animals as it is with a bunch of deer, or of a single one for
that matter, after bucks have shed their horns. The initiated
can tell accurately from the appearance of the animals which
are bucks and which are does; yet if questioned _how_ he knows
it, he can scarcely answer. At best he will say, "Because it
looks like one." The reason for my dwelling on this subject is
by no means an idle one. During the early summer the ravages of
"varmints" often become almost unbearable to stockmen, and since
females, which have to provide for their offspring, are the worst
offenders, it is well for anyone to be able to distinguish their
tracks from those of males, in order to follow them only, as they
are the only ones that will always with certainty lead to the den
within a day's travel.
Predatory animals are, in the writer's opinion, not monogamous.
While a male is often found with a family, the same male may be
seen the next day with others of his kind miles away. I have
noted this while following game on horseback. On the other hand,
a male track may lead to several dens if followed far enough.
On several occasions I have shot two or even three males of a
species near a den within a week or so, the desire to kill the
female being on every occasion responsible for the long-continued
watch.
In following a track with the purpose of hunting up a den it
makes but little difference whether the trail be fresh or old. A
trail two weeks old, but made after a rain, is often more easily
followed than a fresher one, and will as well lead to the den's
vicinity, as the latter very often could not be followed at all
on hard ground; and a back-trail often leads more quickly to the
den than one leading ahead. Prevailing conditions of weather and
lay of country should govern the tracker's choice of which trail
to follow. He must know that he has to follow the back track if
it comes from rough country, for the den is more likely situated
there than elsewhere.
A den that contains young cougars is readily recognized by the
superabundance of carcasses of game lying around its vicinity.
Certainly unless due regard is given to the extermination of
predatory animals, it is impossible to bring a hunting preserve
up to the highest standard, and for the same reason their
unrestricted existence in the open hunting grounds can only be
harmful. The time when predatory animals kept the number of other
game in a healthy balance has passed, and the sportsman who
kills half a dozen deer ought to have to his credit at least one
member of the former tribe to offset his killing those of the
latter. As few of the hunting fraternity attain this desirable
result, I think those who kill as many or more marauders as they
do useful game animals, ought to be hailed as benefactors to the
sportsmen's fraternity. Sometimes, I am sorry to say, such an
action is referred to as unsportsmanlike by those who would soon
find the woods empty of desirable game if others gave no more
attention to marauders than they do themselves.
THE LYNX
WHAT the cougar is as an enemy to the useful big game, the
bob-cat is to small game and the young of big game. He, however,
lacks the cunning of the former, being easily called or trapped,
and therefore as a class, and excepting individual cases few and
far between, will never become a menace to either the sportsmen's
fraternity or to stockgrowers. Where hundreds of them infest the
country--as in certain sections of the Bad Lands--they only serve
to check the increase of the millions of cottontail rabbits,
which would otherwise so rapidly multiply that they would become
a destructive pest throughout the cultivated sections of the
country.
[Illustration: Scale 1 foot
LYNX. (ONE-HALF NATURAL SIZE)
(1) Forefoot. (2) Hind foot (small specimen; nail marks are
generally invisible). (3) Imprint of fox. (4) Lynx, ordinary
gait. (5 and 6) Fox, ordinary gait. (6 and 7) Comparison of fox
and lynx trails in snow. (8) Lynx, running. (9) Domestic cat.]
The tracker, trailing bob-cats like deer, can often surprise them
at prowling, or jump them at close range from their beds, which
are usually found under deadfalls or overhanging rocks, etc. Until
their suspicions are aroused they are very foolish and the writer
has shot not a few with a .22 rifle when still-hunting for rabbits.
When called, they have not sense enough to run away if missed by
the first and even second shot. In hunting them with dogs they
give good sport, and not infrequently get away by entering holes or
putting the dogs to shame in some other manner.
