270 
FOREST AND STREAM 
March 2, 1912 
The Deer’s Eyes 
By W. P. 
I N the issue of Forest and Stream of Dec. 23 
William Fitzmuggins said that a deer swings 
his head, sees things, swings again, finds you 
have appeared within his sight, and though you 
may be stationary, his suspicions are aroused and 
he is off. He says, further, that “a deer’s eyes 
will more often serve the cervine than his ears 
or nose.” 
I do not dispute the correctness of this as 
far as Western deer are concerned, but I do 
not think it is true of the Virginia deer of the 
East. I judge from what I have heard from 
other hunters, and from my own experience in 
still-hunting in Northern Ontario, that while the 
scent and hearing of the Virginia deer are won¬ 
derfully developed, his sight is not remarkably 
sharp. I think, too, that .this applies to bears 
and other animals which inhabit the bush of 
the East, too dense, as a rule, for their eyes to 
serve them were they ever so keen. They have 
to depend chiefly on their scent and hearing, 
which nature therefore has developed more than 
their sight. 
I shall give some personal experiences. When 
I began still-hunting I soon learned to always 
face the wind, if any could be noticed, to move 
slowly and cautiously, and as noiselessly as pos¬ 
sible. I found that unless I did so there was 
small chance of approaching deer closely, and 
that however careful I might be, I often alarmed 
and started them before I could see them or 
they me. Their noses or ears, not their eyes, 
served them. Several times I saw deer stand¬ 
ing, looking straight at me. Though there was 
nothing to conceal me from their sight, they did 
not move until I raised my rifle, which I did 
quickly, knowing no reason why I should not. 
In every case the deer bolted before I could line 
my sights on him, and I Ind a difficult shot, 
generally missing. Though I am pretty sure of 
a standing or walking deer, when I kill one run¬ 
ning, unless very close, I think it is rather a 
case of good luck than good shooting. 
In one case I was in the open, a burned-over 
slashing. I c’imbed to the top of a rocky ridge, 
looked down into a gully and saw the head and 
neck of a large buck about sixty yards away. 
I must have showed plainly against the sky and 
he was looking at me, but apparently his sight 
was not so good as mine, and he could not make 
out what I was. Up went my rifle and off went 
the buck. I fired three shots at him and wounded 
him slightly, I hoped, as I did not get him. 
I told a more experienced still-hunter of this 
and other like experiences and was told in turn 
that had I raised my rifle s'owly I would have 
had a standing shot. I kept this in mind, tried 
it the first time I got a chance, found it correct 
and killed the deer. Since then I have killed a 
number of others in the same way. Though 
they stood looking at me, evidently having heard 
or scented me, and suspicious that something 
was wrong, as I made no sudden movement, they 
waited long enough to give me my shot. 
Among them were some very large, old bucks, 
the most wary and suspicious of deer. In some 
cases I stood in the open, but that made no dif¬ 
ference. In two of them I was walking along 
log roads through the bush, hardly hunting, 
when I saw the heads and shoulders of bucks 
facing me forty or fifty yards away on my right 
or left. In both I did the slow act and got 
standing shots as usual and my deer. 
Another time I was going through the woods 
to camp for dinner and saw the head and a 
small part of the neck of a particularly large 
buck about sixty yards ahead. I aimed at his 
neck and cut his jugular, but did not touch his 
spine. He ran perhaps a hundred yards, the 
blood spurting right and left, and dropped, bled 
so thoroughly that when I put my knife.into his 
neck it seemed hardly necessary. By the way, 
this buck has the finest head I ever secured. 
One more buck story. One morning I was 
hunting in a slashing. Seeing a large pine tree 
which had been blown down, but not flat, hav¬ 
ing caught so that the trunk sloped gradually 
from the root so that the trunk, where the 
branches began, was about twelve feet from the 
ground, I walked up to that point, as it seemed 
a good one for a survey of the neighborhood. 
Just as I reached it I saw a large buck walking 
a little over a hundred yards away. Before I 
could shoot he was concealed by the branches 
of the hemlock which stood close to me. I 
G ame legislation in this country has had an 
interesting history. Deer were the first 
game animals to be protected. As early 
as 1769 a law was passed in South Carolina for¬ 
bidding their destruction during the months from 
January to July, while Vermont prescribed the 
same closed season for deer in 1797. 
