FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Sept. 15, 1906. 
416 
those birds can well afford to let the quail live. 
In that way it may be pheasants will prove the 
salvation of some of the native birds, and atone 
in part for the crimes with which they have been 
charged. 
From Middleboro I learn that the owners of 
property on Lake Assawampsett are determined 
to make a stand for what they believe to be their 
rights on the waters of the lake. There is said 
to be plenty of financial backing to carry the 
matter to the highest tribunal. Fishing at 
“Sampson’s Cove” and the “Deep Hole, where 
the brook from Long Pond enters the lake— 
the two best places in the lake—has been de¬ 
barred, causing much indignation among the 
members of the Assawampsett Country Club. 
IT. H. Kimball. 
The History of Deer in Vermont. 
From the report of Fish and Game Commissioner 
Henry G. Thomas. 
History of Deer in Vermont. 
Within the past two years this department re¬ 
ceived several requests to furnish a history ot 
deer in Vermont. On December 20, 1905. Hon. 
John F. Lacey, Representative in Congress from 
Iowa, who is especially interested in the preser¬ 
vation of game, made a request, through Senator 
Proctor, that this department furnish a history 
of deer in Vermont for an article which he was 
preparing at that time. I took all possible pains 
to look the matter up, and it will be of more or 
less interest to learn the rapid increase since the 
first deer were liberated in our State. 
Previous to 1878 to see a deer in Vermont was 
certainly a rarity, and if one was seen it was ot 
so much importance it was published by the press 
throughout the State. On April 27, 1878, a herd 
of ten deer, and on the 5th °f May following, 
three more, and about the same date, four more 
were liberated in Rutland and Bennington 
counties. The first ten deer were purchased from 
one of the keepers of the New York States 
Prison at Dannemora. Seven were purchased 
from other sources or donated. 
Legislation was obtained, making a closed sea¬ 
son on deer throughout the State for a term of 
years. In 1896 a law was passed allowing the 
month of October for an open season, during 
which time deer with horns might be hunted. It 
was thought by many that this length of open 
season would soon deplete or exterminate the 
entire stock, when laws were enacted cutting the 
season to the last ten days of October, then again 
to the last week in October, containing six work¬ 
ing days. _ . 
The commissioner has received information 
throughout the State that deer are numerous, and 
some very large herds have been seen, thirty- 
seven being the largest reported in one herd; 
many others from twelve to- twenty. The taking 
of bucks alone has not had a tendency to lessen 
the increase. Herds have been reported where 
there were more bucks than does. 
Deer and the Farmer. 
During the last biennial term numerous com¬ 
plaints by farmers have been made at this office. 
A majority of these claims have been paid or 
partially paid. Some of the claimants have not 
treated the commissioner with fair consideration. 
For an illustration: 
Very late in the fall or during the winter, long- 
after his crops are harvested' and out of sight, 
he writes the commissioner that the past season 
or the year previous, deer had damaged or de¬ 
stroyed his crops. Not giving the commissioner 
an opportunity to examine his crops when the 
damage is being done,, which is either through 
neglect or for the purpose of obtaining money 
fraudulently. The farmer should be protected or 
reimbursed for actual damage and will at all 
times receive fair treatment from the commis¬ 
sioner, hut, at the same time, the commissioner 
will insist on a fair adjustment and will not allow 
exorbitant claim or claims presented after crops 
have been harvested and out of sight. The com¬ 
missioner will not neglect to investigate any 
claim for damage if presented when it should be. 
This is a fair and business proposition. I have 
personally examined crops and fruit trees that 
had been damaged by deer, and in every in¬ 
stance a satisfactory adjustment was made. 
Some farmers were actually damaged more than 
they claimed and were more than fair and liberal, 
when in many other cases it was risrht the re¬ 
verse. Just so long as Vermont protects the deer 
the farmer should be protected from loss. 
There have been paid out of the Wheeler fund 
to claimants for damage done by deer sums ag¬ 
gregating $224.25. 
