck com- 
mon east of the Rocky Mountains may be found wintermg 
along the north and west Gulf coasts in large numbers 
The water fowl are early migrants, and are not found 
in the rice fields to any extent during the planting season, 
but all winter long they feed upon the rice which has lam 
m the fields since harvest time. In this way they are un- 
doubtedly of the greatest benefit to the rice grower; but 
the demand for them for the table ^^^o great that the 
boom of the shotgun is heard in the rice fields all mght 
Ion- and all winter long. The birds early become too shy 
to feed by daylight, and are shot on the wing during 
moonlight and starlight nights. Those which are only 
crippled and fall at considerable distances from the gun- 
ner are picked up by the turkey buzzards and b ack vul- 
tures which industriously and thoroughly work the fields 
during the early forenoon. Observant rice growers who 
have watched the wildfowl and measured the extent of 
their depredations, fully agree that good rice farming, 
which includes intelligent handling of the crop after the 
reaper has left the field, will place these birds who ly in 
the beneficial list. There is little danger to rice stacks, 
and the cleaner the fields are gleaned of the fallen gram 
after harvest the better. The ducks are the most effective 
of the feathered gleaners in the rice field after the harvest 
"The evidence obtained warrants the conclusion that 
birds remove from the rice fields enormous quantities of 
rice, which, if left to sprout, wonld insure the spread of 
red rice and a certain consequent reduction m the value ot 
the annual crop" (pp. 56, 52). . . 
To summarize : The important question before the citi- 
zens of Texas at this time is, shall the excellent and wise 
law now on the statute books of the Commonwealth for 
the protection of wild ducks and geese he changed or re- 
pealed^ As the law now stands it permits the real sports- 
man to indulge in shooting to a proper extent, but it pre- 
vents market shooting, which is the most prolific of all 
methods of game destruction. The authoritative statement 
of the United States Department of Agriculture shows 
that wildfowl are a valuable aid to an already great agri- 
cultural industry in Texas, and one that bids fair m the 
future to grow much larger. Shall this important indus- 
try be crippled in its infancy in order that a, few pot- 
hunters may shoot for market? It certainly will be short- 
sighted and uneconomic to change the present law, which 
is distinctly for the greatest good to the greatest number 
of citizens. ... 
Let the present law remain in force. 
William Dutcher, _ 
President National Association of Audubon Societies. 
Poisoning Vermin, 
Office of the Board of Game Commissioners. — Har- 
risburg. Pa.— I write you to-day on the matter of 
preserving our game and our birds against the de- 
predations of vermin of all kinds, foxes, wildcats, 
weasels, skunks, mink, etc. I am in receipt of many 
communications from all over the State on this sub- 
ject and all agree that if some positive measure is not 
adopted in the near future for the extermination of 
this class of animals of prey, together with the great 
horned owls, the barred owl and two or three species 
of hawks, some of our most highly-prized game birds, 
such as the ruffed grouse, will in many parts of the 
commonwealth exist only in memory. There is no 
question in the minds of those who have given this 
matter any thought whatever but that these animals are 
rapidly depleting our cover of all kinds of game, and 
of song and insectivorous birds. 
It seems strange to me and slightly ridiculous to_ en- 
force laws placing a limit on certain game to be killed 
in one day, to forbid its killing except within a speci- 
fied time, and its exportation out of the State by 
sportsmen who desire to pursue these things for pleas- 
ure or recreation, or the man who pur-sues them be- 
cause he needs them for food, and then deliberately 
refuse or neglect to protect them from their natural 
enemies, to whom a closed geasoji or Sunday is-un- 
Icnown. 
I am satisfied that individually each of these animals 
destroy more game and birds than any hunter, legal 
or illegal, who ever trod the woods. If these vermm 
were to limit their killing to actual necessity it would 
be bad enough, but many of them go far beyond that, 
ana appear to kill simply- for the love of killing, so that, 
day in and day out, year after year, their trail is 
covered with blood. 
One gentleman who has made a study of the weasel 
for many years and who has actually killed over' seventeen 
hundred inside of ten years ^ays, during the course of 
this investigation he repeatedly found that this animal, 
from the food standpoint, almost nightly exceeded his 
necessities. On one occasion he found eleven rabbits 
that had been killed by one weasel in one night. He 
frequently found where three or four, or more, had been 
killed by one animal in one night, and cited an in- 
stance of one weasel killing thirty-two chickens, full- 
grown, in three hours. His conclusion that the weasel 
kills sirnply because it loves to kill corroborates many 
authorities on the same subject. 
Another party, writing of the skunk, says: "Seven 
years of careful study satisfies me this animal (while 
at certain times it no doubt does some good) during 
the springtime lives almost exclusively upon the eggs 
and young of birds that nest upon the ground. I have 
frequently killed skunks gorged with eggs, and have 
found many nests of quail despoiled by this pest. I 
know the skunk did it, for I killed the beast and found 
the eggs in its stomach." This is not an isolated case; 
many authorities point in the same direction. The 
sportsmen especially despise a skunk." 
