78 
WALTER WINANS MAKES CORRECTION. 
Surrenden Park, Pluckley, Kent, Eng. 
Editor Forest and Streams. 
One ought always to *be sure of facts before 
correcting anyone else, otherwise one is apt to 
argue from false conclusions. 
This is just what Mr. S. M. Gronberger has 
done in his hurry to correct Mr. E. G. B. Fitz- 
hamon on my late big game shooting expedition, 
and to belittle what I did. 
Mr. Gronberger says: “There is no European 
member of the Wapiti species of deer in Europe.’’ 
Mr. Gronberger has not been to Pilawin, Count 
Joseh Patocki’s enormous game reservation in 
Russian Poland, or he would have known that 
there are big herds of pure bred American 
Wapiti, (Cervus Canadensis) roaming about 
there, descendants of Wapiti imported from the 
United States and Canada many years ago. 
Next Mr. Gronberger cannot have seen the 
Chilingham herd of so-called wild cattle, and the 
Swedish farm cattle; or he would have noticed 
that they are almost identical. 
Now the Aurochs, European Buffalo, or what¬ 
ever Mr. Gronberger choses to call the animal 
I shot, is the exact likeness of the wild bulls 
painted in the rock caverns and engraved on bones 
and horns, of the cave dwellers. 
Whatever he is called, the Zu'bre, (the Rus¬ 
sian name for the animal) is the same that the 
cave ’dwellers hunted, and so has the right to 
the name of Aurochs (Bos Primigenus)■ 
As to abusing me for having killed this Aur¬ 
ochs, that also shows that Mr. Gronberger talks 
without knowledge of facts, and merely draws 
wrong conclusions in his anxiety to belittle my 
exploit. 
The particular Aurochs in question was the 
largest ever known since measurements and 
weights have been recorded, Count J. Patocki 
thinks so much of this (and he ought to know, 
being the owner of the estate,) that he is hav¬ 
ing a stone monument erected on the spot the 
Aurochs fell, with a bronze cast of its head on 
top and a bronze table below giving the details 
of how I shot it. 
Of course permission had to be obtained from 
His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia be¬ 
fore I was allowed to shoot it and the reason I 
shot it was exactly the reverse of that which Mr. 
Gronberger supposes, I shot it to save the Aur¬ 
ochs herd, noi to exterminate it. 
Count Patocki has a herd of American Buf¬ 
falo (which I suppose Mr. Gronberger will say 
cannot possibly exist in Europe), and this par¬ 
ticular Aurochs went at the herd, killed the big 
bull of the herd, killed three young Aurochs 
bulls, attacked a mounted keeper and killed his 
horse and nearly killed the man, and in fact 
played Cain with the whole district. 
I think even Mr. Gronberger will agree that 
Count Patocki may know a little more about his 
own business and what is good for his herd of 
Aurochs, than a man who (writing from how¬ 
ever learned an institute ) ha's never even been 
near Pilawin. 
I could go on, and refute all of the rest of 
Mr. Gronberger’s letter but I have said enough 
to show your readers that there is nothing more 
dangerous than to jump to half digested conclu¬ 
sions without any knowledge of the facts and 
circumstances of any particular case. 
FOREST AND STREAM 
I did shoot an Aurochs, a Wapitit and a Moose 
(the Moose and the European Elk are identical, 
the smaller horns of the European variety be¬ 
ing merely a matter of feeding). 
Count J. Patocki has asked me if I can get 
him a live American Moose (a bull) for turning 
out to improve his herd. 
WALTER WINANS. 
REGARDING THE UNITED STATES MIGRA¬ 
TORY BIRD LAW. 
Editor Forest and Stream : 
There has been much discussion as to the 
validity of the Weeks-McLean migratory bird 
law passed by Congress in 1913. I do not claim 
that there is absolutely no doubt abou its validity, 
but think that the law is good and that the Su¬ 
preme Court will so decide, f'or it will undoubt¬ 
edly go there. I understand, that there are al- 
Walter Winans. 
ready decisions both ways by different U. S. Dis¬ 
trict Courts. 
