416 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Sept. 12, 1908. 
County Laws Illegal. 
Utica, N. Y., Sept. 1.— Editor Forest and 
Stream: The board of supervisors of Oneida 
county, at its last annual session, passed an act 
to prohibit the killing of grouse in this county 
for a period of three years and another in re¬ 
gard to the transportation of bass, pike, perch, 
pickerel and muskalonge within this county. The 
question having been raised as to whether or 
not boards of supervisors have the authority to 
enact such laws, the matter was recently re¬ 
ferred to the Forest, Fish and Game Commis¬ 
sion. A reply has been received from the legal 
department of the commission in which the 
opinion is expressed that the action of the board 
of supervisors of Oneida county in passing 
the laws referred to are illegal and without 
authority. 
This is a matter in which many friends of 
fish and game protection will be interested, for 
if boards of supervisors have no power to enact 
protective measures of this character, it would 
seem that counties desiring special laws have no 
other alternative than to seek to have them 
passed by the State Legislature. 
The. letter from the legal department of the 
fish and game commission is worded as follows: 
STATE OF NEW YORK, 
Forest, Fish and Game Commission, 
FEGAL DEPARTMENT, ■ 
Albany, N. Y. 
Dear Sir Your favor of July 21 to Commissioner 
Whipple, stating that the Board of Supervisors of Oneida 
county have passed acts prohibiting the killing of grouse 
in that county for a period of three years from May 1, 
1908, and also an act prohibiting the transportation of 
bass, pike, pickerel and maskalonge within the county 
unless accompanied by the owner, and further providing 
that no person shall transport or accompany more than 
200 pounds thereof in any calendar year, or more than 
forty pounds at one time, and that such acts also provide 
penalties for the violation thereof, and in which you 
ask if boards of supervisors have power to pass game 
laws of this character, has been referred to me by the 
commissioner for reply. 
This department has uniformly held since 1895 that 
boards of supervisors have no power to enact laws for 
the protection and preservation of fish and game. 
Section 12 of the county law (Chapter 686 of the Laws of 
1892) defines the general powers of boards of supervisors 
and Subdivision 8 of this section provides that boards of 
supervisors shall provide for the protection and preserva¬ 
tion, subject to the laws of the State, of wild animals, 
birds, game and fish and shell fish, within the county; 
and prescribe and enforce the collection of penalties for 
the violation thereof. 
By Section 302 of Chapter 974 of the Laws of 1895, it 
was provided that “all laws or ordinances heretofore 
passed by the board of supervisors of any county in this 
State, relating to birds, fish and wild animals, are hereby 
repealed, except the laws passed by the supervisors of the 
county of Suffolk in respect to salt water fish, and in 
respect to shell fish, and boards of supervisors shall 
hereafter have no power or authority to pass any regu¬ 
lation or ordinance relating to birds, fish or game speci¬ 
fied or referred to in this act.” 
It is thus apparent that the statute of 1895 repealed by 
implication a:-id by express words the power conferred 
upon boards of supervisors to enact laws relating to the 
protection and preservation of fish, birds and game. 
Chapter 974 of the Laws of 1895 was repealed by Chap¬ 
ter 20 of the Laws of 1900, but the effect of such repeal 
does not revive the power conferred upon boards of 
supervisors to enact fish and game laws as provided by 
the county law. 
Section 31 of the Statutory Construction Law (Chap¬ 
ter 677, Laws of 1892) provides that the repeal hereafter 
of the provision of statute, which repeals any provision 
of a prior statute, does not revive such prior provision. 
The situation is thus presented, that, whatever power 
was conferied upon the boards of supervisors to enact 
laws for th’e protection of fish and game, was absolutely 
repealed and nullified by Chapter 974 of the Laws of 
1895, and the repeal of this latter act by Chapter 20 of 
the laws of 1900, does not revive the power originally 
conferred by the county law. 
I am therefore of the opinion that the action of the 
Board of Supervisors of the county of Oneida in passing 
the laws above referred to are illegal and without author¬ 
ity. Very truly yours, Ellis J. Staley, 
Associate Counsel. 
W. E. Wolcott. 
A Plea for the Ruffed Grouse. 
Delanson, N. Y., Aug. 31 .—Editor Forest ami 
Stream: In reply to your inquiry relative to 
the scarcity of ruffed grouse I will state that 
there is no improvement here over last year. 
It is my opinion that unless the shooting is pro¬ 
hibited for a time the ruffed grouse will soon 
be extinct over a large part of its present range. 