Dr. Warren, in his late work on "Diseases and Ene- 
mies of Poultry," defends this animal and says the above 
cited ideas are erroneous and claims they do much 
good, especially in the hop-growing district. He cites 
Dr. C. M. Merriam, who says: "The skunk is pre- 
eminently an insect eater; he destroys many more 
beetles, grasshoppers and the like than all other mam- 
mals together, and in addition to these, destroys vast 
numbers of mice." Many other authorities are cited 
to the same end, but I nowhere see the claim made that 
they do not destroy the eggs and young of ground-nesting 
birds, and see no reason why they should be preserved 
on the wild lands of the State, dozens of miles from 
cultivated lands, where it appears they may be of some 
benefit. 
This fall I saw the tracks of as many as fifty wild- 
cats. This was upon but a limited territory, say ten 
miles in diameter, and led me to believe these animals 
were very plentiful, at least in that section, and the 
same word comes to me from many directions. I 
learned of the killing of several fawns by wildcats dur- 
ing the present year. 
A few days ago I saw a letter written by one of the 
forestry wardens of the State, in which he states that 
a "lynx" (no doubt a wildcat) jumped upon a deer near 
his camp a few days prior to the writing, but because 
of size and strength the deer, although downed twice, 
had succeeded in escaping. The man with his dog im- 
mediately took the trail, and after a four hours' chase, 
succeeded in shooting the cat, which weighed almost 
forty pounds. When these fellows can't get venison 
they must have something else. 
The work of Br'er Fox is so well-known that I need 
not dwell upon his specialty. He is an expert in all 
dire'ctions of game-bird destroying. 
Personal investigation, as well as information that 
comes in other ways, convinces me that something 
must be done in this matter, and done at once, if we 
hope to preserve our game and our live birds.. Fully 
a year and a half must expire before help from new 
law can be hoped for, even if it comes at that time. 
What shall be done in the meantime? 
I am just in receipt of the monthly report of one of 
the protectors connected with this office, Hugh Maloy, 
of Freeland, Luzerne county. In his statement: of the 
condition of game in his section, he says: "There was 
killed on our protected ground not less than ten thous- 
and ruffed grouse, and we have the seed left for a kill 
of fully twenty thousand next year, if the season for 
hatching is all right. Our birds hatched splendidly this 
spring, from eight to fourteen grouse to the pair, and 
from ten to twenty-six quail. Owing to the dry month 
of May and the first of June, the wet weather follow- 
ing drowned almost all the young birds; very few of 
them got through. Rabbits were plentiful, and we ex- 
pect to turn out at least five to the acre next year. I 
am now ready to start out with two thousand sparrows." 
That the above may be fully understood, I would say, 
by "protected ground" Mr. Maloy means territory that 
has been systematically poisoned for a nupiber of years 
past. The Game Protective Association of. Freeland, 
of which Mr. Maloy is a member, secures thousands of 
English sparrows, either by killing , them, or by buying 
them from the h&ji who do kill them. .The breast .is 
cut open and enough strychnine is introduced to 
thoroughly poison the body.- These are. placed on the 
wild lands of the neighborhood, with the result before 
mentioned. 
I tried the same process this last spring on an island 
in the Susquehanna River, in which I arn • interested. 
My bait was common eel, my victims rats innumerable, 
some seventeen 'possums, several weasels, .some skunks 
and some crows. Result — birds hatching in perfect 
peace, and rabbits — well, I won't attempt to say how 
many. I kicked out twenty- five, in one day this fall 
without a dog. We have several coveys of quail 
wintering there now, where last year not a bird could 
be found. _ _ , 1 ^ 
We have a law in this State, just and proper, that 
prohibits the placing of poison for the purpose of in- 
itentionally killing a domestic animal or dog. Still there 
is no question of the right of the owner of land to 
place or permit the placing of poison for the purpose 
of killing vermin or animals destructive to the interests 
of the people, so long as it is not placed^fgor the pur- 
pose of poisoning domestic animals or dogi," or 'placed 
where these animals are likely tO;Jget said poison,' for I 
take it the purpose of placing the poison m'a;y .vire'ir be 
judged from the place where it is deposited.' or the 
vehicle used to convey it. ,A dog is not likely \'to eat a 
raw sparrow, even if he should come across it in the 
woods. He is not likely to eat raw fish or eel. Few 
dogs are to be found in the woods at this time of the 
year ; and before summer comes, the dead bird, the piece 
of fish or eel will be either eaten by vermin or decom- 
posed and rendered harmless. If this is done the fox, 
the wildcat, the weasel and the skunk of the wild lands, 
and many an owl will be called down, without the aid 
of a bounty law or the expense attached to it. I have 
th ought this matter over carefully, taken legal advice 
on it, and now write this letter, suggesting the use of 
strychnine as the only means 6f in any way combatting 
the rapid and threatening increase of vermin. I recom- 
mend the. use of this poison in this. way. 
