208 
Feb. 17, 1912 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Quail Mortality in Iowa. 
Farmers who have made an investigation fear 
that the quail has practically been exterminated 
in Iowa as a result of the severely cold weather 
and heavy snow fall. These fowls; which are 
semi-domesticated, have been spending the win¬ 
ter months near farm houses. There they have 
had access to the barnyards and have been en¬ 
abled to secure food, but the recent protracted 
cold wave and deep snow have chilled birds to 
death. 
On the Heskett farm in Mt. Vernon township 
the destructive effects of cold and starvation 
upon quail have been especially noticeable. A 
covey of sixteen of the birds hovered about the 
premises. They were almost as tame as the 
domesticated fowls, and were great pets of the 
family. A few days ago an investigation dis¬ 
closed that every bird in the covey was dead, 
most of them in a compact mass about the roots 
of a tree that afforded some shelter against the 
storms. A few of them had ventured forth, 
probably in search of food, and were buried in 
the drifts. All of the birds were greatly emaci¬ 
ated, and the low vitality, because of starvation, 
caused them to succumb to the cold. 
Other farmers make similar reports, and the 
cheery call, “Bobwhite, bobwhite,” will probably 
not be sounded in the coming spring and sum¬ 
mer months. 
The situation will have a tragic aspect for 
those who admire the lively little birds.—Water¬ 
loo Courier. 
Reports of starving quail heard during the 
recent cold wave and heavy snows are receiving 
confirmation, now that it is possible to estimate 
the damage afield. However, the appeals sent 
from various sources asking farmers and others 
to feed the birds undoubtedly saved many. Gun 
clubs and local protective associations supplied 
food for great numbers, thus enabling them to 
survive the severe weather. 
The American Game Protective and Propa¬ 
gation Association, of iii Broadway, New York, 
calls attention to this in urging the establish¬ 
ment of county protective associations through¬ 
out the United States. Under normal conditions 
the game could hold its own against the forces 
of nature, and the covers depleted by severe 
storms would soon be replenished from the sur¬ 
viving breeding stock, but under the conditions 
existing throughout the country, which have been 
brought about by indiscriminate shooting, the 
birds do well to survive the attacks of man, 
and unusually cold weather, accompanied by 
heavy snows, often exterminates them in certain 
localities. 
In such crises energetic action by local sports¬ 
men can save them, but to be truly efficacious it 
is organized action that is needed rather than 
the sporadic efforts of scattered individuals. 
In numerous other ways county protective 
bodies help save the game and increase the sup¬ 
ply. Their influence on public opinion is an in- 
valuab’e aid to the cause. Where they exist, not 
only are there fewer violations of the game laws, 
but the warden can prosecute effectively those 
which occur when he has the people behind him, 
and not indifferent or antagonistic to him. 
The national association’s interest in the for¬ 
mation of local organizations does not stop with 
advocacy of the plan. The association will lend 
material aid to those interested in starting either 
State or county clubs for the protection of game. 
It has already accomplished much in this line. 
The first patron of the association has just 
been secured, T. Coleman duPont, of Wilming¬ 
ton, having donated $1,000. 
The association has received a copy of a reso¬ 
lution passed at a recent meeting of the Boone 
and Crockett Club. The resolution is a cordial 
expression of endorsement and support for the 
plans of the association. 
Not the Only Friend. 
Bennington, Vt., Feb. 3. — Editor Forest and 
Stream: A recent writer on game conservation 
says: “I believe that the best and only friend 
of game is the man who shoots it legally.” 
Could anything be more absurd than this? I 
did not suppose in this age of enlightenment 
that any friend of the game conservation move¬ 
ment took such a narrow view of the subject. 
It is undoubtedly true that the shooter consti¬ 
tutes an important element in this movement, 
but I never imagined before that he would 
publicly arrogate to himself all the virtue there 
is in the cause. If what he says is true, what 
of all those good people who form the Audubon 
societies? What of the Biological Survey? Are 
they not friends of the game? Was the Survey 
organized to aid the protection movement for 
the sole purpose of saving only such game as 
the shooter is interested in? Or rather is this 
department not attempting to demonstrate to 
the American people what the true value of 
game is to us? Again, what about that great 
and growing army of recreationists, campers, 
nature-students and outdoor people who are 
fond of studying living birds and mammals? 
They would rather photograph and study the 
game than shoot it, and yet can we truthfully 
say that they are not friends of our wild life? 