I asked an old bird hunter whether a five year 
embargo on shooting would increasq the num¬ 
ber of birds so as to. make them as abundant 
as they were two decades ago. He replied that 
he doubted if that result could be accomplished 
in ten years. If licensed hunters only were to 
decide the question we would have no more 
grouse shooting for a long term. Let me urge 
that it is not yet too late to preserve and per¬ 
haps greatly increase the remnant that is left 
to 11s, 
The autumn woods are not the same. I re¬ 
member when every woodlot and wild pasture 
had its brood of ruffed grouse. The birds kept 
well together until early winter. Now the first 
day’s shooting serves to disperse and scatter the 
few that remain. In winter the wild land was 
threaded with their tracks. I remember find¬ 
ing one in a trap I had set for mink in a clump 
of alders by the creek. An earlier and more 
cherished experience grew out of my rabbit 
trapping. I found a ruffed grouse in one of my 
box traps. I imagine the bird had entered for 
shelter and not for the sweet apple with which 
the trap was baited. Thinking only of a rabbit 
I raised the lid an inch or two to inspect my 
catch when the bird darted into the narrow open¬ 
ing and fluttered out in my face, almost upset¬ 
ting me. What a surprised and discomfited boy 
was there, and what a happy grouse whirred 
away among the saplings! 
Two years ago I had one ruffed grouse nest 
under observation, and last year one. Last sea¬ 
son s nest I discovered on the afternoon of May 
10. The bird rose, and on going to the spot I 
found a nest of twelve eggs at the foot of a 
clump of water beech. On the morning of the 
nth the ground was white with snow, and it 
was still snowing when I took another look at 
it. Evidently the bird had not returned, for the 
eggs were covered with the snow. By noon the 
snow had melted and I found the bird at home 
with another egg to her credit. She began in¬ 
cubation next day on fourteen eggs. I visited 
her frequently. She invariably sat tight, un¬ 
winking and rigid as a stuffed bird until I was 
within a rod of her. Every egg hatched. Owing 
to my work I missed the eventful day. When 
I called for the last time only the empty shells 
remained. The cold, wet weather lasted far into 
June and no doubt the young birds had a hard 
time of it. Although I heard three different 
drummers this season I did not locate a nest. 
I am wondering if the one I have described is 
the last I shall ever find. 
Will W. Christman. 
Carolina Quail. 
Kingston, N. C., Sept, i .—Editor Forest and 
Stream: You are doubtless interested in the 
quail prospects for the coming season, and 
though unable to give any reliable data, your 
editorial in the issue of the 16th is a. tempta¬ 
tion to gossip with you a while over the situ¬ 
ation. 
Our winters here are never so severe as to 
harm the birds or other small game, but weather 
conditions in the spring and early summer often 
have considerable bearing upon the supply of 
young quail. 
Eastern Carolina is low and flat, and much 
wet weather in laying and hatching time will, 
undoubtedly, break up the nests and prevent 
the old birds from raising their broods. I 
doubt, however, if any appreciable damage is 
done to them after they are hatched out and a 
few days old, for the parent birds of this species 
are very wise in their day and generation. 
We have had pretty good weather in this 
respect this spring and summer until the first 
week in the present month, when a violent and 
continuous northeaster brought us the most 
phenomenal rainfall of record, hereabouts. For 
the four days that it raged the rainfall was about 
nine inches and large areas of land were covered 
with water for several days. Many of my 
friends from the country think that the birds 
were destroyed, but I do not think so. 
Bob Turner had been giving me glowing ac¬ 
counts of the great number of “partridges” 
around his place, and looking forward to the 
time when I could drive out with my dogs and 
tackle them with\him. He was in to see me 
the other day, and pulled a long face over the 
situation, saying, “They are all dead.” But now 
some friend reports daily that there are plenty 
of them left. Carl Pridgen saw a big covey 
last week that were old enough to “make 
thunder” as they flew away. 
In June, 1906, there was rain nearly every day 
of the month, and those who should know said 
there would be no birds raised. But, on the 
contra^, the shooting was unusually good that 
season. I he spring and summer of 1907 were 
apparently ideal, and yet there was practically 
no sport in this locality during the whole of last 
season. None of us knows how to account for 
that, but it was a fact. On the opening day last 
fall I went out with two of the best dogs in the 
State and found only one covey of less than a 
dozen birds, while with only one dog—but she 
was the finest—in 1906, I found on the opening 
day more than a dozen large coveys. 
For this season I have only one broken dog 
—my setter bitch, Caughna—but she is the real 
article, a “meat dog.” She is quite busy just 
now with a litter of strapping two-months-old 
puppies, but when the whistle blows on Nov. 
1, she will be ready. And a little later in the 
season she will perhaps assist in teaching some 
of her wonderful bird knowledge to one or two 
of the said puppies. 
My good old friend Ike Tull is getting things 
ready for the fall and hopes to give his Yankee 
friends some good shooting this season. They 
were disappointed last year. 
A little later, when Caughna and I can 
venture into the fields, we will give you some 
more definite information about the brown 
beauties. T. H. Faulkner. 
