THE RICH SPORTSMAN 
Dear Forest and Stream : 
1 HAVE just read an article by Albert 
Stoll, Jr., in a recent issue of the 
Detroit Evening Neivs that hits the nail 
so squarely on the head that I think it is 
worthy of reproduction. There is always 
a howl from a certain class about the 
“rich sportsman.” If a man is able finan- 
cially to do something to conserve wild 
life and does it, no matter how unself- 
ishly, there is a howl and a cry raised 
right away. “The kid-glove sportsman,” 
“the idle rich,” “the city sportsman” and 
numerous other terms have been used to 
express disapproval of what, nine times 
out of ten, is for the public good. The 
article follows : 
“Of all the meaningless and yet in- 
flammatory phrases that have come to my 
attention while in attendance at meetings 
and conferences of sportsmen and state 
officials, that of ‘idle rich and uncared- 
for poor’ among the hunters and fisher- 
men of this state ranks first. And yet I 
can see great possibilities, politically, for 
it if used with care and at the psycho- 
logical time. 
“What the users of these words are 
evidently trying to get at is this. Those 
who have sufficient worldly goods can, if 
their fancy so dictates, acquire by lease 
or purchase the shooting and fishing 
rights of certain lands and waters from 
which, through our trespass laws, they 
can exclude the public. This undoubt- 
edly is the right of property ownership 
given all of us by the Constitution of the 
United States. It is such as these that 
have been called ‘idle rich.’ On the other 
hand, ‘the uncared-for poor’ are supposed 
to be the hunters and fishermen such as 
you and I who have been excluded from 
the privileges of these privately owned 
or leased reserves regardless of whether 
or not we even wanted to share in the 
advantages offered by these stablish- 
ments. In this, it is assumed, we do. 
“Of the entire hunting and fishing area 
of Michigan, from what figures I can 
gather, about per cent, is owned by 
private individuals, associations or cor- 
porations from which the hunter, fisher- 
man or camper is excluded. Of the bal- 
ance owned by individuals, corporations 
or the state, the pleasure of hunting, fish- 
ing or camping is ours if we want it. 
“It is said that our best hunting 
grounds, our most prolific deer covers, 
our thickly populated bird covers, some 
of our finest bass lakes, certain of our 
bounteous brook trout waters and the 
like are owned by private individuals or 
associations. This I believe. But, on 
analysis, I also find that there is a reason 
for these ‘best duck marshes,’ ‘most pro- 
lific deer covers,’ ‘thickly populated bird 
covers,’ ‘finest bass lakes’ and ‘most 
bounteous brook trout waters.’ The own- 
ers of these areas have made these places 
attractive homes for their inhabitants. 
They have furnished them with food and 
shelter and protection from common ene- 
mies. They have introduced privately 
purchased fry and fingerlings into the 
waters. They have done the things with 
these areas that the great State of Michi- 
gan should do with its areas — the shoot- 
ing and fishing grounds of the ‘uncared- 
for poor.’ 
“I don’t believe that my neighbor en- 
vies me when each year the purple mar- 
tins come in flocks to my hand-made bird 
houses and remain my friends and guests 
all summer. Nor do I believe that I am 
severely criticised when I try by legal 
means to make my woods comfortable 
and livable for my fox squirrel friends — 
a place where they can come for protec- 
tion from powder and shot. I don’t be- 
lieve that they call me ‘idle rich’ and the 
Lord knows I don’t want to be called 
‘the uncared-for poor.’ I believe that in 
out-of-doors I am as rich as any of them. 
I also know that for fishing, hunting and 
camping grounds we, the so-called ‘un- 
cared-for poor,’ have twenty times the 
area to play in than have all the owners 
of private reserves, but our game and 
birds and fish are not as plentiful in our 
covers and waters because we, or the 
state, or those in charge of our conserva- 
tion affairs have not made these areas as 
attractive to their inhabitants and visit- 
ors as have the ‘idle rich.’ 
“If those who use these comparative 
words, both meaningless and inflamma- 
tory, would set aside their jealousies, 
their prejudices, their political palaver 
and utterly useless ‘red flagging’ and get 
busy in the endeavor to make our entire 
state attractive to birds, animals and fish, 
there will be less prejudice and less 
hatred toward the so-called ‘idle rich.’ 
We, then, all will be ‘idle rich’ in fish, 
game and birds, and the sincere yet fool- 
ish originator of ‘the idle rich and un- 
cared-for poor’ would have to look to 
other places for political thunder. 
“Let us do with our 98j4 per cent, 
what private ownership has done with its 
per cent. The sportsmen of Michi- 
gan should demand this from the Con- 
servation Commission.” 
Wm. B. Merchon. Michigan. 
THE 28 BORE 
Dear Forest and Stream : 
P ROM information given me first- 
^ hand, and from various articles ap- 
pearing in the sporting press of compar- 
atively recent date, I am constrained to 
believe that there is a well-organized 
mov'ement on foot to cast aspersion and 
discredit on the 28-bore shotgun and its 
work in the hunting field. These articles 
of which I speak all seem to champion a 
sentiment leaning toward guns of wider 
gauge. Various arguments are put forth, 
various reasons asserted why the little 
guns should not be used ; but to my 
mind, and in the opinion of several other 
champions of the small gauges, this — 
shall I call it propaganda — is not backed 
by sufficient indisputable evidence to 
warrant us in returning a verdict or a 
true bill against them. 
Two or three “serious faults” are: 
found with the 28, but the main two arei 
that “they cripple more game than the 
larger guns” and “that there is morei 
danger from bursted barrels, due to ex- 
cessive breech-pressure in the narrows 
tubes.” Now let us take these objec- 
tions up and turn the rays on them. Let 
us thrash them out thoroughly and see 
what we get. I will begin by saying that 
the small bores have been hurt more 
by their friends than by their enemies. 
The extravagant claims made by thei 
over-enthusiastic possessor of some really 
good 28 has led many would-he pur- 
chasers to expect 12-bore results from 
28-bore guns, when, as a matter of fact, 
of scientific truth no such thing is pos- 
sible. Anyone who takes the time to 
give the matter a moment’s serious 
thought must see that the performances' 
of a shotgun must taper douni with the 
bore — must divindle with the decreasing 
charge. Even reputable dealers will 
sometimes so far forget themselves as to ! 
tell you that a 28 will shoot harder than j 
a 12. Now, as a matter of fact and! 
scientific experiment, no such condition 
does or ever will exist. It is a fixed j 
law of nature that cannot be overcome, | 
and a 28 can never shoot as hard as aj 
12, 16 or even a 20-bore gun when 
exactly comparative charges are used.; 
Here is a brief table giving results over 
the chronograph with loads of some- 
where near an even proportion : 
Charge of Charge Tons Velocity 
Gauge 
Powder 
Drams 
of shot 
Ounces 
Mean 
Pressure 
Feet 
Seconds 
.12 
3K 
1J4-7 
4.00 
930 
.16 
3 
1.7 
4.01 
924 
.20 
Ks-7 
5.65 
920 
.28 
2 
H-7 
5.10 
910 
You will readily see by this table that 
the velocity decreases with the bore of 
the gun, while the mean pressure seems 
to increase in a like manner. The above 
table is adapted from Parker Bros, cata- 