[Illustration: RIGHT FRONT PAW OF LYNX]
[Illustration: RED LYNX]
At a careless glance the lynx track is but a miniature of that of
the cougar, but a close examination reveals the fact that the marks
of the individual toes are proportionately much more elongated than
in the latter. The trail, though much better than the mountain
lion's trail, is not as perfect as that of the coyote or fox, for
either of which it might be mistaken in loose snow; it is always
more out of line. In _Country Life in America_ for June, 1905, a
well-known nature writer shows a lynx trail, as perfectly as it can
be illustrated, as that of a fox. With such good standing tracks
it is inexcusable if the trailer makes a mistake, and even if one
has had but little actual experience in the woods, a less perfect
outline of the trail will be found sufficient to tell the wild cat
from the wild dog.
[Illustration: LYNX TRAIL]
In snow five inches or more deep the lynx makes, as a rule, quite a
drag with his feet, much more so than either fox or coyote, which
latter disturbs the snow only near the individual tracks. On good
tracking ground, or in soft snow, the nail marks are sometimes
visible, but never prominent like those of the fox or coyote.
THE DOMESTIC CAT
THE track and trail of the house cat--(if it were only a house cat
nothing would be said about it here)--is too well known to need
description. If it is found anywhere in hunting grounds, parks,
etc., the finder will confer a benefit on lovers of nature and its
feathered denizens if he, where possible, will set a trap baited
with fish (herring), or cheese; or if there is a chance to fill the
"varmint's" anatomy with pellets from a shotgun or a .22 rifle, or
to cut it in two with a big rifle bullet, he should never fail to
do so. It may seem a waste of powder and lead, but it is not, for
in my opinion there is no more harmful creature a-foot or a-wing
than the domestic cat outdoors.
It would be impossible to estimate the amount of damage they do by
killing songsters which nature intended to check insect pests. As
far as the sportsman is concerned, a single cat will often deprive
him of his shooting in given localities, for, if it has once found
the location of a bevy of quail, grouse or other game birds, it
will not stop until the last one of the family is killed.
Wild predatory animals generally restrict their raids to the hours
of the night; a domestic cat will prowl and kill at any hour during
the twenty-four. Some specimens attack even deer fawns and other
game of like size.
A cat shrinks from nothing in its lust for killing--not even from
water--and I remember seeing a big tom-cat rob a pond in a city
park of its goldfish. Unluckily for the marauder I had a gun with
me.
Anyone interested in shooting should keep a lookout for cat tracks
in the woods during the summer and autumn, and do his best to let
them show no more.
THE WOLF
THERE is perhaps no other animal about which more disagreeable
things are said and written than the wolf, yet the writer, though
recognizing its bad points, would dislike to have it become
extinct. Its howl is inseparably associated with many of my
pleasantest recollections, and the butte-fringed prairies and
rugged Bad Lands would have decidedly less charm without it for one
who has learned to love that so-called "God-forsaken country."
[Illustration: WOLF
Front track
Dog, forefoot (Two-thirds natural size)
Hind track]
Except under unusually severe weather conditions, wolves generally
kill only the weakest of range stock and big game animals, and
I doubt if their so-called depredations in this respect are
anything but a benefit to the survivors, as weaklings among any
species of animals are always inimical to the general health and
condition of the respective variety. The wolf in this regard does
only what the sensible warden of a well-conducted game preserve
does; _i. e._, weeds out undesirable specimens. In Yellowstone
Park, for example, since the cougars there are systematically
hunted with hounds, wolves and coyotes ought to be protected to a
certain extent or else the result will undoubtedly be a general
degeneration among the game animals in that region.
Before the warfare against lions was started, there were already
many scabby elks in that great preserve, and if the slaughter of
scavengers is kept up indiscriminately--well, a reasonable person
can only await results with misgivings. Nature always works out her
course best if left alone, and I believe that in the case of the
Yellowstone Park the Nation in the course of time will be willing
to pay ten times the amount it now pays for their extermination to
have the "varmints" alive in that great preserve. Where weaklings
are not abundant, game animals naturally suffer from an abundance
of wolves, and where the stock-raiser has enough sense to dispose
of sick or weak stock himself, Old Gray has no business.
[Illustration:
(1) Wolf (slow trot). (2) Dog (trot). (3) Wolf (quick trot). (4)
Wolf (gallop). (5) Dog walking slowly; a motion never seen in the
wolf trail.
