i3 
J AN - 4 , 1908.] FOREST AND STREAM. 
?ect that not one per cent, of these escape, and 
that I do not catch one in a thousand of them, 
[ can guess at the extensive and continual slaugh- 
er that is carried on among the fish, and that 
;f it was only stopped for a single year the 
ocean itself might be sick. 
: Even when men catch fish they are most likely 
o take the silly ones first, and silliness often 
goes closely before or after other defects. It is 
I long continuance of that sort of selection that 
las made the trout so clever in avoiding visible 
ashing lines, and probably for the same reason 
II the native fish of New Zealand are much 
asier to catch than those of Australia, because 
hey have not such long experience of men. 
-‘ 
The Ruffed Grouse Scarcity. 
■ Boston, Dec. 13.— Editor Forest and Stream: 
jVhile, as you state in your editorial columns 
f your issue of Dec. 7, there is more or less 
ifference of opinion among sportsmen as to the 
ause of the scarcity of ruffed grouse the past 
eason, there seems to be substantial agreement 
j s to the fact that the finest game bird of our 
lortheastern States has to all appearances be- 
ome very few in numbers. 
My own experience has necessarily been rather 
mited, but in about eighteen days spent in 
hooting since the first of October, I have had 
uite a good proportion of days when I did not 
re a single shot, and others when I found only 
ne or two birds. There was but one day when 
bagged more than one bird, and the highest 
:ore of any day was two. And this was in 
ortions of Worcester, Plymouth and Norfolk 
'aunties in Massachusetts; localities where in 
'ears- past very fair shooting has been obtain- 
ble. The scarcity in my opinion is due to a 
'umber of causes; the cold late spring undoubt- 
dly destroyed many young birds and eggs, and 
he unusually large number of birds of prey, 
[specially of the goshawks and the numerous 
)xes all contributed greatly to the destruction 
■f ruffed grouse. I am credibly informed of 
’oshawks to the number of over one hundred 
id fifty having been shot in Massachusetts and 
ionnecticut, where, as a rule, this bird is de- 
'dedly rare. Lastly, but perhaps not the main 
mse of the scarcity, there was, at least in cer- 
1 [.in parts of Massachusetts, a good deal of shoot- 
ig before the season opened; illegal shooting 
tterly unchecked by officers, even . when in¬ 
armed that it was going on. 
But what is the remedy? To prohibit all shoot- 
:! ig of ruffed grouse for two, three or five 
: bars, or to take such steps as will at least tend 
: >ward a permanent check upon the destruc- 
! Jon not only of ruffed grouse, but quail and 
nail birds as well? To prohibit the killing of 
■iffed grouse for a term of years, while it would 
hdoubtedly be obeyed by the true sportsman 
: ith almost no exception, would have not the 
ightest effect upon the actions of the farmers’ 
)ys who would shoot and snare as they un¬ 
doubtedly do now, more or less for sale, nor 
,; ould it stop the professional market gunner 
ho, the law in this State to the contrary not- 
lthstanding, is by no means out of business, 
■hese two classes of those who pursue and kill 
e ruffed grouse would find more birds perhaps, 
ft the greatest gainers by such a law would be 
1 e hawks, owls and foxes which no prohibitory 
:atute can reach. 
I believe, and I am not alone in the opinion, 
that the only way to protect the ruffed grouse 
is the following: 
First, require a gun license from all who wish 
to shoot, making the amount of the license fee 
not less than twenty dollars for nonresidents and 
aliens and two dollars for residents of the State. 
Second, use the money received from the sale 
of licenses for paying the salaries of a suffi¬ 
cient staff of well paid and efficient game war¬ 
dens, and for paying bounties for the destruc¬ 
tion of those species of hawks and owls which 
are known to be destructive of bird life and for 
the killing of skunks and foxes. 
I am not unaware of the howl of rage which 
this proposition to place a bounty upon the kill¬ 
ing of foxes will bring from the fox hunters, 
but in view of the great increase in the fox 
population, in this State at least, it is largely 
a question whether the fox or the ruffed grouse 
and quail shall be protected. There is no ques¬ 
tion in the mind of any one, except some fox 
hunters, that foxes destroy great numbers of 
grouse and quail, although it is probably true 
that at the season during which foxes are for 
the most part hunted—the fall and early winter— 
the birds are able to keep out of their way. 