Deer and Dogs. 
Amending the law to impose a fine against the 
owner of a dog that was known to chase deer, 
instead of killing the dog when in the act, has 
caused a source of annoyance and created much 
more havoc among deer than previous to this 
amendment. The difficulty is to catch the dog 
when chasing deer, so as to be able to prosecute 
the owner. Most of the does when heavy with 
fawn, after being chased by dogs if not caught 
and killed will die, but the commissioner does^ not 
uphold the promiscuous killing of dogs. Valu¬ 
able dogs have been killed through spite, the 
claim being made that they were killed while in 
the act of chasing deer, when in court it was 
proven otherwise. The fines paid by owners of 
dogs for chasing deer are in no comparison to 
the damage done. It occurs to the commissioner 
this could in a measure be remedied by statute, 
compelling all hunters, or the owner of a gun, to 
take out a license.' 
The State has been imposed upon by non-resi¬ 
dent hunters claiming they were residents of the 
State. During the open season for deer a hunter 
from Massachusetts hunted deer and other game 
in Washington county, claiming to be i. resident 
of Rutland, and similar cases occurred through¬ 
out the State. The open season being only six 
days, before the commissioner can investigate 
such cases, the hunter has departed without pay¬ 
ing his license. Every hunter should carry a 
license in order to carry out the purpose and in¬ 
tent of the law. A large appropriation by the 
State for the department of fish and game is un¬ 
necessary. Let the sportsmen, both resident and 
non-resident, that enjoy the privilege, take out 
a hunter’s license, applying the same to increase 
and protect fish and game. 
There were 1,500 sporting rifles sold in the 
State of Vermont during the season of 1905. 
Sale of Live Deer. 
There are quite a number of tame deer in 
captivity belonging to the State. They were 
picked up when very young, apparently without 
protection, for the purpose of saving them from 
being killed by dogs or dying from exposure. 
The people who have them were allowed to keep 
them with the understanding that they remain 
the property of the State, and no expense to the 
State for their care. There are those who would 
like to purchase these deer, but sale has been re¬ 
fused, there being no provision made by law au¬ 
thorizing the commissioner to dispose of them. 
Sunday Hunting, 
The law making Sunday a close season will 
prove" to be a benefit in many ways. It is the 
province of the commissioner to- protect for the 
population of our State, both permanent and tran¬ 
sient, our native game birds and others intro¬ 
duced. The majority of our insectivorous birds 
are of inestimable benefit and value to the far¬ 
mer. They are the best possible protection 
against pests which are injurious to vegetation. 
Previous to this act of the Legislature, it was 
the common practice of many of our natives to 
hunt on the Sabbath day, but more especially 
among the foreign element this was done. Any 
and everything wild that came within their range 
was shot. Robins especially seemed to be their 
favorite. This slaughter of birds was carried on 
right in the larger towns and cities, which was 
a violation of law. Many were prosecuted, but 
this _ did not bring about desired results. The 
foreigner seemed to think that in free America 
Sunday was a legal holiday; it was a day for 
recreation and for supplying the family larder. 
Under the present act, making Sunday a close 
season, it has practically stopped the killing of 
insectivorous birds, and will give more and belter 
protection to game birds. 
Canadian Fur Trade. 
The Last Great Fur Preserve of the World. 
Consul Gabriel Bie Ravndal, of Dawson 
City, furnishes an interesting report on the fur 
trade of northern Canada. He believes there is 
no immediate danger of the fur-bearing animals 
being destroyed, and declares that there are vast 
unexplored regions in which fur-bearing animals 
abound. He writes: 
“Inasmuch as northern Canada is frequently 
designated ‘the last great fur preserve of the 
world,’ it is worth while to study the character 
of the supply in these parts, its permanency, as 
well as the number and proportion of the skins 
obtained. Complete statistics are not available. 