In hunting wolves the quickest results are obtained in calling by
imitating the cries of a jack-rabbit. Wolves evidently think one
of their tribe has caught a bunny, and, as Wildenbruch fittingly
says: "Each and everyone would eat him." This trait is shared by
most other marauders. The wolf is a poor runner, and is easily run
down with the aid of an ordinary horse in open country.
The surest and most effective way apart from calling, is by
trapping, which is the most extensively practiced, and he who says
that trapping is not great sport has surely never tried to outwit
an old wolf. I always measure sport by the amount of skill required.
The keeper of a game preserve, who is not acquainted with the use
of traps and other devices designed to decrease predatory animals,
will never succeed in showing first-class results to the owner or
owners so far as abundance of game is concerned; and what holds
good in the case of the shooting-preserves holds good also for the
open hunting grounds.
The track of an old full-grown wolf, although similar to that of a
dog, differs from the latter, inasmuch as it shows that the foot is
less fleshy, the soles of the various toes appearing more sharply
divided than in the dog's track. The latter has a comparatively
big foot but also a soft foot which, being plainly visible in the
ordinary gait, becomes much more apparent where the animal adopts
a quicker motion. The toes are then spread out to an extent never
found in the wolf, except when the latter is running very fast,
and consequently the nail marks of the two middle toes of the dog
are about twice as far apart as those of his wild relative. A
wolf trail shows the individual tracks ordinarily about eighteen
inches apart, while the dog, making the same size or a slightly
bigger track, steps at the same gait less than fourteen inches;
and if, in trotting, he should equal the length of wolf-steps, the
spread of the middle toes makes his tracks easily recognizable. A
good-stepping dog steps about as near the center line as the wolf,
but as his steps are shorter, they appear more out of line to the
eye. This is an optical illusion, but it serves the tracker's
purpose.
A young wolf, say less than one year old, has as soft a foot as a
dog's. However, as young wolves go mostly in packs, following the
trail will generally reveal the identity of the animal. Usually
wolves do not track continuously, one animal investigating
here and another there, while the main trail leads on. Dogs,
two or more, show no clear-cut single trail even for so short a
space as ten feet, while a number of wolves often travel several
hundred yards with the trail showing as though only one animal
had made it. If one sees a wolf trail, and without following it
concludes that it was made by a single specimen, he is liable to
make the same mistake "Liver-eating" Johnson made with a bunch
of horse-stealing Indians. He was stopping with a friend, Eugene
Irvin, also an old Indian fighter, and one morning noticed about
fifty horse-tracks, of which he concluded only about half-a-dozen
were made by horses mounted by redskins. Instead of following out
on the prairies and deciding there from the comparative absence
of dust in the tracks--a rider is not mixed up with the herd he
is driving, and consequently in his mount's tracks less dust is
to be found--he hurried back to induce Irvin to join him in the
pursuit of the Indians. Now that old scout was not as eager for
the horses as "Liver-eating," and not at all for a fight, but for
old friendship's sake said he would come along if a couple more
fellows could be found, which, by the way, he did not believe
possible, for the country was not settled then as it is now. But
it happened that two men did come along just at that moment, and
Johnson soon convinced them that profitable business was ahead if
they joined in the pursuit. So the four went, taking a straight cut
toward Horsethief, a section of the country southeast of the Big
Snowy Mountains, where they thought the Indians would make a halt.
About three o'clock that afternoon they overtook the "Reds," but
found to their chagrin that a dozen bucks were ready to give
battle, while still four or five were left to attend to the stolen
horses, and as neither Johnson nor any of his companions were
burning for a fight, in which there was no promise of getting
anything but bullet holes, Johnson decided that he would rather go
home without the horses.
In the Bull Mountains a hunter followed a wolf trail into a ravine
from which there was no escape for the "varmint" except past him,
and he was promptly attacked by a half-dozen wolves. He killed
four after a hard fight, but he was pretty well chewed up at the
finish. Of course he had expected to find only one in the gulch.
