FOREST AND STREAM 
Single Shots to Eliminate Accidents 
Syracuse, N. Y., Jan. 30, 1914. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
I have read with interest the recent letters in 
your columns recommending legislation to pro¬ 
hibit the use in the deer woods of rifles having 
unnecessarily long range. I do not see that any 
hardship would be worked on anyone by such 
legislation, but I believe that the case presents 
some features which have not yet been given con¬ 
sideration. 
For one thing, it is a question whether a long- 
range rifle is any more apt to cause an accident 
of the kind reported (i. e., man hit by bullet 
when he is beyond the vision of the shooter), 
than a weapon of moderate range. A bullet can 
come down in but one place. The circular area 
covered by the range of one rifle is larger, but 
the chance of the bullet striking any one spot 
with that area is proportionately smaller. The 
chance of any certain spot being hit by a falling 
bullet varies inversely as the square of the range 
of the rifle, does it not? If this be true, then one 
rifle is as dangerous as the other, excepting that 
the area within the vision of the shooter is the 
same for both, and this area, which may be con¬ 
sidered a region of safety, forms a larger per 
cent, of the total area for the rifle of lesser 
range. 
The annual outing of thousands of hunters 
who go to the deer woods is probably worth to 
the general public all that it costs, even to an 
occasional life. But certainly every reasonable 
means should be taken to prevent such sacrifice 
of life. Prohibiting the use of long range rifles 
might help, but at best would be only partially 
effective, and while, as I remarked above, I see 
no objection to such a law, it is yet true that most 
of the men killed or maimed in the woods are 
deliberately shot at —they or the bush which 
they are unfortunate enough to move, so as to 
betray the presence of something alive. 
I have a suggestion to offer—it may or may 
not be a new one—and propose it as a means of 
eliminating for all time practically all shooting 
accidents in the woods. It certainly would work 
no hardship to anyone, with the possible excep¬ 
tion of some manufacturers, and any real opposi¬ 
tion offered to it would be based on the consid¬ 
eration of private interest and not on concern for 
public welfare. 
This is the proposal: Prohibit by law the use 
in hunting of any rifle except a single-shot. 
The effect of such a law, if enforced, would 
be pronounced in several ways. Certainly very 
few shots would be taken at moving foliage, and 
far fewer long chances of any kind would be 
taken. The hunter, knowing that the first shot 
must be the effective one, would be careful. The 
effect of using a single-shot rifle for hunting 
is to make the rifleman more particular about 
his rifle, more deliberate and accurate in its use, 
both quicker and surer in his judgment, and a 
closer student and more attentive observer of 
the things about him in the forest—in a word, a 
better hunter; to which, perhaps, should be ad¬ 
ded the corollary, a better man. If you don’t 
believe it, ask any old-timer in whose opinion 
you have confidence. 
If the users of repeating rifles started out with 
single-shots, they would perhaps kill fewer deer 
at first. But if such proved to be the case, they 
would be repaid in a couple of years by the great¬ 
er plentifulness of the deer. And I think most 
persons will agree that, in the long run, the ex¬ 
clusive use of single-shots would mean far fewer 
deer wounded and lost. This last point is where 
the shot gun is open to great objection. A still 
more serious objection to the use of shot-guns 
exclusively however, is the loss to the country 
of the knowledge of, and ability to use, the rifle. 
Now, if this idea of single-shots only meets 
with the favor of a sufficient number of rifle men, 
so that it seems worth considering, how would it 
do to form a club on the “gentlemen’s agreement’’ 
plan, agreeing, first, to hunt with single-shot rifles 
only, and second, to report to headquarters after 
each trip, accompanying- the report with an en¬ 
tirely voluntary payment of dues based on this 
plan: Fifty cents for the first shot at each deer, 
miss, blood, or kill; twenty-five cents additional 
for every shot which draws blood, and fifty cents 
for every missed shot at a living deer. So if you 
went hunting once and got your limit of two deer, 
each with a single shot, your annual dues would 
be a dollar. Think how carefully every man of 
us would look after his weapon and resolve to 
shoot but once. 
Right at this point I leave it to you all to pur¬ 
sue the notion further if it interests you. 
But by the way, has it occurred to you that 
single-shot rifles would put a pronounced premi¬ 
um on still hunting, as contrasted with other 
methods? W. W. W. 
THE PROOF. 
Many of the readers of Forest and Stream 
have no doubt seen two darkies catch a rabbit; 
but for those who have not seen it done, I will 
explain. When a North Carolina darkie sees a 
rabbit sitting in its form he calls another one 
who, under the direction of the first approaches 
the rabbit from behind. The rabbit only notices 
the one in front of him, and he either stands still 
or moves very slowly and not towards the rabbit. 
