The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-08-21
GOES FOR THEM AGAIN.
Broadside at Nature Fakers.
Boradside at Nature Takers.

New York, Aug. 21.-The mature
takers" have once more come under the
fire of President Roosevelt. He dis
charges broadside of criticism and ridi-
Guile against them IN an article, written
by his own hand, in the September num-
Der of Everybody's Magazine.
Mature Fakers''-such is the simple
title of the contribution which consti-
tutes as vigorously expressed a bit CT
censure as the president has penned for
some time. Particular attention is paid
to the Rev. William ]. Long as 'faker''
President Roosevelt advises a course of
barnyard study for the takers" who
make such startling discoveries in the
Wilderness
In the same magazine, though sep
arate from the presidents article, is
symposium OF opinions of eminent work
ing naturalists on the ''faker'' question
quoted uphold the position which Presi-
cent Roosevelt took when he attacked
the takers in the early summer.
1.-THE modern nature faker' is, of
course" writes President Roosevelt, IAN
object of derision to every scientist
worthy of the name, to every real lover
of the wilderness, to every faunal ma
turalist, to every true hunter or nature
lover. But it is evident that he deceives
many good people who are wholly ig-
norant of wild life. Sometimes he draws
on his own imdginarions for his f1ctions;
sometimes he gets them second hand
or Indians"
Turning to the Rev Mr. Long, indi-
vidually, the president hits out in this
fashion:
'Of all these nature takers the most
reckless and least responsible is Mr..
Long; but there are others who run him
close in the yellow journalism of the
woods as John Burroughs has aptly
called it. There is no need of discuss
ing their theories; the point is that their
9lln1nd .faofG' OF a hut
fancies. Their most striking stories arc
not merely distortions of facts, but pure
inventions; and not only are they in
ventions. but they are inventions by
men who know so little of the subject
concerning which they write, and who
to ignorance add such utter reckless
ness. that they are not even able to dis
tingufsh between what is possible, how
ever wildly improbable, and mechanical
impossibilities.
BE it remembered that L am not speak
ing of ordinary mistakes, of ordinary
errors of observation of differences of
Interpretation and opinion. I am deal
ing only with deliberate invention, de-
liberate perversion of facts.
IF the writer's who make such startling
discoveries in the wilderness would
really study even the denizens of barn
yard they would be saved from at least
some of their most salient mistakes
Their stories dwell much on teaching of
the young animals by their elders and
betters. In one story, for insl ance,
wild duck is described as teaching her
young how to swim and get their food.
If this writer had strolled into the near
est barnyard containing a hen which
had Matched ducklings, a glance at the
actions of those ducklings when the hen
happened to lead them near a puddle
would have enlightened him as to how
much teaching they needed. But these
writer's exercise the same f1orid magma
ton when they deal with a robin or
rabbit as when they describe a bear,
moose or salmon.
Their books carry their own refuta-
ton, and affidavits in support of the
they contain are as worth
ess as the similar affidavits once