As a rule the wolf is not anxious to fight, although not so
cowardly as most other animals--the cougar for example--yet I have
seen a single specimen follow a hunter, a boy of twelve years, but
the best rifle shot I ever met, about two miles. I was with him,
and waited for that wolf until he was within twenty yards, when I
allowed the boy to fire. His nerves were evidently too much shaken,
for he missed his first wolf--nevertheless he got his pelt.
The locating of dens, as explained in the discussion of the cougar,
is also applicable to wolves.
THE COYOTE
WHAT has been said in regard to the wolf and dog track, is
applicable also to the track and trail of the prairie wolf, but
as the latter is small there always exists the possibility that
its track will be mistaken for that of the fox. Where the locality
gives no clue to the identity of the maker of the trail, the
tracker has no distinguishing feature whatever from which to form
his judgment, since a big red fox makes as big a track as a small
coyote. The writer, after hunting foxes for many years, followed
what he took for fox trails quite frequently in a certain section
of the country, until he discovered that there was no fox within
a couple of hundred miles of the place. A big coyote, of course,
makes a larger track than a fox, but here all difference stops. For
comparison's sake the track and trail of the _average_ coyote and
of the _average_ fox are shown.
[Illustration: COYOTE. (TWO-THIRDS NATURAL SIZE)
(1) Ordinary trot. (2) Fast trot.]
The hunting methods are the same as for the gray wolf. Where the
latter, however, is looking for the living, the coyote is watching
for the dead, and he rather deserves to be called the hyena of the
Western Hemisphere than prairie wolf, for his main diet is carrion.
His addiction to carrion can be made of use to the hunter, in
locating big game which has been unfortunately "shot to the woods,"
and of which he desires to secure at least the antlered or horned
head.
In locating missing persons, who are supposed to have met with a
fatal accident or worse, the trail of the coyote could be employed
to advantage--and undoubtedly will be, if it is once a matter of
general knowledge that the prairie wolf will always visit the
immediate vicinity of the remains of a hidden or buried human body,
and sound its dismal howl over them every time it happens to pass
through that part of the country.
THE FOX
THERE is very little to add to what has been said about the fox
track in the chapter on the coyote. When galloping, the fox's
trail shows many variations not found in that of any other animal,
but as the sinful fellow generally leaps only when he undertakes
a chase, or is chased himself, the features in the running trail
are practically of little or no consequence to the tracker. It is
hardly possible to confound a fox trail with that of a very small
dog--only in that the latter has a foot as small as the average
fox--on account of the glaring dissimilarity in the length of the
individual steps, which is much more apparent than between the wolf
and big dog. The writer, at the tender age of seven, mistook once
a very small dog's trail for that of a fox, but after his father
pointed out the above feature, he never afterwards made such a
mistake.
[Illustration: FOX. (TWO-THIRDS NATURAL SIZE)
Front and hind track. (1) Ordinary gait; the shaded part shows
drag of brush. (2) Running.]
When no individual track is visible, as is the case in dry snow,
the blurry mark of the fox brush which is frequently seen at
intervals in the trail settles any existing doubt. Some foxes, as
well as wolves and coyotes, drag their feet to the same extent as
does a dog that walks badly, and because of this the tracker may
disregard as immaterial the prominence or absence of the drag made
by the toenails.
Hunting foxes with hounds is undoubtedly the most popular method.
Calling him like the wolf and coyote yields good results for the
still-hunter, but of all methods I prefer to shoot them during the
rutting season, which occurs in January. The rutting season of
coyotes is during February, and that of wolves from January 1st
until April, approximately speaking. I have seen wolves "run" as
early as December 28th, and have killed pups about two weeks old
after the middle of June.
It is on snowy, blustering days that, in the depth of the woods,
the fox is holding high carnival, and his and her tracks run in
all directions. Watching where the trails are most numerous soon
furnishes work for the gun and trophies for the hunter, for on such
occasions the fox seems to have lost the senses of sight and smell
which at other times are so well developed. It is a singular fact
that they always run the most during the worst weather. In driving
it is impossible to tell where a wolf or coyote will leave a
certain thicket, beyond that it will not leave it where it entered;
but a fox is always the sure victim of the hunter if he knows the
fox path, for like the bear or old boar, he and every one of his
tribe will always leave a thicket at the same point.
