56 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[July 14, 1906. 
worked up by skilled operatives. Neither the 
imported feathers nor those of domestic man¬ 
ufacture, present any serious menace to the 
lives of our native wild birds. 
“As to aigrettes: If it is true, as asserted, 
that the plumage of the South American egret 
cannot be distinguished from similar plumage 
obtained from our native birds, some ground 
would seem to be presented for the Audubon 
Society’s demand that the importation of 
aigrettes be forbidden. 
“That the State Legislature would have a 
right to pass a law of this character is con¬ 
ceded. In fact, a precedent for such action has 
been established by the law now in force, which 
not only prohibits the taking of certain fishes 
during specified months of the year, but makes 
it illegal to have fish of this kind in one’s pos¬ 
session. It is well to remember, however, that 
no such law is on the statute books of this 
State. This fact was recognized by the Audu¬ 
bon Society as late as December last, the an¬ 
nual report of the Society then published con¬ 
taining the following reference to the Silz case, 
in which the constitutionality of the law for¬ 
bidding foreign birds was involved: ‘If this law 
is pronounced constitutional, it will also apply 
to and will, by a slight amendment to the pres¬ 
ent plumage law, prevent the sale of imported 
aigrettes.’ 
“The writer of the Audubon Society report 
was doubtless aware that in 1903 Attorney- 
General Cuneen rendered a decision that there 
was no law then existing which prohibited the 
sale of imported aigrettes, and though a bill 
was introduced in the Legislature in 1905 to 
supply the deficiency, it failed to pass, and no 
subsequent action in the case was taken. It is 
significant that, though spasmodic efforts have 
been made to scare handlers of aigrettes and 
other feathers into discontinuing the sale of 
such goods, action of this character has almost 
invariably been directed against retailers of a 
small caliber, while the New York importers, as 
well as department stores in this city, have in 
no way been molested.” 
In an interview with a Forest and Stream 
reporter, Mr. W. Dutcher, president .of the 
National Organization of Audubon Societies, 
said the following about the situation: 
“I see no reason why taxidermists should be 
granted privileges that are denied to others. 
They certainly shouldn’t have any more privi¬ 
leges than milliners, and the milliners shouldn't 
have privileges that are not extended to taxi¬ 
dermists. When tested in every way, the pres¬ 
ent law will be found entirely adequate, and I 
see no reason why taxidermists should be ex¬ 
empt from it in any way. It would simply be 
an incentive for men to kill birds if they thought 
that they could lawfully get taxidermists to 
mount their specimens. 
“I can’t see any reason why taxidermists 
should be in doubt as to the interpretation of 
the law. It’s as plain as the proverbial pike¬ 
staff. If any taxidermist can furnish proof that 
the specimens in his possession were procured 
during the lawful season, he should stand in 
little or no fear of prosecution. The fact of the 
matter is that there are no such prosecutions. 
Taxidermists are only prosecuted when they are 
caught red-handed in the act of violating the 
law, and after repeated warnings. 
“As a matter of fact, taxidermists do little or 
no work for scientists. Scientists never have 
their specimens mounted. They work for per¬ 
sons whom they are prone to call collectors or 
scientists, but who are people who simply want 
specimens of birds as ornaments for their 
homes. No man should have a bird collection 
except for scientific purposes. The only kind 
of persons to whom certificates are issued by 
the Commission to collect birds, birds’ nests or 
eggs are well-known scientific men who are 
engaged in actual scientific work, and who are 
recognized as such. I am decidedly against 
granting any such privilege to taxidermists. 
“As for the taxidermist trade being ruined 
on account of the enforcement of the law, that 
is all simon-pure poppy-cock. There will always 
be work for the proper kind of taxidermist. 
When taxidermists declare that a large propor¬ 
tion of their stock has been in hand from ten 
to twenty years, I give little credence to their 
statement. Experience has taught me differ¬ 
ently. 
“About ten years ago almost every other 
woman’s hat or some part of her apparel was 
adorned with the plumage of some American 
bird. Owing to the constant vigilance and 
activity of the Audubon societies throughout 
the country the sale and the wearing of such 
plumage has dwindled to almost nothing. The 
aigrette question has been a hard nut for us to 
crack, because the milliners declare that they 
only use such plumage as is foreign. Dr. Rich¬ 
mond, of the Smithsonian Institution, tells us 
that it is impossible to tell the difference be¬ 
tween the plumage of the white heron in differ¬ 
ent parts of the world, and this, in a measure, 
has restricted our activity in this direction. 
“However, now that the Rochester case has 
been dropped, for certain reasons, we intend 
to move against one of the big Broadway firms, 
who deal largely in aigrettes, and have the mat¬ 
ter settled for good and all. It is a fact that 
pretty nearly all the plumage used by milliners 
nowadays consists of ostrich feathers and for¬ 
eign aigrettes, and birds of paradise, and feath¬ 
ers from domestic fowls. Most of the heads and 
bills of birds, used by milliners nowadays are 
manufactured of wood or horn. 
“The taxidermists, I’m told, ask why we are 
not active against certain other kinds of vio¬ 
lators of the law. Let me say that we are as 
active in every way as our limited resources 
permit us. With only sixty-five wardens and 
sixty counties in the State, it’s rather impos¬ 
sible to have a game protector stationed be¬ 
hind every tree.” 
