40 
FOREST AND STREAM 
The Extermination of Bucks Threatened 
By Henry Chase. 
Bennington, Vt., Dec. 21, 1914. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In your issue of December 19 there was an 
article by your correspondent, Peter Flin 1 , in 
which he gave an interview with a woodsman of 
Essex County, New York, who advocated the 
repeal of the present deer law of that state and 
the passage of one permitting the killing of does 
as well as bucks during the open season for deer. 
In this article Mr. Flint says, in conclusion, that 
he submits this interview in order to d velop dis¬ 
cussion between “the theoretical men, naturalists, 
etc., and the more practical men of the deer 
forests, who judge purely from local conditions.” 
This writer’s idea that naturalists are merely 
theorists is a little far-fetched, to say the very 
least. The truth is those field-naturalists who 
study the wild life carefully in its haunts usually 
do so with unbiased minds and are the most 
practical men in the world on questions of 
proper conservation measures. To call such men 
mere theorists is a mistake. They are the very 
best authorities we can find to follow in such 
matters. They are observers with trained eyes 
and intellects, whereas the ordinary woodsman 
only sees things with one eye, half opened, as it 
were, and the premises on which his conclusions 
are based are usually false and wrong. Experi¬ 
ence has proved that, while the evidence of such 
men is often worthy of consideration, yet, as a 
rule, it is not a reliable guide for the enactment 
of constructive legislation to conserve the wild 
fife, because such men are generally more inter¬ 
ested in easy methods of procuring game than in 
preserving it. 
If there is one thing that has been thoroughly 
established by the practical experience of the 
past it is that the females and young of the deer 
should have practically permanent protection un¬ 
less it is desired to exterminate the whole spe¬ 
cies. It is quite too late for some woodsman to 
now come forward with a great discovery that 
this theory is a mistake. He is simply going 
over ground and discussing something that is 
about definitely settled against his notions. 
This argument of Mr. Flints lumberman 
friend we have heard before. Only a few years 
ago it was revived here in Vermont when a law 
was passed permitting the killing of does. But 
two years operation of that measure proved that 
the deer would be very quickly exterminated un¬ 
less it was repealed and all reasonable sportsmen 
were convinced that as a permanent law it would 
be a serious mistake. So we returned to the 
buck law at once. Every year new evidence is 
being brought forth which tends to show that 
the only safe deer law is one that permits the 
hunter to kill and take but one deer and that a 
buck with horns at least three inches in hngth. 
Two or more deer to the hunter is too much, 
and no one but an outright game hog wants 
more than one. 
Reading this interview of Mr. Flint's through 
carefully one soon discovers that the speaker 
therein quoted is begging the question and fully 
answers his own argument by his admissions. In 
the first place he admits that the deer are in¬ 
creasing rapidly in his section—there never were 
so many before—'but he will not or cannot see 
that the buck law has anything to do with this, 
but attributes it to eliminating hounding, a 
measure which has been in force for many years. 
He complains, however, that the bucks are 
threatened with extermination and he sees noth¬ 
ing but does and fawns in the woods. Now, 
just how the deer can be increasing so rapidly 
while there is such a great dearth of bucks is 
enough to perplex any man of common sense. 
Again, this man says the majority of the does 
are “dry” or barren. How does he know they 
are barren? Why, simply because they were 
not all accompanied with fawns when he saw 
them in the summer. This simply shows the falla¬ 
cious grounds upon which his argument is based. 
To find out whether a doe is barren without 
killing her and performing a post-mortem exam¬ 
ination is a very difficult task. Practical field- 
naturalists always find this to be true, because it 
requires a long series of careful observations 
and then even one may be fooled about it. Of 
course, it is to be conceded that some old does 
are barren—naturally so, and is might be per¬ 
fectly safe and even good policy, after many 
years of a stringent buck law to permit a short 
open season for killing one deer of either sex. 
But to allow any such measure to exist for any 
length of time means certain and inevitable ex¬ 
termination of the deer. There is no question 
about this. 
It is a matter of common knowledge that 
where the deer are in a rather limited and con¬ 
fined territory the bucks are highly polygamous 
and one will serve a dozen or more does: True, 
it is possible that the bucks may become so 
decimated from over-hunting as to be reduced 
beyond the proper limit for normal reproduction 
in a given territory. In that case, however, it 
is a suicidal policy to advocate the killing of 
does. What should be done is kill fewer buoks; 
shorten the open season and allow only one buck 
to the hunter. This will eventually restore the 
natural balance of supply without weakening the 
Johnstown, Pa-, Dec. 26, 1914. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
You usually have such good stuff in your mag¬ 
azine that it spoils my Christmas to see you pub¬ 
lish the efforts of Frank G. Harris, ex-State 
treasurer and attorney, and president of the 
Springs Rod and Gun Club, to discredit sports¬ 
men like John M. Phillips, Game Commissioner, 
and Dr. Joseph Kalbfus, secretary of the Game 
Commission, by a gabbled, unfair and unsport¬ 
manlike account of the notorious Dickinson case, 
in which lying was as common as in an East Side 
gunman case, and which was won by the defense 
largely because it refused to identify the head 
presented in court as the head of the deer killed 
by Dr. Dickinson. 
breeding stock. But allowing the does to be 
taken certainly won’t have that effect. 
That portion of this woodsman’s argument 
with respect to guides killing deer promiscuously 
in order to get bucks for their patrons is the old 
story. It is the same stock argument we hear 
everywhere, and is on a par with the one by fish¬ 
ermen about the inefficacy of the six-inch trout 
law—how all small fish are killed when pricked 
with the hook and are thrown back into the 
water dead, etc. What nonsense! If it be 
true these guides are thus violating the game 
law, is that any reason for changing the law to 
accommodate them? Will such a concession 
conserve the deer supply, or will it not provoke 
these guides to violate other laws? 
Also, just note this argument, by this wood¬ 
man : Allow each hunter to kill one full-sized 
deer of either sex. Then your city hunter 
would be satisfied with the first deer he got, etc. 
So, it is the city hunter who is causing this ex¬ 
termination of the bucks, is it? And each and 
every one of them always goes home with a 
buck, and the guides kill several does and fawns 
before they get a buck for these patrons? The 
absurdity of this as a general proposition is ap¬ 
parent upon its very face. According to this 
man there are now some 15 or 20 does to every 
buck in the woods, and yet if the law permitted 
the does to be killed as well as the bucks this 
would be a measure of conservation and the ag¬ 
gregate number of deer killed annually would 
not be increased. What rot! 
In spite of these old stock arguments we al¬ 
ways hear wherever a good buck law prevails, 
most of the states are adopting it as a settled 
policy that only one deer may be killed during 
the open season and that deer must have horns 
distinctly visible—in other words, a buck more 
than a yearling in age. All this with excellent 
results and upon the argument and the evidence 
brought forward by field-naturalists who are 
just as practical as any woodsman and possessed 
of considerably more real understanding of the 
true situation. 
Mr. Harris fails to explain that his club, of 
which the defendant was a guest, inched up as 
close to state forestry lands and a game preserve 
as it was allowed to do. He also fails to say that 
the dub was on trial, rather than Dr. Dickinson, 
and that its members were the fellows who caus¬ 
ed delays innumerable in the evident hope of tir¬ 
ing out the Game Commission. He does not ex¬ 
plain why the first trial judge in the case w*as re¬ 
versed without ceremony by the Superior Court, 
which sent it back for retrial. The first judge 
said the good doctor was not guilty because the 
law had been changed since he committed he act 
for which he was indicted. Changing the law to 
let out some friend has been tried before, and 
In Defense of the Pennsylvania Commission 