In calling, an old fox, like a wolf, comes stealthily, while a
young one, like a coyote, will generally be in a hurry to get
there.
WHAT TRACKING MEANS, AND SOME HUNTING METHODS
BY the term "tracking" we usually understand the following of a
trail, but if a hunter attempts to get a shot at his quarry solely
by this means he has to depend on good luck or physical endurance.
The cougar is, in my opinion, the most perfect tracker and most
successful still-hunter; he tracks, but he does not follow the
trail like a pack of wolves or dogs; he uses it only as a guide,
following it for an occasional fifty or one hundred yards, which is
to my mind the proper method for the human hunter.
Tracking also means the ascertaining of the preferred stand of
certain animals. If, for example, the rutting place of the biggest
elk in a district is located by comparison of various tracks,
and the bull is shot later by waiting for, or stalking him at
his favorite place, he undoubtedly falls a victim to tracking.
Again, a track of a big bull moose is seen, and though it is too
old to warrant expectations of finding the animal still in the
locality, it is followed and determines where the bull made his
resting-place. When, weeks later, perhaps, the fresh trail of the
same bull is seen and again the previously preferred hillside,
or another specific part of the woods is hunted over carefully
without attention to the trail, but with all consideration for
wind-direction and lay of country, and a fair shot is obtained,
can it be doubted that tracking was responsible for the downfall
of this monarch of the woods? If so, let the doubter once follow a
moose track straight and try to get an easy shot: he will probably
change his mind. The locating of game, sometimes weeks in advance
of the time when the shooting is to be done, is not by any means
the least feature in the art of tracking. To reduce, if possible,
the annual slaughter of men by careless hunters, it may not be
amiss to discuss certain hunting methods which have given me the
most satisfaction, and which obviate the possibility of being fired
at by mistake.
Stalking along in grown-up timber and other open places, the
sportsman will run across the trails of all the animals which have
moved in the district he covers, and, having decided which trail
he wishes to follow, he keeps on in the direction it leads. If it
enters a thicket, a circuitous route--under wind--will lead him to
where the animal has passed out, or show him that it is "fast," _i.
e._, in the thicket. If the former, he, of course, has to pursue
the same tactics until the game is located. The rest is generally
easy enough, and that without entering any thicket, where, as we
all know, it usually happens that hunters are mistaken for deer.
Many hunters in relating their experiences tell us how careful they
were to hunt against the wind, to approach their game. While it is
well enough to have the wind against one if the game is in sight
or driven toward one, I consider it more judicious to make the
wind serve me. Having located an animal in a thicket, I select a
stump or some other elevation to windward which allows the widest
possible view, and simply wait long enough to allow the wind to
inform my quarry of my presence. It will not require long for the
game to take the hint and get up--often affording a shot by this
means alone--to leave the premises. Very few are the instances that
an old buck goes straight away and gives me no chance to see him,
because in that case he would have to cross my trail, and to do
that the wind, or rather my scent, does not frighten him enough;
and if he goes out at the side which is untainted by any scent of
man, he is usually my meat--if he is up to my standard. If the
thicket is too big, the smoke of a pipe will often do wonders. The
biggest buck I ever shot, became my victim through the assistance
of a smudge--the thicket in that instance being about ten acres in
extent. The diagram (p. 130) will illustrate the method better than
words could. I have used it with success on many animals, and even
on a wounded bear.
During snowless times no one can know with certainty if a deer is
in a certain thicket, and the method has to be employed at random
where there are enough signs to make it likely that a buck is near.
In hunting against the wind in open forests more game is passed
than many hunters would suppose. The animals see the man, note
that he will pass them, and hide by getting as near to the ground
as possible. If they scent him after he has passed, they evidently
realize that the danger is over, though some, mostly the younger,
inexperienced animals, then sneak off. Where game is very wild it
is often in such localities as I have mentioned only possible to
approach them _with the wind_ by outdistancing the latter, because
a big game animal at rest depends on its nose to save it from
danger in the direction from which the wind comes, and on its eyes
to watch the side from which it can get no other warning.