736 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
i 
[May 7, 1910. 
gone, and no one knows where. We know what 
became of the buffalo and what will become of 
the deer, elk and antelope. And we know that 
the “steel trap” has taken the beaver, otter, 
fisher and most of the mink. The muskrat 
seems able to hold his own against everything 
except dry weather. As long as they have water 
they will thrive. Fifty years ago there were 
many beaver dams in the Des Moines River and 
all the small streams. To-day there is not one. 
There are a few beaver left and perhaps a half 
dozen otters. Fishers are gone. There are 
quite a good many mink left and will be for 
years. Foxes and wolves are gone. Years ago 
I seldom went out into the prairie without see¬ 
ing foxes or wolves. 
There may be a place where the game is as 
plenty as it was in Northwestern Iowa years ago. 
If I knew of the place I should be tempted to 
go there. The time was when my old pointer 
could point fifty coveys of chickens in one day. 
The first day of September, 190S, I was out with 
a good pointer and he pointed four chickens. 
Quail are plenty and will be till we have a win¬ 
ter of snow. 
Tie Up the Dogs. 
Orange, Conn., April 29 .—Editor Forest and 
Stream: I am very glad to see that in an edi¬ 
torial printed April 2 attention has at last been 
called to one of the greatest enemies of our 
ground-nesting birds, and that a letter signed 
Hampshire in Forest and Stream of April 16 
confirms your view. 
The dog is a natural hunter and whether wild 
dog—wolf or coyote—or tame dog—setter, collie 
or mongrel—he will hunt if he has the oppor¬ 
tunity, and will devour anything edible that 
comes in his way. He may make a meal from 
a dead horse or cow lying in a lot, or devour 
the remains of a chicken that has been killed by 
a hawk; may catch and eat a woodchuck far 
from its hole, or gobble up the nest of a brown 
thrasher on the edge of some brushy country 
lane. Dogs that have taken to self hunting en¬ 
joy the pursuit quite as much as men do, and 
indulge in it with the same zest. They range 
much further afield than men, and of course 
they hunt out the ground far more closely. 
Moreover, they are restrained by no regard for 
seasons or for the future, and follow merely 
the animal instinct, which leads them to eat 
whatever food they may discover. 
It is evident that one or more dogs hunting 
over a territory, with a diameter of three or six 
miles from the home as the center, will be likely, 
in the course of a breeding season, to find most 
of the nests of game birds within that territory. 
They may not, to be sure, destroy the parent 
birds, but they will certainly destroy the eggs of 
a first or a second nesting, and if they do this, 
the chances of a third brood being reared are 
very small. 
Like your correspondent, I have frequently 
seen, during my summer and spring walks in 
the woods, one or more self-hunting dogs hard 
at work covered with mud and very tired, work¬ 
ing through a swamp, where, in old times, two 
or three broods of partridges were always reared, 
but where of late years it is rather the excep¬ 
tion to find a single brood. Yet in autumn there 
are always two or three partridges there, and 
except for the dogs I believe that twenty or 
thirty birds would be hatched there, and per¬ 
haps brought to maturity in each breeding sea¬ 
son. I have also seen two dogs belonging to a 
neighbor systematically hunting along a brush- 
grown stone wall, in a section where usually 
several quail nests exist in early summer, yet 
last season only one of these nests escaped de¬ 
struction, and one brood of quail was reared. I 
cannot say positively that the dogs destroyed the 
quail’s nests, but I believe that they did so. 
It is almost impossible for me to do anything 
in the matter. I cannot kill my neighbor's dogs. 
He is a man for whom I have great respect and 
regard. On the other hand, if I were to go to 
him and tell him how I feel about the matter 
he would suspect that my mind was affected, and 
while as a matter of friendship for me he might 
tie up his dogs for a short time, I am convinced 
that they would not be permanently kept out of 
the woods and fields. 
Anyone who has traveled much in Alaska 
knows something about the way in which the 
sledge dogs in summer are turned out to live on 
the country, and how well they get along. All 
is fish that comes to their net, whether it be the 
salmon in the streams, the wildfowl before they 
are able to fly, or the eggs of the mother bird. 
When camping in Alaska on the edge of the 
tundra I have seen the dogs come into camp 
with their chops and throats all smeared with 
the dried yolk of the eggs of ducks and geese 
whose nests they had discovered and de¬ 
stroyed. 
Years ago we used to hear a more or less 
comical story of the way in which the eggs of 
wildfowl in the North were gathered for ex¬ 
port purposes, and I recall that Forest and 
Stream investigated this story and exploded it, 
perhaps under the title of “The Great American 
Duck Egg Fake.” There never was any export¬ 
ing of wildfowl eggs for commercial purposes, 
but there always has been, and always will be, 
a great destruction of wildfowl eggs for food by 
wild animals, including sledge dogs. 
