ISO 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Aug. 13 , 1905. 
Primitive Hunting Ways* 
To the hunter of to-day with his breechloading shot- 
gun or rifle, his guides, his dogs, his thousand articles 
or implements tending to add to the comfort or to the 
effectiveness of his outing, few things should be more 
interesting than a knowledge of how his forerunners in 
the land captured the game on which to a large extent 
they subsisted. Their weapons were primitive; a few 
yards of line, a net or two woven of vegetable fibre, a 
wooden bow backed with sinew, and a few stone- 
headed arrows, constituted almost their whole equip- 
ment for the chase. 
The Forest and Stream has had, first and last, many 
accounts of such hunting; accounts given sometimes by 
the men whose memories went back almost to the days 
of the stone-headed arrow, or by some early traveler 
among the Indians who had observed their methods 
and left a record of how they lived and what they did. 
We are permitted to copy from the bulletin of the 
American Museum of Natural History an account 
given by Mr. Roland B. Dixon, of the hunting methods 
of the Northern Maidu of California. Mr. Dixon is 
studying Indians for the Huntington California expe- 
dition, and his attractive accounts of the primitive 
methods of hunting the deer, elk> bear and smaller 
game furnishes interesting reading for the hunter of 
to-day. 
That portion of the Maidu living in the maun^ins 
depended much more on game than did the lo^aiid 
people, and they were much more skillful hunters. 
Deer were hunted in several ways. During the rut- 
ting season in particular, a favorite method was to stalk 
the game, wearing either a whole deer hide with head 
and antlers left on, or merely the head and antlers. 
The antlers, in either case, were usually scraped out 
hollow, to make them lighter. Wearing this disguise, 
the hunter went to bushy places, where deer were 
plenty, and by pretending to be eating, attempted to 
get near enough to the deer to shoot it with bow and 
arrow, held carefully concealed close against the breast. 
Deer were also often run down by single hunters, both 
in summer and winter; in the latter season, the hunter 
having to rely, of course, on snowshoes. 
It was on the larger hunts, in which great numbers of 
men participated, that the chief development of their 
hunting methods lay. Deer drives of considerable size 
were held at different times of the year. In some, the 
men would spread out over a large extent of country 
and drive the deer over some steep cliff. More’ com- 
monly, certain men would be posted at known deer 
runways and trails, and then, the deer being started up 
by, the beaters, the concealed hunters would shoot the 
deer as they fled along their accustomed paths. Often 
fires were set to drive deer. The most important 
method, however, was that in which drive-fences ■ were 
employed. It was almost wholly confined to the moun- 
tain area. Thirty or forty men were necessary to carry 
out such a drive successfully. The fences were made of 
reeds or grapevines roughly twined together, stretched 
from tree to tree and between bushes . along 
the mountainsides, and arranged to cross as,, .many 
known deer trails as possible. The entire length 
of some of these drive-fences was often as much 
as- a mile or more. The fence had usually a num- 
ber of sharp salients or angles, in each of which was a 
pit, in which a man was concealed. These concealed 
men, being in place, the others spread out over the 
ridge, and slowly advancing, drove the game toward 
the fence. The deer, reaching the fence, followed it, 
and trying to escape at the various angles, were there 
shot by the men in hiding, or sometimes were merely 
clubbed to death. Drives of this sort were held only 
in the spring and fall. 
The whole affair was accompanied by much cere- 
mony. Before the drive occurred, all who were to take 
part in it assembled on the ridge where the drive was to 
be held. A fire was built, and offerings made to the 
ku'kini or spirits of. the mountain, and prayers for a 
successful hunt were repeated by the old men. The 
deer were besought not to jump over the fence, or to 
try to break through it or crawl under it. As the hunt 
went on, the deer, as they were killed, were brought to 
the spot where the ceremony was held. The legs of 
all were cut off and placed on a small platform built in 
the branches of a tree near by, and left there till the 
drive was over, the affair often lasting several days. 
During this whole period of the drive, the women and 
children, who were all left at the village, must observe 
a variety of regulations. Children had to be very care- 
ful; they must not play violently, shout, jump over 
things, kick, run, fall down or throw stones. The 
women also must keep quiet and stay much of the time 
indoors. Should these regulations be broken, the deer 
would become unmanageable, would jump the fence, and 
the whole drive be unsuccessful. During the -whole 
period of the hunt no deer bones must be thrown 
away or burned or eaten by a dog. During the 
period of the hunt, the hunters ate only the liver of the 
deer killed. They must also abstain from their wives 
for some time previous to the hunt and during it. 
When the hunt was over a second ceremony was held 
at the same place as the firsh Similar offerings of 
food and beads were made again to the spirits and_ the 
deer. Then the meat was collected and ec[ually divided 
among all who had taken part. The leg bones were 
taken down from the platform and divided, to be taken 
home and cracked for the marrow. The antlers and 
jaw bones of all deer killed were hung up on some 
bush or small tree, at the spot where the animal was 
killed. This custom applies as well to deer killed by 
single hunters at any time. 
