Outdoor pastimes of an American hunter

by Theodore Roosevelt

In the evenings we sat around the blazing camp-fires, and, as always on such occasions, each hunter told tales of his adventures and of the strange feats and habits of the beasts of the wilderness. There had been beaver all through this delta in the old days, and a very few are still left in out-of-the-way places. One Sunday morning we saw two wolves, I think young of the year, appear for a moment on the opposite side of the bayou, but they vanished before we could shoot. All of our party had had a good deal of experience with wolves. The Metcalfs had had many sheep killed by them, the method of killing being invariably by a single bite which tore open the throat while the wolf ran beside his victim. The wolves also killed young hogs, but were very cautious about meddling with an old sow; while one of the big half-wild boars that ranged free through the woods had no fear of any number of wolves. Their endurance and the extremely difficult nature of the country made it difficult to hunt them, and the hunters all bore them a grudge, because if a hound got lost in a region where wolves were at all plentiful they were almost sure to find and kill him before he got home. They were fond of preying on dogs, and at times would boldly kill the hounds right ahead of the hunters. In one instance, while the dogs were following a bear and were but a couple of hundred yards in front of the horsemen, a small party of wolves got in on them and killed two. One of the Osborns, having a valuable hound which was addicted to wandering in the woods, saved him from the wolves by putting a bell on him. The wolves evidently suspected a trap and would never go near the dog. On one occasion another of his hounds got loose with a chain on, and they found him a day or two afterward unharmed, his chain having become entangled in the branches of a bush. One or two wolves had evidently walked around and around the imprisoned dog, but the chain had awakened their suspicions and they had not pounced on him. They had killed a yearling heifer a short time before, on Osborn’s plantation, biting her in the hams. It has been my experience that fox-hounds as a rule are afraid of attacking a wolf; but all of my friends assured me that their dogs, if a sufficient number of them were together, would tackle a wolf without hesitation; the packs, however, were always composed, to the extent of at least half, of dogs which, though part hound, were part shepherd or bull or some other breed. Dr. Miller had hunted in Arkansas with a pack specially trained after the wolf. There were twenty-eight of them all told, and on this hunt they ran down and killed unassisted four full-grown wolves, although some of the hounds were badly cut. None of my companions had ever known of wolves actually molesting men, but Mr. Ichabod Osborn’s son-in-law had a queer adventure with wolves while riding alone through the woods one late afternoon. His horse acting nervously, he looked about and saw that five wolves were coming toward him. One was a bitch, the other four were males. They seemed to pay little heed to him, and he shot one of the males, which crawled off. The next minute the bitch ran straight toward him and was almost at his stirrup when he killed her. The other three wolves, instead of running away, jumped to and fro growling, with their hair bristling, and he killed two of them; whereupon the survivor at last made off. He brought the scalps of the three dead wolves home with him.

Near our first camp was the carcass of a deer, a yearling buck, which had been killed by a cougar. When first found, the wounds on the carcass showed that the deer had been killed by a bite in the neck at the back of the head; but there were scratches on the rump as if the panther had landed on its back. One of the negro hunters, Brutus Jackson, evidently a trustworthy man, told me that he had twice seen cougars, each time under unexpected conditions. Once he saw a bobcat race up a tree, and riding toward it saw a panther reared up against the trunk. The panther looked around at him quite calmly, and then retired in leisurely fashion. Jackson went off to get some hounds, and when he returned two hours afterward the bobcat was still up the tree, evidently so badly scared that he did not wish to come down. The hounds were unable to follow the cougar. On another occasion he heard a tremendous scuffle and immediately afterward saw a big doe racing along with a small cougar literally riding it. The cougar was biting the neck, but low down near the shoulders; he was hanging on with his front paws, but was tearing away with his hind claws so that the deer’s hair appeared to fill the air. As soon as Jackson appeared the panther left the deer. He shot it, and the doe galloped off, apparently without serious injury.