During the spring and summer, however, and 
when the snow is deep, that is not the case, and 
it is then that the fox does his work of de¬ 
struction. I have seen one fox shot while on 
the trail of a bevy of quail, and have more than 
once routed out a fox that was unquestionably 
doing the same thing. I have been told re¬ 
peatedly by reliable men, who were fox hunters 
as well as bird hunters, that to their positive 
knowledge the fox destroyed many grouse, quail 
and other birds. At a hearing last winter before 
a committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, 
testimony exactly contrary to the above was 
given by influential men who were fox hunters, 
but not bird hunters, and much of what they 
said was laughably one sided and incorrect, but 
it carried the day with the committee. Those 
in favor of a bounty on foxes failed to gain their 
point, not because their cause was wrong, but 
because the other side was better organized and 
more strongly represented. 
I do not believe that the fox hunter has any¬ 
thing to fear from the placing of a bounty 011 
his favorite quarry. Foxes are far too plenti¬ 
ful to be in any danger of extermination, or 
anything like it, and a great many can be spared 
without seriously affecting the sport of hunting 
them. 
To the list of noxious animals we might add 
with benefit the domestic cat which undoubtedly 
destroys many of our birds, both game and small 
birds. Unfortunately, however, the cat is too 
strongly entrenched in the affections of the peo¬ 
ple at large and the only way to deal with this 
bird destroyer is by a dose of lead properly ad¬ 
ministered when Tabby or Thomas is caught 
far enough from home, a practice conscientiously 
followed by many. The domestic cat, uncon¬ 
trollable as it is, undoubtedly has its value and 
uses in and about the house and barn, but in 
the woods and thickets it is a menace to all 
bird life. 
The pheasant—that is the real pheasant, not 
that of Pennsylvania—is a bird that in localities 
where ruffed grouse are found can well be 
spared, as the cock birds undoubtedly attack and 
kill the male grouse during the breeding season 
if not at other times. 
In addition to the above I advocate the shorten¬ 
ing of the open season for upland game shoot¬ 
ing. In Massachusetts the present law permits 
the shooting of woodcock and partridge, or ruf¬ 
fed grouse during the months of October and 
November, but the open season for quail does 
.not begin until Nov. 1. For all these birds the 
season closes on Dec. 1. The result of this ar¬ 
rangement is that many quail—in those parts of 
the State where any now survive—are killed be¬ 
fore the law permits, and at a time when many 
of the young birds are far from being full 
grown. The open season for all three of these 
birds should be uniform, and should not begin 
before Nov. 1, ending Dec. 1, or if one month 
be not thought long enough, on Dec. 15. 
It will, of course, be urged in opposition to 
this plan that the woodcock flight takes place 
in October, and that, as a rule, none but a few 
scattering birds of this species are to be found 
in this latitude after the first of November. 
This, of course, is true, but after all the wood¬ 
cock requires protection all over the country 
more than almost any game bird we have, and 
is certain to disappear altogether unless steps 
are taken to preserve it. October shooting of 
ruffed grouse and quail is far from satisfactory, 
owing to the leaves being still thick upon the 
trees and the quail being often not full grown. 
In considering what is to be done to prevent 
the extermination of our game birds, animals 
and fishes, sportsmen particularly, but the peo¬ 
ple at large as well, ought, it would seem, to 
bear in mind that unless efficient measures for 
the protection and preservation of game be taken 
promptly, the day is not far distant when field 
sports such as shooting and fishing will be 
things of the past so far as the average man is 
concerned. Even to-day, in all sections of the 
country, are to be found great game preserves, 
owned or controlled by very rich men, individ¬ 
ually, or by clubs, from which the public is 
rigorously excluded. Unless the sportsman in 
general can be educated up to the idea that every 
man be a game warden in one sense, and be 
willing to make sacrifices for the common good, 
shooting and fishing will soon be possible only 
upon these preserves, and the average man will 
be out of it. One of the many reasons which 
led our forebears to emigrate to this country was 
to avoid the game laws of the Old World, and 
a hatred of all legislation in the direction of the 
preservation of game is one of the sentiments 
handed down to us. No men seem, as a rule, to 
feel this more strongly than do many of those 
who sit upon the bench, and courts almost in- 
\ariably deal with violations of the game laws 
at least as leniently as evidence and their oaths 
will permit. It is high time for sportsmen to 
take up in earnest the preservation of our game. 
A campaign of education is in order. 
Thos. Aspinwall. 
The Forest and Stream may be obtained from 
any neiosdealer on order. Ask your dealer to 
supply you regularly. 
The chief concern of every camper is to ob¬ 
tain substantial nourishment in compact form. 
No camp or cabin is complete without its supply 
of Borden s Eagle Brand Condensed Milk and 
Peer ess Brand Evaporated Milk. They have no 
equal for Coffee, Fruits and Cereals.— Adv. 