Dogs were at times used to help in these drives, or by 
single hunters. A good hunting dog is said to have 
been highly prized. The dogs used are described by 
some as being much like the coyote in shape, size and 
color. By others they are declared to have been 
smaller, resembling more a poodle. 
In the Sierra region bears were usually hunted in the 
spring, at the time when they are just about awakening 
from their period of hibernation. The bear being loca- 
ted in a cave or hollow tree, the hunters, of which there 
are always quite a party, held before the cave a cere- 
mony, in general similar to that already described as 
preceding the deer drive. Several men then took 
torches and bows and went into the cave. As a result 
of the ceremony, the bear was supposed not to look at 
the men. The hunters made an address to the bear, 
in which he was told that his life had been paid for, and 
that he must stand up and give them room to shoot. 
This the bear was supposed to do, and was accordingly 
shot in the heart at once. The bear being dead, the 
arrow was extracted, decorated with beads and hung 
to a bush nearby. 
Grisly bears were hunted only by those who were 
very fleet of foot, and renowned hunters. The grisly 
was never attacked except by a number of men to- 
gether, and in the foothill region in the following man- 
ner: Four or five men would go in a party, and all but 
one would hide behind trees or rocks in the vicinity 
of the bear. One man then went as near the bear as 
possible and shot once, or twice, if he could. He then 
ran, followed by the bear, toward the place of conceal- 
ment of one of the other hunters. Slipping behind the 
tree or rock, the first hunter would stop, and the fresh 
runner would instantly jump out and run toward the 
place where another man was concealed. The bear 
would follow this second runner, and as he passed the 
tree or rock, the first would again shoot at him. The 
second runner would similarly change places with the 
third man, who, running toward the fourth, would lead 
the bear away again. Thus each hunter had time to 
rest and to shoot several arrows while the other men 
were taking the attention of the bear. By thus chang- 
ing off, they tried to tire out the bear and fill his body 
full of arrows, until he finally succumbed. It was al- 
ways, however, dangerous sport, and not infrequently 
several of the hunters were killed. 
Elk were usually run down, being followed for days, 
and finally dispatched with bow and arrow. Squirrels 
and rabbits were shot with blunt arrows; and rabbits 
were also taken in nets stretched from bush to bush 
and upheld by sticks. Into these nets, which stretched 
for many hundred feet, the rabbits were driven, and 
clubbed to death at the nets by men stationed there for 
the purpose, the rabbits generally getting their heads 
caught in the meshes of the net. 
Quail were snared. In their seasonal migrations 
they pass from the lower to the higher ridges, and back 
by well-defined little trails. Along either side of one 
of these runways a tiny fence of little twigs was built, 
standing some fifteen or twenty centimetres high and 
extending for perhaps two hundred metres. Every 
five or seven metres an opening just large enough for 
a single bird to pass, was left, now on one side, now 
on the other. In each of these openings a fine hair- 
noose was set, and a few berries scattered on the 
ground just outside the gate. The quail, following 
their usual runways, passed between these fences, saw 
the bait scattered for them outside the openings, and 
passing out to take it, were caught by the hair-nooses. 
In this manner scores of quail were often collected in a 
single day. 
Grouse were usually shot. Pigeons were often snared 
or netted by stretching nets across certain gaps in 
ridges, through which the birds were _ known to fly 
habitually. The eagle was never shot, it seems; as to 
do so would be sure to bring bad luck, make the bow 
warp and the arrows break. 
Geese and ducks were caught in several ways. In 
the Sierra, among the Northeastern Maidu, they were 
often shot; but a more common method was to stretch 
a cord across a stream and hang from it every foot or 
two, a noose, held open by a piece of stiff grass. These 
nooses hung just over the surface of the water, and 
many birds were caught as they flew. In the Sac- 
ramento Valley another method was in use. Three 
light props of elder from two- to three metres long 
were used to hold vertically a net about two metres 
wide and six metres long. Three or four of these nets 
were thus set up end to end, the lower corners of the 
nets being pegged down by sticks. A long cord ran 
from the props to a grass-and-bough shelter some 
hundred yards away. One or more decoy geese were 
placed on the ground near the net. When the snare 
was set and the geese alighted nearby, the string was 
pulled by the hunter concealed in the shelter, the props 
gave way, and the net fell on the birds as they rose, and 
held them till the hunter could reach them. Ducks 
were, in this region, also caught with nets in another 
way. The nets were set on bent sticks from the bank 
out over the water’s edge. When the ducks came to 
sleep, they touched strings which released the nets, 
and were caught under the nets as they fell. The cord- 
and-noose method above described was also in use 
here. 