Joseph Kalbfus, 
;.. Secretary of the Game Commission. 
Minnesota Non-Residents. 
NiLwooD, 111,, Jan. 6.~Editor Forest and Stream: I 
see by issue of January 7 that the non-resident will have a 
hard time getting back to his old hunting grounds in Min- .i 
nesota if the Legislature up there takes a notion to adopt 
the recommendations of the Fish and Game Commission. , 
According to your clipping from the Pioneer Press, they 
propose to shut out the non-resident, and thus avoid a 
large percentage of accidental killings and the selling of 
deer and moose. 
Now this is very unjust to the non-resident, and it 
seems to me would be a very poor way to stop either the 
man killing or the selling of game. The law should be 
changed; we all realize the fact, and look to a change ■! 
that will be better for all concerned. j 
I would suggest that no license be issued to any person j 
under the age of nineteen. I make this suggestion because 
I have seen a license issued to a boy who looked to be 
about thirteen. The auditor who issued this license at 
first .said no, but the boy's mother insisted, saying the boy 
was going out when his father was, and that he would 
see after the boy, and the youngster got the license. Now, ' 
that boy's mother and father had about as much idea that 
he would kill a deer as I have that I will get an elephant 
in this country. This being the case, whv did they pay 
the dollar for his chances? For the reason that the boy's 
father could get six deer and bring them home, claiming 
that the boy got three of them. 
I think that if the Commission will look over their files 
and take account, of the age of applicants, they will find 
they have turned loose a great number of boys who do 
not realize what a dangerous thing a high power rifle is, 
thus increasing the chances for man killing, as well as 
putting it in the power of some men to take twice or three 
times the number of deer allowed him, and be perfectly 
safe in doing it. 
So far as the non-resident taking his game home to 
sell is concerned, let the commissioners of the several 
States concerned get together and present bills to their 
separate Legislatures and prohibit the sale of game in 
their States, whether taken in the State of the hunter or 
in any other State. 
There were two of us from this county who took non- 
resident licenses in Minnesota last season, and we brought 
out three deer. I saw a party of five or six from Ohio 
who took ont two deer and three moose heads. The num- 
ber of my license was 143, issued November 12. Now 
suppose every non-resident did as well as our two parties, 
the loss of game to the State would be considerable; but I 
think it would be safe to say that non-resident hunters did 
not average one deer to the man. But there need be no 
guesswork: about it. Mr. Fullerton can give figures, if , 
asked, and I have no doubt he will do so. Suppose again < 
that mine was the last non-resident license issued, and 
each of us took out two deer and one moose, making a 1 
total of 143 moose and 286 deer, for which we paid 
$3,575, making an average cost of $8.31 per head of game 
taken out; add to this the cost of expressing, and you 
have about $10 cost on each animal taken ont, exclusive of : 
transportation to and from the hunting grounds, and liv- 
ing expenses while hunting. I think figures produced will 
show that after all expenses have been footed, it will 
be found that no non-resident could afford to go to Min- 
nesota to hunt game to sell with any expectation of com- 
ing out a rich man. 
Another thing that is particularly necessary when pro- \ 
tection of the deer and moose is looked to is to have game 
Vt^ardens who will look up illegal killing. I heard a man 
say this fall that "the man who hunted for Mr. 's 
logging camp helped him get his deer out of the woods." 
Now how would that have sounded to Mr. Fullerton if he 
had been up there at that time and heard the conversa- 
tion? And again, what could he have done if he had 
gone out there and found fifteen or twenty bull moose 
and twice as many deer hanging in that camp's larder 
all tagged with coupons from regularly issued licenses? 
Nothing. Yet the law has been violated. Probably every 
lumber Jack in that camp has taken out a license, and this 
one hunter killed all the game. 
The Garne and Fish Commission should study up a way 
to stop this kind of destruction. I can find a man who 
will swear that one logging company took fourteen moose 
—cows as well as bulls — into their camps in one or two 
days' hauling over roads they had swamped for the ex- 
press purpose of getting to them. Let the Commission 
"get next" this business and stop it, and they will do 
more toward preserving game than by shutting out the 
non-resident hunters. Give us a chance. We are not all 
game hogs nor market-hunters. J. P. B. 
A Sottnd Forest Policy* 
(President Roosevelt's speech to the Forestry Congress in Wash- 
" ington, D. C) 
"I ASK, with all the intensity that I am capable, that the 
men of the West will remmeber the sharp distinction I 
have drawn between the man who skins the land and the 
man who develops the country. I am going to work with, 
and only with, the man who develops the country. I am 
;against the land skinner every time. Our policy is con- 
"sist'ent to give to every portion of the public domain its 
highest possible amount of use, and- of course, that can 
be given ' only through the hearty co-operation of the 
western people." 
