FOREST AND STREAM 
785 
Do the people desire to eliminate and destroy 
the private shooting preserve? It is, for in¬ 
stance, a fundamental maxim of the law in this 
country, long ago enunciated by Chidf Justice 
Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, 
that “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” 
Here, then, is our clue to a legal method of ac¬ 
tion. The taxing power of a state is all-pervad¬ 
ing and there is scarcely any limits to it. In 
fixing the tax rates for citizens or their property 
to pay the law-making power may exercise great 
discrimination and the assessment still be regular 
and constitutionally valid. So let us apply this 
idea to the preserve issue. 
All that can be necessary is for the legislature 
to fix such a high rate of taxes on each and every 
acre of land devoted to private shooting preserve 
purposes that its owner will be unable or unwil¬ 
ling to bear the burden. Then the preserves will 
disappear like magic, or else the state will receive 
such an enormous benefit from the land it would 
be better the preserve continue to exist as such. 
But to meet this condition equitably the law 
should fix a lower rate on small preserves than 
on large ones, and those lands which are used as 
game farms on which the owners breed and raise 
their own game for the market, and do not per¬ 
mit any shooting on their places—even by them¬ 
selves—should be exempt from such provisions, 
for these institutions have a legitimate place in 
the business of the country. 
We know of few intelligent sportsmen any¬ 
where who are opposed to legitimate game and 
fur farms, and private fish hatcheries. It is the 
shooting preserve that is doing most of the mis¬ 
chief. And while we are not opposed to private 
game farms, yet we do insist that it is not the 
duty of the state to ofifer these special protection 
or privileges not enjoyed by others. They 
should be treated in the same manner as poultry 
farms, cattle and sheep ranches, etc., and be con¬ 
tent with the same protection and privileges these 
latter enterprises enjoy. The sovereign state is 
in the game and fish business solely in the inter¬ 
est of all its people in common, and this purpose 
can be best attained by conserving the living sup¬ 
ply of game by salutary laws, and by increasing 
the supply by propagation conducted through 
state agency. In doing this the state has its hands 
full. If it does its full duty in this line it will 
not meddle with private game breeders at all, 
only when it becomes necessary to regulate the 
latter in the interest of the public welfare. This 
is peculiarly the function of the state on account 
of the nature of the property which a common¬ 
wealth possesses in the wild game found at large 
within its territory. It cannot delegate this prop¬ 
erty right to individuals without causing difficulty 
among its citizens. If then, the states will do 
their full duty we can meet the preserve issue 
squarely. Otherwise, there are many breakers 
and rough places ahead of us. 
Concerning the 
Fox 
By Robert Page Lincoln. 
Family 
To the student of wild life and nature, espe¬ 
cially one who has given careful attention to 
the wild creatures that inhabit the continent, the 
fox family is one that presents a singularly 
engrossing study. In a day such as the present, 
with available covers being laid low; with civil¬ 
ization crowding in here, there and everywhere, 
the fox is gradually being circumvented and ex¬ 
terminated and they are now quite a rarity where 
in the past undoubtedly they were at times an 
absolute nuisance. However, some little com¬ 
ment upon the subject of species and varieties 
may not be out-of-place, and I take the space 
to cover it here, as briefly as possible: It is a 
subject that some may not be acquainted with. 
In the first place there are only four distinct' 
species of the fox family in North America, 
out of the twelve known to the world. We have 
here, and in the northern part of the continent, 
these species: the red fox, the gray fox, the 
swift fox and the famous Arctic fox. These 
are not listed as varieties; they are distinct spe¬ 
cies. As regards the red and the gray fox, it 
is said upon eminent authority that the red fox 
has been the cause of the downfall of the gray 
fox; and that it has been known to kill that 
other member. They are what might be said, 
sworn enemies, wherein the red fox has been 
known to mate with wolves and with dogs! 
The Arctic Fox has been considered by some 
as being not Arctic Fox but the Blue Fox; 
though upon authority it is considered that the 
Arctic Fox and the Blue Fox are one and the 
same. Napoleon Comeau, distinguished outdoor 
man and naturalist of well-known standing, pre¬ 
sented the equally well-known Dr. Merriam with 
skeletons of various foxes, and vigorously holds 
that there is a vast anatomical difference between 
the blue, and the so-called, white foxes, or to 
be exact, the Arctic Fox, to the extent that his 
classification puts them each as being a sepa¬ 
rate specie. A recent writer in commenting 
upon the foxes of Labrador, says: 
“Some naturalists see in the Blue Fox, and 
the white, or Arctic Fox, one and the same ani¬ 
mal which they so designate Isatis, but such is 
not the case. The blue fox of the trappers— 
let us call it vulpes ignotus doctorum —the fox 
unknown to science, and the Isatis—•vulpes lago- 
pus-Sched —are two entirely different animals. 
The former is the largest of all foxes and its 
fur never changes color at any season. The 
Isatis, or Arctic fox, is the smallest and the 
only variety, whose fur, which is grayish-blue 
in the summer, becomes white in the winter. 
Finally the white fox is very common while the 
blue fox, on the contrary, is extremely rare. 
In any case the trappers admit the Isatis, and 
the blue fox to be separate types and divide 
the species known to them into seven they take, 
or think they take: the red fox, the cross fox, 
the double cross fox, the silver cross fox, the 
silver fox, the black silver fox and the black 
fox.” 
The above classification goes rather wide of 
the mark; in this category only one distinct 