No, the movement for conservation of our 
wild life has for its purpose a much broader 
object than merely saving the game for the 
shooter alone. Its general scope is far more 
extended than that. It aims to benefit the en¬ 
tire human race. If this were not so, it is very 
improbable we should find in its ranks scientists, 
medical men, teachers, publicists, nature-lovers, 
artists and ministers of the gospel—all solidly 
aligned with the man who shoots lawfully, to 
assist in the good work—and we should not re¬ 
ject the help of any one, as the need is great 
for more assistance. 
To my mind, the statement of this writer fully 
bears out what Charles H. Shaw recently wrote 
in Forest and Stream regarding game protec¬ 
tion, “that the one greatest retardment is that 
ever-present trait of human nature—selfishness.” 
Is this trait not interfering to some extent with 
the above writer’s vision? Is it not obscuring 
a clear view of tbe whole intent of game pro¬ 
tection as seen from thousands of eyes? Some 
shooters care nothing for our wild life, except 
those birds and mammals which furnish them 
with sport. The others may all be exterminated 
as far as they are concerned, and they scorn the 
aid of people interested in wild life generally. 
But this is certainly a narrow view, and would 
not be entertained were it not for that little 
trait of selfishness, which has got to be elimi¬ 
nated if we are ever to save our game. 
Henry Chase. 
Small'Bores for Wildfowl. 
Forty years ago the ambition of many wild¬ 
fowl shooters was to use in this sport the largest 
gun that they could handle. They believed that 
the larger the charge and the further they could 
send it, the better their chances for success in 
shooting. Heavy guns were the fashionable 
weapons then. Years before that the club mem¬ 
bers who shot at certain points in Che;sapeake 
Bay used to shoot 20-pound, 4-bore single barrel 
shotguns with which they tried to bring down, 
and often did bring down, the high-flying canvas- 
backs and redheads, which looked like bumble 
bees as they flew over the points. These guns 
were so heavy that only a pretty stout man could 
swing them, and anything like quick shooting 
with them must have been out of the question. 
Some of these guns no doubt still survive, and 
we fancy that in later years a number of them 
were turned into swivel guns and used by poach¬ 
ers in Chesapeake Bay waters, and later still 
either captured by game wardens or thrown over¬ 
board in deep water—sometimes with a buoy at¬ 
tached by which they might afterward be brought 
to light again. 
For a good many years now the tendency has 
been toward smaller bores, and while perhaps 
most wildfowl shooters still use lo-gauge shot¬ 
guns, there are a very great many who shoot 
12’s and some who use still smaller bores. 
John Burling Lawrence, of New York City, 
has a 20-bore shotgun with which last fall he 
secured a number of ducks at one of his clubs 
in Michigan, and in the winter shooting at Curri¬ 
tuck Sound killed in a part of an afternoon 
fifteen or twenty mallards. Mr. Lawrence said 
that so far as he could see the birds were killed 
■by the 20-gauge gun precisely as effectively as 
by the 12-gauge which he usually shoots. 
Dr. A. K. Fisher, of the Biological Survey, 
has long been using a gun much smaller than 
this—a 28-gauge. Originally, we believe,, he se¬ 
cured it for use on quail, but found it also most 
effective on ruffed grouse. Later, in the spring 
of 1906, he used the gun in California on ducks 
and geese, shooting near Gridley or Butte Creek. 
He believes that he never killed birds cleaner 
or better with a 12-gauge gun than he has done 
with the 28. So far as pattern goes, he tells of 
putting five pellets of No. 8 shot in, a quail at 
sixty yards. 
A day’s shooting with this little gun in January 
is well worth recording, for we have known of 
nothing like it. Dr. Fisher was asked to visit 
the Sand Bridge duck preserve to consider the 
introduction there of certain aquatic plants used 
by ducks for food. He found the plants already 
growing there, and further planting unnecessary. 
Friday, Jan. 5, a tempestuous day. Dr. Fisher 
spent in a duck blind on an exposed part of the 
marsh and shot his 28-gauge gun. The shoot¬ 
ing must have been good, and he must have shot 
well, for his score was twenty-four black ducks, 
seven mallards, three pintails and one bluebill. 
The results accomplished with this little gun 
bear ample testimony to its effectiveness and to 
the skill of the user. 
After all the results attained with any gun 
depend chiefly on the man behind it. Most of 
us excuse our failures, blaming the gun, the am¬ 
munition or the way in which the birds fly, but 
the real reason we do not kill our birds is be¬ 
cause we shoot badly. 
