DOGS. 85 



license are probably inadequate to restrain criminally inclined persons or 

 those huntino- for niercenar}' purposes. To meet this condition several 

 States have declared that licensees who violate any provision of the 

 game laws shall forfeit their licenses, and that the officer issuing- them, 

 or the State game warden, may revoke such licenses upon satisfactory 

 proof of the unlawful conduct of the holder. Minnesota has prescribed 

 the procedure in such cases as follows: 



Sec 36. Any person who shall violate any of tlie i)rovisions of this chapter [the 

 complete game law], and who is at the time of such violation in the possession of a 

 license duly issued to him, shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit such license to the 

 State of Minnesota, and such person shall deliver to the court liefore whom he was 

 tried any such license, and the court shall forward the same to the commission. 

 (Laws of 1905, ch. 344.) 



In Maine the conmiissioners of inland fisheries and game may revoke 

 the license of anyone w^ho violates or countenances the violation of 

 the game law after due notice to the holder and after opportunity is 

 given him to show cause against such revocation. 



The laws of most of the States require a licensee to produce his 

 license on demand of a warden, and in several to any officer charged 

 with the duty of enforcing the game law. Failure or refusal to do so 

 is attended with a substantial penalty, and in Kansas and a few other 

 States failure to produce a license on demand of a warden revokes it. 

 Massachusetts and New Hampshire go a step further and require the 

 licensee to produce and show his license to any person as often as 

 requested, and on failure to do so he forfeits it. In West Virginia 

 the licensee must produce and show his license, whenever required, 

 to the owner of the land upon which he is hunting. Montana provides 

 that if any officer believes that a license is in the hands of a person 

 other than the one to whom it was issued he may require such person 

 to identify himself, and in case of refusal he is held guilty of a 

 misdemeanor. 



DOGS. 



In the last few years the practice of dogging deer, or 'hounding,' 

 as it is commonly called, has been the subject of restrictive legislation 

 in most of the States where big game occurs. Much has been written 

 and more said for and against this method of hunting, but an exami- 

 nation of the laws plainly indicates a general trend toward the abolition 

 of the practice, and to-da}^ there are few States where one may hunt 

 big game with dogs. The penalty is usually imposed upon the owner 

 of the dog or person using it; but several States have not onh' done 

 this, l)ut have also authorized the destruction of the dogs by wardens, 

 or, in a few instances, b}- any person. This subject has perhaps 

 engaged more attention in Maine" than elsewhere. The attempt to 



^'For resum^ see F. P. Hardy, 'Six Years Under Maine Game Laws — VII, on 

 'Killing Dogs;' and IX, The Jock I)arling Case, in 'Forest and Stream,' Vol. XXXVI, 

 p. 372, May 28, 1891; p. 477, July 2, 1891. 