It is claimed that birds belong to the several 
states and that therefore Congress has no power 
under the Constitution to pass said act. At com¬ 
mon law it is said that all wild life belongs to 
the sovereign; the people are the sovereigns in 
this country, hence that all birds belong to the 
state; it is true that qualified or base property is 
held to be in the. state, and that each state can 
pass game laws. 
Strictly speaking the courts have not decided 
that the state has an absolute title in them, such 
as would make them the subjects of larceny. 
Take the wild goose—-Canada goose—to whom 
does he belong? Who OWNS him? He was hatch¬ 
ed and reared in Canada and might be said to be¬ 
long to the King; but when the migratory season 
arrives he may be in Canada in the morning, but 
by noon he is in Vermont; by night he may be in 
Massadhusetts, later in Connecticut; by grada¬ 
tions he runs the entire gamut of all the sea¬ 
board states in a few brief days. Do all of these 
states have an ambulatory fleeting title to him? 
“Off again, on again, gone again, Flanagan.” 
The Federal statute relates only to the migra¬ 
tory birds. Ninety per cent, of the birds about 
here are migratory; migration is world wide. 
From the Arctic, where the Arctic tern nests 
within eight degrees of the north pole, to the 
Antarctic circle to whence he migrates every 
year; from Alaska, where the birds migrate to 
the Isles of the Pacific Ocean; from North 
America and South America; from Europe, 
Asia and Africa, the myriad birds have their an¬ 
nual migrations; and practically all for the same 
reason—to get food to sustain life. 
Connecticut has much more than a hundred 
varieties of birds that nest and rear their young 
within its borders, that nevertheless migrate every 
year to the far south some as far as Argentina. 
Do they belong to Connecticut as PROPERTY? 
Do the dozen states they pass through also have 
a title to them? If so there should be some way 
to voice protection to the several rights of each. 
Of course the claim is that each state for the 
time being has a complete title, or quasi title. 
Why should we, or the birds, be entitled to pro¬ 
tection? Because the world is at all times within 
about six months of starvation, and only by seed 
time and harvest do we preserve our existence. 
Birds have decreased fifty per cent, in the past 
fifty years; and the damage to the nation from 
the loss of our bird allies mounts into the bil¬ 
lions of dollars, so it is high time that some¬ 
thing were done nation-wise to stop their de¬ 
struction. One state can do very little alone in 
this matter because, as already stated, the entire 
bird kingdom with few exceptions migrate back 
and forth across dozens of states annually. 
There is no logic in a man claiming a natural 
inherent right and title to a bird raised a thou¬ 
sand miles from his state because that bird to 
preserve its existence happens to pass through his 
state in a rapid transitory way. . 
But has Congress, under the Constitution pow¬ 
er to pass the statute in question? The Courts 
must take judicial notice of nature’s laws; and 
the function that the birds perform is one. of 
nature’s laws. Has the United States under the 
Constitution power to pass laws to preserve its 
own existence and to provide those things abso¬ 
lutely indispensible to its own welfare? The pre- 
able to our Constitution says: 
We, the people of the United States, in order 
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, 
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the com¬ 
mon defence, promote the general Welfare, and 
secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and 
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this consti¬ 
tution for the United States of America 
Section VTII of Article First of the Constitu¬ 
tion begins: “The Congress 3 hall have power to 
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, 
to pay the debts and provide for the common de¬ 
fence and general welfare of the United States." 
It seems to me that the power is ample under 
the conditions. If there is a qualified property in 
the migratory birds it seems to me that the 
STATE is the Nation having the title. But I 
think in the broad sense of self preservation, 
which gives every man the right to protect him¬ 
self against his assailant even to the extent of 
taking life, there is the inherent right in every 
nation to make or pass the law in question. 
FRANK S. FAY. 
Meriden, Conn., July 10, 1914. 
