650 
FOREST AND STREAM 
November, 1918 
FOREST and STREAM 
FORTY - SEVENTH YEAR 
FOUNDERS OF THE AUDUBON SOCIETY 
GOVERNING BOARD: 
GEORGE BIRD GRINKELL, New York, N. Y. 
CARL E. AEELEY, American Museum of Natural History, New York 
FRANK S. DAGGETT, Museum of Science, Los Angeles, Cal. 
EDMUND HELLER, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 
C. HART MERRIAM, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. 
WILFRED H. OSGOOD, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Ill. 
JOHN M. PHILLIPS, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
CHARLES SHELDON, Washington, D. C. 
GEORGE 8HIRAS, 3rd, Washington, D. C. 
r\ WILLIAM BRUETTE, Editor 
' TOM WOOD, Manager 
Nine East Fortieth Street, New York City 
THE OBJECT OF THIS JOURNAL WILL BE TO 
studiously promote a healthful interest in outdoor recrea¬ 
tion, and a refined taste for natural objects. Aug. 14, 1873 
STOP THE SALE OF HEADS 
HE ratification of a treaty for the protection of mi¬ 
gratory birds between Canada and the United 
States, and the passage of the Enabling Act, together 
with the President’s Proclamation of regulations, promise 
new and better conditions in all bird protection matters. 
Very few of the men who have thought most and worked 
hardest to protect wild life would have believed twenty 
years ago that they would live to see such enlightened 
action taken in this country. We may all congratulate 
ourselves on what has been accomplished and may recog¬ 
nize the truth of the statement made not long ago by the 
Game Preservation Committee of the Boone and Crockett 
Club, that to secure results in matters of game conserva¬ 
tion, the co-operation of sportsmen is indispensable. 
Much still remains to be done. In the more thickly 
settled portions of the country, non-migratory game birds, 
like the ruffed grouse, the quail and the pinnated grouse, 
are growing fewer year by year, and unless radical action 
is taken are likely to be exterminated over wide areas. 
In many more thinly settled countries large game also is 
approaching that extinction which has overtaken it in so 
many sections. 
The establishment of game refuges should tend to pre¬ 
serve this game, but even such refuges will not accom¬ 
plish their object unless the laws are observed, as too 
often they are not. There can be no effective enforce¬ 
ment of law without the support of public opinion, and 
this means the public must more and more be educated as 
to the importance of game protection. That this education 
is advancing has been splendidly demonstrated by the 
events of the last few years. 
As has often been said, provisions of law which pro¬ 
hibit the sale of game are for the most part a confes¬ 
sion that the Game Laws are not enforced, but such pro¬ 
hibition has done much to reduce killing and to protect 
the game. Since we forbid the sale of game for food 
and the sale of plumage for personal adornment, why 
should we not—as Mr. Charles Sheldon has suggested— 
forbid the sale of trophies. 
The sale of trophies, big heads, tends toward the ex¬ 
termination of big game—twenty-five years ago it cut 
down the numbers of the Yellowstone bison from about 
400 to 40 or 50—and Mr. Sheldon is right in saying that 
the sale of game trophies should be prohibited in the same 
way as the sale of game for food is prohibited. Laws to 
this end are well worth working for. 
Few men have given so much thought to the subject 
of big game preservation as Mr. Sheldon, and while the 
war work in which he is now engaged has for a time 
turned his attention to more important matters, we may 
feel assured that when these present troubles are over he 
will revert once more to the subject so dear to the heart 
of every nature lover. 
MIGRATORY LAW RESULTS 
'"PHE astonishing results following the passage and en¬ 
forcement of the migratory bird law are reasonably 
familiar to sportsmen. It is no exaggeration to say that 
aquatic game is “coming back.” 
Concrete evidence of this, in one case at least, is fur¬ 
nished in a little tabulation issued by the American Game 
Protective Association, covering records made at Reel- 
foot Lake by the Blue Wing Hunting Club, of Clarks¬ 
ville, Tenn. 
Reel foot Lake is a public ducking ground. Its former 
wonders, both as a shooting and finishing locality, have 
been described in many of the older volumes of Forest 
and Stream, But to get down to the facts, here is the 
statement already alluded to : 
November, 1913—11 men killed 226 ducks in 9 days. 
November, 1913—10 men killed 35 ducks in 7 days. 
October, 1914— 11 men killed 120 ducks in 11 days. 
November, 1914—11 men killed 137 ducks in 8 days. 
November, 1915—13 men killed 151 ducks in 14 days. 
November, 1916—17 men killed 856 ducks in 10 days. 
November, 1916— 7 men killed 317 ducks in 4 days. 
November, 1916— 7 men killed 285 ducks in 4 days. 
November, 1917—14 men killed 1329 ducks in 14 days. 
Now, this table proves the case. It is interesting, how¬ 
ever, to take the data and work out a different answer, 
or rather a result, that conveys its own moral. 
For instance, eleven men hunting nine days is equiv¬ 
alent—arithmetically at any rate—to one man hunting 
ninety-nine days. Using this method, we arrive at a 
theoretical “one man” compilation about as follows: 
Year. 
Days Hunted 
Ducks, No. 
Av. per day. 
1913 
169 
261 
i -5 
1914 
209 
257 
1.2 
I 9 U 
182 
151 
0.8 
1916 
226 
1458 
6.4 
1917 
196 * 
1329 
6.8 
It will be conceded that up 
to the year 
1916 Reelfoot 
Lake was a mighty poor duck hunting spot. The mi¬ 
gratory bird act became effective in the spring of 1913, 
so that the remarkable influx of birds in the two years 
following 1915 may be ascribed to results incident to its 
enactment. 
For that, our lawmakers, and the spirit of American 
sportsmanship that forced the statute on the country, be 
praised. 
But there is a curious little moral or kink in the first 
table, and also in the second, that is apt to escape at¬ 
tention. 
In 1916, no less than 1458 ducks were shot by 31 men. 
This is an average of 47 ducks per man—not an enor¬ 
mous bag, it is true, as the shooting extended over an 
average period of nine days. 
In 1917, fourteen men killed 1329 ducks, or 95 ducks 
per man, in fourteen days’ shooting—less than seven 
ducks per day, per man. Surely this does not seem like 
excessive slaughter. 
