98 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Jan. 21 , 1911 - 
Water Powers. 
Thf. policy of New \ ork State, with reference 
to the development of water powers, is fully 
set forth in a brief just issued by the New York 
Board of Trade and Transportation’s Commit¬ 
tee on Forests. The committee says in part: 
It was due to the responsibility they felt as 
citizens which first led the New \ ork Board of 
Trade and Transportation to seriously consider 
the vital relations and the value of the forests 
to the multifarious interests of the State and 
the importance of preserving them from de¬ 
struction, and it was the action of this board 
which brought about the enactment of the 
Forest Commission law of 1885 under which a 
State policy was defined and the first State 
Forest Commission in this country was created. 
At that time it was the hope of all of those 
who were interested in the preservation of our 
State forests that the law of 1885 and the crea¬ 
tion of the Forest Commission would prove to 
be an assurance of the ultimate adoption of so- 
called scientific forestry, under State control, 
then believed to be the best means for attain¬ 
ing all desired ends. This hope has never been 
realized. 
Throughout the entire State, and only except¬ 
ing those in the forests who had profited by 
nefarious operations which were made danger¬ 
ous, if not impossible, by this forest provision 
of the constitution [Article VII., Section 7], it 
was welcomed and regarded as the only sure 
means, under the existing conditions, by which 
the State’s interest might be protected. This 
constitutional provision came into existence as 
the direct outgrowth of healthy and enlightened 
public opinion, and it has been maintained un¬ 
changed through the same force for sixteen 
years against repeated powerful assaults. 
The persistency and unanimity with which the 
people of the State have supported Article VII., 
Section 7, of the Constitution is without parallel 
in the history of this State. 
Besides the proposition to adopt scientific 
forestry, another object of the agitation has 
been to induce the people to approve a change 
•of the constitution to permit, in the discretion 
of the Legislature, the creation of water stor¬ 
age within the forest preserve on State lands. 
We have not been oblivious to the great ad¬ 
vantages which would result to all the interests 
in this State from a comprehensive system of 
water storage development. More than twenty- 
five years ago we commenced to advocate the 
preservation of our forests and the creation of 
a State forest preserve for the purpose of con¬ 
serving our water resources. At the same time 
we originated the movement for the enlarge¬ 
ment of our State canals, believing then, as 
now, that the State of New York possesses 
within its borders the undeveloped means of 
affording its people and their varied interests 
the two most important factors which can con¬ 
tribute to the prosperity of commerce, manu¬ 
factures and agriculture, viz.: cheap transpor¬ 
tation and cheap power. With these provided 
the State of New York will be forever invincible 
as against its competitors in all its branches of 
industry. We promoted the canal enlargement 
to final success, and when the conditions war¬ 
ranted, we brought forward the legislation 
which would lay the foundation for the ultimate 
development of our water powers. 
The State Water Supply Commission having 
practically completed its extensive studies and 
surveys made a report to the Legislature of 
1910, setting forth in detail the results of its 
work and recommended the passage of two bills 
embodying a plan and a constitutional amend¬ 
ment which, if enacted and adopted, would have 
permitted the flooding of nearly 48,000 acres of 
State land within the boundaries of the Adiron¬ 
dack park. In fact, every project for possible 
water storage which had been proposed by the 
most enthusiastic advocates of water storage 
was provided to be carried out under the bills 
which were reported by the commission, and 
two of these bills were drafted by offeers of 
this board, and to the other they contributed 
very largely by way of suggestion and amend¬ 
ment. Moreover, these bills were approved by 
Governor. Hughes and were formally endorsed 
by the New York Board of Trade and Trans¬ 
portation and by the Association for the Pro¬ 
tection of the Adirondacks and by other associ¬ 
ations and persons who had previously opposed 
any invasion of the Forest Preserve or any 
change of Article VII., Section 7, of the Consti¬ 
tution except as to the sale of lands outside of 
the Adirondack park. These bills were so ap¬ 
proved because they provided for the maximum 
of water storage while giving no discretion to 
the Legislature or to any public official to go 
beyond definite fixed bounds and limits as to 
the flooding or use of State forest lands. But 
the bounds and limits fixed were so inclusive 
that, as has been stated, they insured the maxi¬ 
mum of water storage desired, and much more 
than would probably be required for every 
practical use for several generations, if not for 
all time. 