If Forest and Stream can induce country 
dwellers to keep their dogs tied up from April 
1 to Sept. 1, it will do more for the preserva¬ 
tion of our upland game than almost anything 
that it has ever done; and when I say this I do 
not forget that many years ago it suggested and 
made popular the platform plank, “Forbid the 
Sale of Game,” nor the further fact that it, more 
than any other force ever exerted, has brought 
about the stopping of spring shooting over a 
great section of North America. 
To accomplish anything in this matter will be 
most difficult, since you will be talking about 
something that most people know nothing of, and 
and that most dog owners will not for a moment 
believe. Nevertheless, it is all true. I wholly 
agree with your correspondent Hampshire when 
he says that the cat is not worthy of a moment’s 
thought as a destroyer of birds in comparison 
with the self-hunting dog. Orange. 
Fractured Mountain Sides. 
The skillful description of the broken Appa¬ 
lachian Mountain sides, by Dr. C. P. Ambler, i« 
your issue of April 23, is filled with wonderful 
geophysics. It represents briefly the broken and 
tumbling rocks of a mountain side torn off in 
confusion by erosive forces. C. H. 
Massachusetts Fish and Game 
Protective Association. 
Boston, Mass., April 30 .—Editor Forest and 
Stream: During the past week H. bill No. 895, 
reported favorably by the committee on fisheries 
and game, has been defeated in the House with¬ 
out a roll call. The bill provided that dealers 
in game might sell geese, brant, ducks and teal 
between the dates Sept. 15 and April 1 if such 
birds were not taken in this Commonwealth nor 
“taken, killed or transported contrary to the law 
of the State or country in which such birds were 
taken or killed.” The claim made by the sup¬ 
porters of the bill was that the granting of per¬ 
mits to men who kill birds in the South to bring 
into the State fifty such birds gives them an ad¬ 
vantage over the men who for business or other 
reasons are prevented from securing birds in 
that way. 
The fate of the bill is a disappointment to 
those men who would be glad to purchase ducks 
now and then as well as to the dealers, but it 
is indicative of a strong sentiment fior rigid 
protective laws. 
On Monday the deer bill for an open season 
in the western counties comes up for third read¬ 
ing. It is to be hoped that there will be a thor¬ 
ough overhauling of the deer question in all its 
bearings. In order to learn the views of men 
who, while not active in killing game, are 
thoughtful students of bird and animal life, I 
have written to several members of the Boston 
Society of Natural History and other promi¬ 
nent men requesting their opinions on the pro¬ 
posed legislation and on the so-called farmers’ 
law now in force which provides for payment 
of damages done and gives the landowner the 
legal right to kill the deer and make use of the 
carcass. Extracts follow: 
Glover M. Allen, Secretary, Boston Society of Natural 
History: The law allowing farmers to shoot deer at any 
time should be repealed as too likely to be abused. 
Would prefer net to have deer shot in the State at 
present, but a short open season would seem preferable 
to the farmers’ law, if deer are to be killed at all. 
Prof. A. G. Parsons, Cambridge: An open season 
desirable some time in the future, but not yet. Believe 
reports of damage greatly exaggerated. 
Francis N. Balch, member Boston Society of Natural 
History: No open season is desirable. The shooting 
unsafe to the inhabitants, and there are too many 
hunters in proportion to the deer. The so-called farm¬ 
ers’ law needs reforming. From a knowledge of its 
workings, I think it is a farce. Actual damage from 
deer I believe is nearly nil. 
Prof. G. F. Loughlin, Institute of Technology: Hav¬ 
ing no pleasure in hunting live animals, I cannot favor 
an open season on deer. Judging from the apparent graft 
that farmers now enjoy in collecting large sums for 
small damages, I certainly think the so-called farmers’ 
law is not desirable. 
W. L. W. Field, Biologist, Milton Academy: From 
an experience of fifteen summers in southern New 
Hampshire, where farmers complain loudly, I feel very 
sure that the harm done by the animals is vastly exag¬ 
gerated ; am opposed to an open season at present, and 
believe that the farmers’ law should be modified. 
Prof. Henry W. Shimer, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology: It does not seem to me right that the 
farmer should be permitted to shoot the deer on his land 
at will, nor that his crops should be in constant danger 
from deer. An open season each year would so reduce 
the number that few would venture out of the forests 
to injure crops, and thus the damage law would be 
repealed. 
Prof. W. O. Crosby, Massachusetts Institute of Tech¬ 
nology: In my opinion, the open season on deer is not 
desirable, and the repeal of the so-called farmers’ law 
is desirable. 
Reginald C. Robbins: I should say that for my part, 
the right of the deer to live overbalances the desire of 
