THE DEER PROBLEM 



Anyone who attended the evening session at Springfield 

 and who failed to carry away a vivid impression that the 

 Fruit Growers wanted the deer nuisance abated accom- 

 plished the impossible. "Strenuous" was indeed a weak 

 term to designate that part of the session and "frazzle" was 

 large for the remains of the opposition. 



We quote from the circular letter sent out before the 

 hearing February 20th : 



"Regarding the deer problem, we believe that Dr. 

 Fields' reccommendation for a better system of damage ad- 

 justment — that the farmer may kill the deer at any time on 

 his own or adjacent property when liable to do damage, and 

 that the farmer may have the carcass — will have the best 

 chance of success for the State as a whole, and I should ad- 

 vise all who can possibly do so to be present at the hearing 

 at the State House. Friday, February 20, at 10.30 a. m. We 

 believe that the bill for six weeks' open season for the State 

 as a whole would not be passed as such, but if limited to cer- 

 tain counties it might go through. Write your representa- 

 tive and senator just how you feel about the deer nuisance, 

 and cite specific instances." 



A large number of fruit growers and others gathered at 

 the hearing and while all agreed that something should be 

 done, opinions differed all the way from an open season for 

 the whole state for 365 days down to the law then in force. 

 Even the Society with the long name did not actively oppose 

 it, being content to say that it was on the fence. 



The Committee on Agriculture of the General Court saw 

 the view point of the farmer and the law was reported and 

 passed giving the farmer the right at all times to kill the 

 deer on his own, and with his neighbor's permission, on ad- 

 jacent land and when liable to do damage. (Personally, the 