They provide that when the reservoirs were 
constructed by the State they were to be main¬ 
tained and controlled by the State, and that the 
use of the waters from such reservoirs was to 
be leased under contracts running for terms of 
fifty years to the owners of the power plants 
and others, and at reasonable charges therefor, 
but such as would be sufficient to produce a net 
revenue to the State. The State was to provide 
the money by the sale of not to exceed twenty 
million dollars of State bonds. 
These bills were defeated because members of 
the Legislature from the sections of the State 
which would be most directly benefited de¬ 
manded that when the bonds of the State issued 
for the development had been paid off and re¬ 
tired at the end of fifty years, the State should 
turn over all the reservoirs it had built as a 
free gift and without any charge to the owners 
of the power plants for their own use, profit and 
enjoyment forever. 
The question which confronts the people of 
the State of New York in this respect at this 
time is: Shall the State itself step into the field, 
take control, make this development upon the 
scale which the public welfare demands, and 
dispense the benefits thereof to all alike at the 
most reasonable charges consistent with public 
policy and the actual cost of rendering the 
service, or shall the State make the develop¬ 
ment and permit a great private or corporate 
monopoly to seize the control, dispense the 
benefits as it may elect and forever dictate the 
destiny of every other interest in this State? 
Fortunately the people will not permit an in- 
(Continued on page 117.) 
Bird Dogs in <he Adirondacks. 
Glens Falls, N. Y., Jan. 16 .—Editor Forest 
and Stream: In his annual report transmitted 
to the Legislature this week, H. LeRoy Austin, 
the retiring State forest, fish and game commis¬ 
sioner, goes at some length into the conditions 
governing the deer supply of the State. It is 
recommended that the open season for hunting 
deer be continued as at present, or if any change 
is made that the season be lengthened to include 
the first two weeks in November with the re¬ 
striction that no does be killed at any time. The 
protection of does, it is pointed out, would con¬ 
serve both deer and hunters. The report says 
a hunter who stops before shooting to make 
sure that the animal at which he fires is not a 
doe is not likely to kill a human being. 
It is recommended that suitable amendment 
should be made to the law which would permit 
the possession and use of dogs for legitimate 
purposes-in the Adirondack section. It is stated 
that a proper system of registration of dogs 
could no doubt be made which would permit the 
use of dogs for bird and fox hunting. Through 
the medium of your paper, will you very kindly 
permit the undersigned to express their hearty- 
approval and appreciation of the timely recom¬ 
mendations (as above stated) made by*Mr. Aus¬ 
tin to the Legislature upon his retirement from 
the office of State forest, fish and game com¬ 
missioner? We particularly commend his recom¬ 
mendation relative to the use of dogs for bird 
and fox hunting, believing that the use of dogs 
under proper restrictions would be only fair and 
just to the bird hunter. 
Birds cannot be successfully hunted without 
dogs, and as we find some of our best covers in 
the Adirondack preserves, the prohibition there 
of the use of dogs for birds, foxes and rabbits 
works a great injustice and hardship to the 
hunters of this game. The registration of dogs, 
with the name of the owner on its collar and 
the bonding of the owner, might prove a solu¬ 
tion to the question. 
The fox is almost, if not more, destructive 
to the grouse than the hunter, as they kill the 
mother bird on her nest and the young birds 
before they are large enough to protect them¬ 
selves. Many grouse both male and female are 
also killed by foxes when the birds bury them¬ 
selves in the deep snow for warmth in extreme 
cold weather. Exterminate the fox and there 
will be a large increase of partridge, besides pro¬ 
tecting the poultry yards. 
In permitting the use of bird dogs in the 
Adirondack preserves, under the above restric¬ 
tions, the killing of deer will not be greater, as 
the bird hunters’ weapon, a fowling piece with 
a load of ij4 ounce of small shot, would rarely 
if ever be effective if used on deer. 
In expressing the above we believe that we 
have echoed the sentiment .of Warren county 
citizens generally, especially those who have 
hunted in the Adirondack region. 
The Chatiemac Club, 
D. L. Robertson, President; 
Geo. S'. Raley, Vice-President; 
B. S. Clother, A. H. Haynen, 
Geo. R. Harris, Geo. F. Bayle 
and many others. 
The Forest and Stream may be obtained from 
any nezusdealer on order. Ask your dealer to 
supply you regularly. 
