Jan. 24, 1914. 
FOREST AND STREAM 
103 
reader is already engaged in thinking what he 
would have done under the circumstances, and 
the Editor invites a full and frank discussion on 
the subject. You old campers of years of ex¬ 
perience, and you of the younger generation who 
make some pretension to culinary expertness, all 
of you and any of you, are invited to write and 
tell Forest and Stream what you would have had 
for supper and how you would have prepared it. 
Kindly remember that ladies were present, not 
only at the meal, but during its preparation, and 
that therefore all the stimulation and satisfac¬ 
tion derivable from picturesque outbursts of 
heated language over burnt fingers and smarting 
eyes, had to be suppressed. Let us hear from 
you, and we are quite sure after a number of 
contributions are published it will have been 
proved conclusively that old woodsmen and 
young woodsmen as well could have fed those 
ladies and their misguided and unguided city 
companion in a manner long to be remembered. 
In order not to discourage amateur contributors, 
we will reserve for the last article the story 
which tells what “Old Camper” did and how he 
went about it. Manuscripts should be addressed 
to Camp Problem Editor care of Forest and 
Stream —Editor’s Note] 
Shall The Buck Law Be Changed? 
Together with a Discussion on Conservation Matters by one who has Studied for Years Conditions in N. Y. State 
By PETER FLINT 
There is much confusion among hunters re¬ 
garding the meaning of Section 104 of the Con¬ 
servation Law relating to licenses. Many think 
it is, in reality, a permit to have a gun or nfle 
in the house. The wording of the Statute is 
certainly mystifying. It states: “No person or 
persons shall at any time hunt, puruse (what¬ 
ever that may mean), or kill with a gun any ot 
the wild animals, fowl or birds that are pro¬ 
tected during any part of the year, without first 
having obained a license so to do, and then 
only during the respective periods of the year 
when it shall be lawful.” The meaning thus far 
is clearly that all game for which there is any 
closed season shall not be taken in the open 
season by any person unless he has a license 
to hunt and kill such game with a gun. But 
here follows the portion that needs amending and 
clearing up: “No person shall hunt, pursue or 
kill game and other animals nor use a gun for 
hunting, except as herein provided.” 
This last clause has caused much uncer¬ 
tainty as to the law’s meaning, and I believe 
that a former attorney general decided that no 
one can even hunt or kill outlawed animals or 
birds at any time, without obtaining the license 
to shoot game. This interpretation has been 
opposed by the average sportsman and farmei 
as shutting off their Constitutional right to own 
and have fire arms in their homes, and to carry 
about same at will. Then too, by an exception, 
the farmer or owner of agricultural lands may 
hunt protected game in the open season without 
any license at all. Such a man certainly does 
not have to obtain a license to keep a gun in 
the house. The law provides that a man may 
kill protected game at certain times and the 
license so states, but is he thereby prohibited 
from hunting and kiling non-protected animals 
and vermin, like bears, foxes, hedge-hogs, crows, 
hawks and owls, at all times, or can he kill them 
only during the open season for protected game 
and at no other time? Can one hunt outlawed 
animals and birds at any time, if he have a 
hunting license? If so, is not the permit a “Gun 
License” and not a hunting license, as far as 
non-protected animals are concerned, there be¬ 
ing no necessity for a permit 'to kill them by 
any statute. A license to use a gun for hunting 
and killing birds and animals not considered 
worthy of any protection at all is nonsensical 
and foolish legislation. It results in an im¬ 
proper taking of the people’s money, and could 
never have been intended to become a law. 
Coming down to the question of protecting 
our game fishes, we find Section 131, relating 
to the pollution of streams, which says: “No 
dye, refuse, sawdust, shavings, lime or other 
deleterious or poisonous substance shall be 
thrown or allowed to run into any waters, pri¬ 
vate or public,” would be all right if it only 
stopped there, but like many good, strong laws, 
it is practically killed by what follows: “In 
quantities injurious to fish life inhabiting the 
same, or injurious to the propagation of fish 
therein." Take a steam shingle mill, using water 
George J. Bradley, President Game and Fish 
Commission, Minnesota. 
from a small trout brook, for instance. Owing 
to carelessness, considerable sawdust gets into 
the bed of that stream and the fish abandon it. 
You call the attention of the mill owner to his 
violation of law and he will say: “Oh, what runs 
in don’t ’mount to nothin’. Don’t the law say 
‘In quantities injurious to fish life.’ How do 
you know that any trout have been killed by 
my litttle bit of sawdust?” To settle a question 
like this there would be required the service of 
a scientific expert on one side, who, after a care¬ 
ful analysis of the water running over that ruined 
trout stream, would gravely decide that the dust 
caused the death of trout, which statement 
would, of course, be met by the equally profound 
deductions of the chemist engaged by the mitt 
owner to the contrary. Any angler knows that 
saw dust ruins trout fishing. 
This very question came up in the case of 
the Moore saw mills at Putnam’s Pond, now in 
the Adirondack Preserve, as I understand, where 
tons of hemlock and spruce sawdust had been 
allowed for years to flow into that noble trout 
river, Put’s Creek, in Ticonderoga; finally, Mr. 
Beede, a game warden of Keene, N. Y. induced 
the introduction of a “blower” which cast the 
refuse into an immense pile on the left bank 
just below the mills. Put’s Creek has been 
noted for its large trout for about 10 years. 
They were introduced by the Forest Fisheries 
& Game Commission. Now, a large sum has 
been annually received by the sale of this saw 
dust for fuel purposes, and every farmer in 
the vicinity can have all he wants free for bedding 
his horses, cattle and hogs. The law permitting 
anglers to use a net for catching bait-ffsh For 
Their Own Use should be repealed. Repeated 
instances where the “haul,” consisting of young 
tnuskellunge pike, bass, perch and even brook 
trout, has been unceremoniously dumped into 
bait pails and sold, have come to the writer’s 
knowledge. Any yet people wonder why the 
fishing is failing in such waters. 
Getting back to hunting again, the so-called 
Buck Law, limiting the shooting of deer to 
males having horns at least 3 inches in length, 
will soon be severely attacked by some sports¬ 
men in Northern New York. Mr. Isaiah Vos- 
burgh, of Saranac Lake, N. Y„ has already come 
out in the local press with an article criticising 
the Conservation Commission for claiming for 
this law “that its second year of trial has 
demonstrated that it is not only a great protec¬ 
tion to the deer, but also a gratifying conserva¬ 
tor of human life.” Mr. Vosburgh goes on to 
say that the death list of 26 persons last 