The activity of the Forest, Fish and Game 
Commission in prosecuting various alleged vio¬ 
lations of the law was again brought into recent 
prominence by the seizure of two hundred 
pheasants at a banquet given at the Waldorf- 
Astoria. For serving the birds out of season 
the management may be mulcted several thou¬ 
sand dollars. The defense submitted to the 
court was that the pheasants in question were 
ordinary domestic fowls, especially grown for 
the market. Selah B. Strong, counsel for the 
State in the prosecution of game cases, filed a 
brief denying the validity of the claim. Judge 
Greenbaum is expected to render a decision in 
a few days. 
"Contrary to general knowledge,” said 'Mr. 
Strong yesterday, “hotels and commission 
houses have been prosecuted to a large extent 
for violations of the fish and game laws. For 
these violations over $15,000 in fines has been 
collected during the last six months. Very 
nearly all the cases were settled before they 
came to trial. All game law violations in 1905, 
with the exception of two cases, were settled 
before trial. These cases are now pending on 
appeal by reason of technical questions that 
were raised. 
“There are hundreds of suits pending under 
the game laws. As the laws exist, we are trying 
to have them enforced. Very many of them do 
not involve anything of greater public interest 
than the cooking of lobsters that are too short 
for legal consumption.” 
Mr. Strong said he would take no action 
against concerns dealing in aigrettes and other 
feathers utilized for women’s hats until he re¬ 
ceived instructions from Albany. 
Bears in Idaho. 
Spokane, Wash., June 20. —Dave Heaveny, a 
rancher on Pack River, near Hopo, Idaho, had 
a remarkable experience with one of his steel 
bear traps, in which he succeeded in capturing 
two bears at one time. One weighed 250 
pounds, and the other was a 50-pound cub. He 
brought both animals to town. The larger bear 
was caught by a paw and the young one by 
a shoulder. 
Mayor F. L. Daggett, of Spokane, is re¬ 
ceiving numerous offers this year to supply wild 
animals for the new zoo, which has been made 
in this city. The animals include bear, bob cat, 
lynx, deer, elk and fox. He has had to decline 
the offers because the city funds for this pur¬ 
pose have been exhausted. 
Pennsylvania Game Interests. 
From the report of the Chief Game Protector 
of Pennsylvania, Joseph Kalbfuss, we take these 
paragraphs: 
I feel satisfied that game of all kinds is rapidly 
increasing, and that there is a most pronounced 
increase in our wild birds other than game 
birds, this condition being attributable to many 
causes, first among which is that the general 
public is taking a far greater interest in the 
work of giving protection to these creatures 
than ever before, and is becoming more thor¬ 
oughly acquainted with the benefits that must 
accrue to each individual and to the State from 
such a source. The mercenary motive controls 
many. I feel the great majority, though, are 
doing right and refraining from violation of the 
game laws, not because they hope for reward 
or fear punishment prescribed by the statutes, 
but because they respect the law and because 
they feel that it is right to do right. 
One of the great conditions tending to the 
increase, especially of game, is the absence of 
forest fires. Herein public opinion is again 
having its effect, and I feel that the Department 
of Forestry deserves special credit for the ef¬ 
fective manner in which it is not only prevent¬ 
ing the spread of fire upon lands under its con¬ 
trol, but also for the effective instructions given 
the public upon the subject of the benefits to be 
derived from the growing timber, frequently 
through persuasion, sometimes through the 
clasp of the strong hand of the law. If an idea 
enacted into law is held in a fair way to the 
people, they, with but few exceptions, are ready 
to not only obey it themselves, but to see that 
others comply with its provisions. Seeing this 
matter in this light, I cannot help but feel that 
some of the provisions of our game laws appear 
to me to be unfair and most unjust to some of 
our people. i 
I refer at this time to that part of our law 
covering the killing of migratory wildfowl, not 
only in the matter of season, but also in the 
matter of limit as prescribed. To illustrate: 
I may hunt for very many years without getting 
a chance to kill a wild goose. Finally the op¬ 
portunity presents itself. I am legally hunting, 
and it is possible to kill one-half dozen at one 
shoot. The law says I may kill but two in one 
day. If more are taken a heavy penalty is im¬ 
posed. I am compelled by law to stay my 
hand, while the flock I spare crosses the State 
line, perhaps only a mile away, and is entirely 
wiped out, killed not only in a manner that 
sportsmen call legitimate, by means of a gun held to 
the shoulder in broad daylight,but in every con¬ 
ceivable way, with swivel guns, batteries, night 
lights, launches, and every other means through 
which they can be reached. This applies to all 
of our wild fowls. 
To my mind some of the penalties as fixed by 
our State law are excessive, unreasonable and 
unjust. I now refer to that provision of the 
act of 1897 which imposes a penalty of $50 for 
the destruction or simply interfering with a 
bird's nest; also that provision which prescribes 
a penalty in the same amount $50, for digging 
a rabbit out of a hole or stone pile or rail pile, 
and that, too, without regard as to whether the 
rabbit has been wounded or not. The law per¬ 
mits the land owner or lessee or their employes 
to kill birds of any kind caught in the act of 
destroying fruit or cereals. The old bird may 
be killed legitimately. If they are killed, what 
becomes of the nest and its contents? The same 
party may kill a rabbit at any time, as a pro¬ 
tection to trees, or growing crops. If the bird’s 
nest is interfered with or the rabbit is killed by 
any means, other than a gun, even though it be 
during the open season for rabbits, the penalty 
of $50 attaches. The killing of a rabbit during 
the closed season with a gun carries a penalty 
of but $10. 
There is no discretion placed in the hands of 
the Game Commission or its officers. The law 
prescribes exactly what shall be done, and there 
is no alternative. When we consider this situ¬ 
ation, and that the provisions before referred 
to are more likely than otherwise to be violated 
by small children, or at least young people, the 
law in these particulars seems especially un- 