The darkie approaching from behind has no dif¬ 
ficulty in seizing the rabbit with his hands. 
I had never seen it done with a snow shoe hare. 
On Sunday, January 18th, this year, an opportu¬ 
nity presented itself at Orchard Lake Club, in 
Sullivan county. The writer saw the rabbit and 
slowly approached within range of. the camera. 
Mr. Bradley Scott of Newburgh, came upon the 
rabbit from behind and the camera tells the story. 
J. R. M. B. 
SYSTEM NEEDED TO SAVE GAME. 
Suggestions for new game legislation in Mary¬ 
land were made by James P. Curley, state game 
warden, in a recent report to the Governor. The 
situation was set forth by Warden Curley as 
follows: 
“If we would have more game in Maryland we 
must have: 
1. A uniform system of game laws. 
2. A State-wide gunners’ license law. 
3. A uniform non-resident gunners’ license law. 
4. A paid game warden system. 
“As to a uniform system of game laws, there 
is, it seems to me, everything in favor of it and 
nothing against it. It is little less than ridiculous 
to have the open season for the same game to 
commence on different days, particularly in ad¬ 
joining counties, as it results in the gunners mak¬ 
ing ‘clean up’ of game—in fact, in some instances 
almost an extermination. 
“Uniform laws would prevent men going from 
county to county, as seasons open, and taking the 
game. Such laws would give the game a chance 
in a short time, if the means of enforcement are 
provided, would assure a supply of game suffi- 
207 
dent to satisfy our domestic demands as well as 
our sporting proclivities. 
“Also to a State-wide gunners’ license and non¬ 
resident license laws, there should be a law passed 
which will provide for a license fee of not less 
than one dollar, to be paid by each resident of the 
state who desires to hunt, which would entitle 
the license to gun anywhere in the state; and a 
law which provides for a uniform license to be 
paid by non-residents of the state, say of not less 
than $10, which would also entitle the license to 
gun anywhere in the state. Such laws might not 
materially decrease the number of gunners, but 
be used for enforcing the laws for propagating, 
which are the only ways to keep up our supply 
of game. 
“As to a paid game warden system, it would al¬ 
most seem sufficient argument for this proposi¬ 
tion to say it is necessary because people will vio¬ 
late game laws, unless they become convinced 
there is a real intention to enforce them and the 
means at hand to do so, and because it is impos¬ 
sible to get men to work for nothing and it is 
certainly unreasonable to expect it. 
“Our present system of appointing large num¬ 
bers of men in the several counties of the state, 
with no hope of any reasonable compensation, 
and expecting them to rely upon one-half of a 
fine which may be imposed on some violator— 
possibly a friend of the warden—does not, by 
the wildest stretch of imagination, hold out to 
sensible men a prospect of game protection. 
“It is only right that the state should pay the 
men it asks to enforce its game laws, upon some 
substantial basis just as it pays to secure the en¬ 
forcement of other laws.” 
RECEIPTS OF NEW YORK CONSERVATION 
COMMISSION FOR 1913. 
The appended table will interest sportsmen 
throughout New York State, particularly the 
item showing the receipt of $157,690 from resi¬ 
dent licenses and $3,000 from non-resident hunt¬ 
ers. License receipts total more than $160,- 
000, every cent of which should be spent on corf- 
servation and propagation: 
Receipts from fines and penalties.$39,666.24 
Breeders’ licenses . 285.00 
Net licenses . 15,014.56 
Hunting licenses, residents. 157,690.00 
Hunting licenses, non-resident. 3,020.00 
Hunting licenses, non-resident tax_ 780.00 
Rentals from shellfish lands. 29,087.59 
Importation of foreign game. 11,166.10 
Tagging trout . 9,657.64 
Shipping permits out of State. 102.00 
Shipping permits into State. 282.60 
Trespass on State lands. 30,407.21 
Sale of trees. 10,959.60 
Fire rebate .•. 4,413.11 
Fire fines . 811.68 
Miscellaneous receipts . 2,588.14 
Refund on payrolls. 68.86 
Top lopping fines . 407-54 
Total receipts .$316,407.87 
Disbursements. 
By cost of collecting, re¬ 
funds, etc.$ 271.64 
By checks to State Treas... 316,136.23 
-$316,407.87 
WANTS PROPAGATION AMENDMENT. 
Funds accruing from the sale of hunting licen¬ 
ses might be directed toward the propagation of 
game as fittingly as toward the support of the 
public schools, according to Game Warden Davis, 
of Georgia, who is desirous of strengthening the 
game law by providing for the propagation as 
well as the protection of game. He objects to 