Massachusetts in 1817 protected deer during 
a similar season, followed by Virginia in 1820. 
Little other legislation, except in New Jersey 
in 1846, is found until after 1850, when Missouri, 
Ohio, Alabama and California prescribed closed 
seasons, and Delaware in 1852 prohibited the 
killing of deer at any time. 
In the ’60s came Kentucky, with protection for 
females only, and later Illinois, Kansas, Penn¬ 
sylvania, Nebraska and Minnesota followed, the 
last State including elk in its protective measure. 
Less stringent were these early laws, says Case 
and Comment, for in numerous instances the 
prohibition was not extended to game found on 
one’s own land. This is to be noted in 1817 in 
a. Massachusetts enactment, and later in New 
Jersey, Delaware, Maine, Iowa, Ohio and as late 
as 1861 in Kentucky. 
The earliest instance which has been found in 
the United States of an enactment to protect 
fur-bearing animals is that prescribing a closed 
season for the muskrat, in Vermont in 1812. It 
was a prohibition which covered practically the 
entire year, it being lawful to take the muskrat 
from March 15 to May 25. 
Ohio protected the muskrat in 1830, and New 
Hampshire in 1843, prompted evidently by a de- 
advanced a step or two to see past it. I had 
made no noise, as I wore moccasins, but the 
buck must have winded me, for he was stand¬ 
ing braced, ready to jump, with his head down, 
and he was taking stock of me. I got in my 
shot by the slow movement, placing a ball from 
my .45-90 in his neck, close to his shoulder. It 
reached his spine and he dropped in his tracks. 
I have told of deer shot while they must have 
seen me, but which seemed to see indistinctly. 
Many are shot by the still-hunter standing near 
or walking past where he stands unconcealed, 
but which do not see him. In a number of 
cases I have come on fawns which I did not 
want, and have stood watching them for some 
time before purposely starting them off. One 
day I was sitting on a rock about ten or twelve 
feet high, eating my lunch, when a fawn ap¬ 
peared on my right, walked past within ten yards 
of me, and disappeared on my left without see¬ 
ing me. This may not be considered remark¬ 
able, as fawns are less wary than the mature 
deer, but I have had a similar experience with 
a big buck. It was on the day before the begin¬ 
ning of the open season, our camp had been put 
in order, and I was out with my shotgun after 
ruffed grouse. I was on a “cadge” or “tote” 
road and in the middle of it, when the buck 
walked across it in my front, so close that I 
think I might have killed him with my small 
shot. He did not see me nor change his gait. 
I tracked him for some distance to make sure 
and found that he had walked as far as I went. 
sire to be rid of certain undesirable animals, 
passed a law providing for the “destruction of 
noxious animals and the preservation of game,” 
the game referred to being the muskrat, beaver, 
mink and otter. 
In some States there came at the same time 
with protective legislation for' deer a recogni¬ 
tion of a similar need in the case of partridge, 
quail, grouse and woodcock, and in those States 
where they were found wild turkey were early 
included in enactments providing' for a closed 
season. 
Thus in Massachusetts these birds, with the 
e.xception of the wild turkey, were included in 
the statute of 1817. In most cases, however, 
legislation to save the game birds was much 
later, and very few of the States had such until 
after 1850. 
The lowest penalty for ki'ling deer appears to 
have been that named in a North Carolina statute 
passed in 1854, which provided; “If any per¬ 
son shall kill or destroj' any deer running wild 
in the woods or unfenced grounds, unless on 
his own lands, by gun or otherwise, between the 
20th day of February and the isth day of August 
next succeeding, he shall forfeit and pay for 
every offense $4 to any person who will sue for 
the same.” 
The penalty for killing deer in Ohio in 1857 
was but $5. an increase to $10 not coming until 
1879. Lligher amounts for deer seem to have 
been the rule, and even as early as 1853 Maine 
prescribed $20 and $40 for killing moose. Fifty 
dollars for deer was the amount in Pennsylvania 
Old Game Laws 