I wish those who see cougars kill game, or who come on game that they have killed, would study and record the exact method employed in killing. Mr. Hornaday sent me a photograph of a cougar killing a goat, which he had seized high up on the back of the neck in his jaws, not using his claws at all. I once found where one had killed a big buck by seizing him by the throat; the claws also having evidently been used to hold the buck in the struggle. Another time I found a colt which had been killed by a bite in the neck; and yet another time a young doe which had been killed by a bite in the head. In most cases where I came across the carcasses of deer which had been killed by cougars they had been partially eaten, and it was not possible to find out exactly how they had been slain. In one instance at least the neck had been broken, evidently in the struggle; but I could not tell whether this had been done designedly, by the use of the forepaws. Twice hunters I have known saw cougars seize mountain sheep, in each case by the throat. The information furnished me inclines me to believe that most game is killed by cougars in this fashion. Most of the carcasses of elk which had been killed by cougars that I have examined showed fang marks round the throat and neck; but one certainly did not, though it is possible in this case that the elk died in some other way, and that the cougar had merely been feeding on its dead body. But I have read of cases in which elk and large deer were slain where the carcasses were said to have shown wounds only on the flanks, and where the writers believed—with how much justification I cannot say—that the wounds had been inflicted by the claws. I should be surprised to find that such was the ordinary method with cougars of killing game of any kind; but it is perhaps unsafe to deny the possibility of such an occurrence without more information than is at present available; especially in view of the experience of Brutus Jackson, which I give above. In a letter to Mr. Hornaday a New Mexican hunter, Mr. J. W. Carter, of Truchas, states that cougars rip with their claws in killing game, and that, whether the quarry is a horse, deer, or calf, the cougar begins to eat at the neck. When at bay a cougar kills dogs by biting them, usually in the head; the claws are used merely to scratch or rip, or to drag the dog within reach of the jaws, and to hold it for the fatal bite.

Miss Velvin’s studies of dangerous wild beasts in captivity show that the cougar is ordinarily more playful and less wantonly ferocious than the big spotted cats; but that there is a wide individual variation among cougars, a few being treacherous, bad-tempered and dangerous. Mr. Bostock, the animal trainer, states that the cougar is as a rule rather stupid and far less courageous or dangerous than the other big cats, the proportion of vicious individuals being very small. He regards bears as being very dangerous.

Mr. Charles Sheldon informs me that while on a ranch near Chihuahua he at different times kept loose, as pets, a female cougar, three wolves, and several coyotes, all taken when very young. All were exceedingly tame and even affectionate, save at the moment of eating.

Mr. W. H. Wright, of Spokane, Wash., is a hunter of wide experience, and has probably made as close a life study of the bear—particularly the grizzly—as anyone now alive. In speaking to me, he dwells on its wide variation in habits, not only as among individuals, but as between all the individuals of one locality when compared with those of another. Thus, in the Big Horn or the Teton Mountains if an animal is killed, he has in his experience found that any grizzly within range is almost sure to come to the carcass (and this has been my experience in the same region). In the Bitter Roots, where the bears live largely on fish, berries and roots, he found the chances just about even whether the bears would or would not come; whereas in the Selkirks, he found that the bears would very rarely pay any attention to a carcass, this being a place where game is comparatively scarce and where there are no salmon, so that the bears live exclusively as vegetarians, save for eating small mammals or insects. In the Bitter Roots Mountains the bears used to live chiefly on fish in the spring and early in the fall; in the summer they fed to a large extent on the shooting star, which grows on all the marshes and is one of the familiar plants of the region, but did not touch either the dog-tooth violet or the spring beauty, both of which have little tubers on the roots. But in the Kootenay country he found that the bears dug up acres and acres of these very dog-tooth violets and spring beauties for the sake of the bulbs on their roots; and that they rarely or never touched the shooting stars. All this illustrates the extreme care which should be taken in making observations and in dogmatizing from insufficient data; and also the absolute necessity, if a full and accurate natural history is to be written, of drawing upon the experience of very many different observers—provided, of course, that they are trustworthy observers.

For every one of our large beasts there should be at least one such work as Lewis Morgan’s book on the beaver. The observations of many different men, all accurate observers of wide experience, will be needed to make any such book complete. Most hunters can now and then supply some interesting experiences. Thus Gifford Pinchot and Harry Stimson, while in the Montana Rockies last fall saw a she white goat beat off a war eagle which had attacked her yearling young. The eagle swooped on the yearling in most determined fashion; but the old she, rising on her hind legs, caught the great bird fairly on her horns; and the eagle was too roughly handled to repeat the onslaught. At nearly the same time, in British Columbia, Senator Penrose and his brother were hunting bears. The brother killed a yearling grizzly. While standing over the body, the old she appeared and charged him. She took two bullets without flinching, knocked him down, bit him severely, and would undoubtedly have killed him had she not in the nick of time succumbed to her own mortal wounds.

Recently there has appeared a capital series of observations on wolves by a trained field naturalist, Mr. Vernon Bailey. These first-hand studies of wolves in their natural haunts show, among other things, that, unlike the male cougar, the male wolf remains with the female while she is rearing her young litter and, at least sometimes, forages for her and them. According to Mr. Bailey’s observations the female dens remote from all other females, having a large number of pups in a litter; but the following interesting letter shows that in exceptional cases two females may den together or near by one another. It is written to Mr. Phillips, the joint author, with W. T. Hornaday, of the admirable “Camp-Fires in the Canadian Rockies,” a book as interesting and valuable to the naturalist as to the hunter. The letter runs as follows:

“Meyers Falls, Wash., Dec. 23, 1906.

“Mr. John M. Phillips, Pittsburg, Pa.