However, some light is thrown upon the subject 
by the following table, purporting to show the 
annual sales of the Hudson’s Bay Company at 
intervals of ten years, representing a fair aver¬ 
age, it is claimed, of the annual product: 
Name of skin. 1S53 1863 1873 1883 1893 
Badger .• 1,754 1,545 2,705 1,510 2,518 
Bear . 7,484 7,571 8,172 11,188 11,775 
Beaver . 55.456 114,149 149,163 109,462 56,508 
Ermine . 2,002 1.178 4,012 5,112 9,120 
Fisher . 5,861 6,053 3,639 4,640 4,828 
Fox, blue.^ 46 29 90 37 51 
Fox, cross . 2,307 1,946 2,315 1,762 2,673 
Fox, kitt . 2,563 5,542 6,930 491 299 
Fox, red . 6,S69 6,402 8,339 5,869 11,964 
Fox, silver . 847 588 694 506 615 
Fox, white . 3,966 3,365 7,325 5,886 4,708 
Lynx . 5.361 4,448 5.123 7,599 8,659 
Mattert 1 . 73,055 79,979 66,841 62,711 100,257 
Mink . 25,152 43,961 44,740 47,508 58.171 
Muskrat .493.952 357.060 767,896 1,069,183 806,103 
Musk ox. 368 888 
Otter, land. 8,991 13,331 11,263 11,992 8,671 
Otter, sea . 214 106 99 7 8 
Porpoise . 5 . 176 323 
Rabbit . 54,858 39,510 10,064 17,830 50,281 
Raccoon . 1,695 3,883 3,636 841 194 
Seal, fur . 403 2,073 652 404 
Seal, hair . 1,425 16.933 9,862 3,8S8 1,366 
Skunk . 1,619 1,969 1,759 7,178 9,214 
Swan . 1.016 877 338 222 28 
Wolf . 8,508 3,932 6,413 2,121 1,577 
Wolverine . 1,302 1,426 2,095 1,883 1,017 
Effect of Civilization. 
“For more than two centuries the fur trade has 
been vigorously prosecuted in northern Canada, 
and yet the supply, save in the case of two or 
three varieties of animals, shows no formidable 
signs of exhaustion. The buffalo, whose hide 
was once an important article of commerce, has 
disappeared before the advance of civilization. 
The beaver can apparently only be saved from 
a similar fate by extraordinary measures of 
protection; so, too, the fur seal of the islands 
and waters of the Pacific. Sea otter and silver 
fox have been rare for many years. The figures 
given do not represent the total output of the 
country, as the Hudson’s Bay Company no 
longer holds a monopoly of the fur trade. Large 
quantities of furs reach the market through 
other channels, the proportions of the various 
kinds not differing much from what appears in 
the statistics of the Hudson’s Bay Company. 
Home Consumption. 
“What the home consumption amounts to can 
only be surmised. According to the Statistical 
Yearbook of Canada the exports of furs to 
Great Britain and the United States amounted, 
respectively, to $1,256,306 and $271,483, in 1898, 
$1,245,499 and $394,290 in 1901, $1,147,133 and 
$653,298 in 1902, $1,444,619 and $840,770 in 1903, 
$1,425,486 and $629,994 in 1904. The total value 
of furs exported from Canada amounted to 
$1,575,554 in 1895, $1,799,658 in 1896, $1,694,306 in 
1897, $1,529,897 in 1898. $1,556,287 in 1899, $1,- 
806,966 in 1900, $1,645,831 in 1901, $1,796,878 in 
1902, $2,398,498 in 1903, $2,147,958 in 1904. Be¬ 
sides Great Britain and the United States, 
France and Germany are importers of Canadian 
furs. From Dawson, according to our consular 
returns, furs were exported to the United States 
as follows: 1902-3, $39,543-50; 1903-4, $27,028.50; 
1904-5, $45,805.80; 1905-6, $9,039.50. 
Effects of Competition. 
“Competition from such influential sources as 
the Hudson’s Bay Company, operating from 
Winnipeg; Revillon Freres, operating from Ed¬ 
monton, and other extensive fur buyers main- 