Crows were caught in the Sacramento Valley for 
their skins, which were used in the making of feather 
cloaks. A low, bushy willow was selected, and in it, at 
some height from the ground, a small nest or platform 
was built, reached by a rude ladder. Seated in this 
ne.st, a man was completely concealed. Two light 
sticks, from two metres and a half to three metres 
long, were then taken and tied together loosely at one 
end. These were then spread out like a V, and between 
the open arms a net was stretched. By opening or 
closing the V-shaped frame, this net was opened or 
shut like a fan. One man then hid in the nest in the 
tree, entering it after dark, and had with him one of 
these folding nets. Other men then went about and 
scared up the sleeping birds, which were driven toward 
the concealed hunter, who, as the birds passed by over- 
head, swept out his net, closing the sticks as he did 
so, and in this way often caught a considerable number 
of birds. 
Audubon Society Bird Laws* 
Los Angeles, Cal., July 28. — Editor Forest and Stream: 
One of the editorials of your issue of July 15 notices 
the “Audubon bird law.” Please permit one of your 
readers a few criticisms. The scheme of classifying the 
game birds into various orders, Anatidae, Rallidas, Limi- 
colre and Gallina, does not include all American game 
birds. It does not, I believe, include the dove, unless 
by some hook or crook that bird may be classed under 
Galliiic'e. But the laws of many of our States specifically 
declare the dove to be a game bird. The Penal Code 
of California so declares it. And any sportsman who 
has ever spent_ an hour or so on a “flight” of these 
swift-winged birds will surely not care to raise the 
question. 
In the opinion of the writer, there are two sides to 
this “Audubon bird law,” as there are to most other 
questions; and I do not think the Audubon Society, nor 
its work, past, present or prospective, is justly entitled 
to the unqualified praise meted out to it in the editorial 
columns of Forest and Stream — a paper that is sup- 
posed to stand for the best interests of American sport 
and sportsmanship and sane game protection. 
If the Audubon Society is responsible — and I believe 
it is — for the enactment in California of laws for the 
protection of such unmitigated feathered pests as the 
“flicker” or “yellowhammer,” the orioles and other de- 
structive species of birds, it is engaged in a poor busi- 
ness. The flicker has a pernicious habit of boring good- 
sized holes in the walls of frame houses, as I can 
testify, and the orioles and many other varieties are 
very destructive to fruit and berries. For my part, I 
would not for a moment obey such an unjust and 
irrational law, and will cheerfully continue to kill every 
mischievous flicker that opportunity affords. 
To return to the dove. The Audubon Society — or at 
least that small branch of it that is located in Pasadena, 
Cal., recently succeeded in having an ordinance passed 
by the Board of Supervisors of this county prohibiting 
the killing of doves. This in the face of a State law 
which recognizes the dove as a game bird and prescribes 
a season during which it may be lawfully taken. The 
immediate result of this action on the part of the 
Society, and the kowtowing to them on the part of the 
supervisors, has been a test case, instituted by the 
Los Angeles County Game and Fish Protective Asso- 
ciation, to test the validity of the various county game; 
ordinances of this State. 
The case is now pending before the District Court; 
of Appeals on habeas corpus proceedings, and if the- 
contention of the game association is lost there, the- 
case will speedily be taken up to the Supreme Court of. 
the State for decision. 
_ Briefly, the law' point presented to the court for de- 
cision is as follows: A statute of California attempts; 
to delegate to the various county boards of super- 
visors, power to shorten, by ordinance, the opein 
seasons for game and fish, as provided by the general! 
State game law. Is this delegation of legislative author- 
ity constitutional? There are other points of law in- 
volved, but that is one of the main ones. So far as I 
am able to discover, after an exhaustive search of the 
authorities, the question has never been directly passed 
upon by the Supreme Court of any American State. 
Under this attempted delegation of authority the 
various county boards of California have passed and re- 
passed, changed, rechanged, repealed and re-enacted 
game and fish ordinances by the score, until the State 
game law has been so butchered, so unreasonably 
mutilated and turned topsy-turvy, that it would re- 
quire the constant attendance of a Philadelphia lawyer 
to determine the game laws of the different counties. 
The present_ State game law of California is a good 
law, adequate in its protection of the game, and allow- 
ing a reasonable season to the sportsman within which 
to take it. If any one sufficiently interested will com- 
pare the California statute with those in force in the 
Northern, Eastern, and Southern States— the Atlantic 
States generally — he will see at once that California, 
with her abundance of game, has in general more 
stringent game laws than the States above referred to, 
where the population is much denser and game of all 
kinds much scarcer. Take wildfowl, for instance: 
California allows the shooting of wildfowl for four 
months — Oct. 15 to Feb. 15 — whereas many of the 
Atlantic States permit the shooting of wildfowl for six. 
months during the year, and in some instances, seven 
months. 
All game in California is on the “no sale” list, except 
wildfowl. For this we give thanks. We hope some 
day to prohibit the sale of wildfowl. 
If the report that has reached me is true, at a meeting 
of members of the Audubon Society held recently in 
Pasadena, one of the officers, in the course of an 
address, said in part (I do not attempt to use his exact 
language) : “This Society will take immediate steps to 
secure the enactment of laws that will prohibit the kill- 
ing of any of God’s creatures.” I only hope that re- 
port may be wrong in this instance. If, however, such 
gush and sentimental tommyrot is the, object of the 
Audubon Society, I think Forest and Stream should 
