PUBLIC PARKS OF IOWA 259 



Under both of these plans we may assume that hunting will continue, 

 and that an income from licenses will be sufficient to maintain a game 

 department. Stocking the covers with imported game is, however, the 

 more expensive way, and doubt may be entertained as to whether enough 

 hunting can be thus provided to pay the cost of upkeep. Tlge statistics of 

 the game warden's report show that in 1913, 15 per cent of the expendi- 

 tures from the "game protective fund" was for "game birds;" and in 1914 

 this item w>as increased to nearly 20 per cent. Then besides, this consid- 

 eration just offered ignores the fact that these birds are good for any- 

 thing but hunting, or that :any other citizens than the siporfcsmen are 

 interested in them. 



A third solution would be for the fish and game department to be 

 financed by an appropriation by the legislature. There are two considera- 

 tioms which make this a sound proposition. The game belongs to the 

 people of the state, not to any group or class, regardless of whether they 

 (pay a license fee for taking a share of it. Game in the wild state can- 

 not be acquired in the same sense that land or coal or other stationary 

 resource can be. It is the property of all, and is open to the use of all 

 as are the public waters. The government does not plan to keep the 

 rivers improved by means of a special fund collected from those who 

 navigate such waters. 



The income from the sale of licenses would, of course, go to the state 

 as a reimbursement for such appropriation. Under the present system 

 the income is far greater than is necessary to maintain the machinery of 

 the fish and game department, as is witnessed by the balance of $131,- 

 834.49 for the two years ending July 1, 1914. It must be very evident that 

 where such excessive funds exist there cannot be the strong incentive to 

 efficient and economic management that should be desired. 



The pecuniary argument, therefore, is that we must permit a certain 

 laxity in the killing of our wild life in order to encourage more hunting 

 in order that funds may be procured for the maintenance of the fish and 

 game department. It is just as logical, however, to argue that as a re- 

 sult of such proposed Laxity we will succeed in encouraging a greater 

 amount of destruction, with a definite decrease in our game; and when 

 the game reaches a low ebb, the hunt will necessarily diminish, and the 

 income from licenses will decrease in the same proportion. And then 

 what fund will there be to support the fish and game department? Is it 

 not a far more rational procedure to adopt such methods as will provide a 

 moderate amiount of native game by giving it sufficient protection to en 

 able it to propagate? 



A year ago, before this organization, I gave in considerable detail my 

 vdews on certain proposed legislation. It would not be profitable to 

 undertake a repetition of this subject. But there are one or two points 

 which I cannot forbear to mention. 



Because of our previous lack of appreciation of the importance of con- 

 serving the wild life, we have not attached much importance to the ne- 

 cessity of efficiency in the whole system of enforcing the game laws. 



I believe there are advantages in the commission plan for the admin- 

 istration of the business pertaining to this department. However, both the 



