PENALTIES generally imposed by the courts for violation 

 of the game and fish laws are insufficient to serve their 

 purpose that of deterring offenders from repeating the 

 offense and preventing others from committing the same or 

 similar offenses. 



The minimum fine is almost invariably imposed, and in a 

 great many cases justices of the peace take the unwarranted 

 liberty of fixing a penalty even less than the minimum allowed 

 by law, or of suspending sentence. This is done, undoubtedly, 

 because the payment of the fine would cause some incon- 

 venience or even hardship in some cases which is the very 

 purpose of penalties. Without penalties of sufficient severity 

 to be felt criminal laws would be a farce. 



Out of 1284 convictions secured for violation of the game 

 laws during the past two years, only 20 fines have exceeded 

 $50.00, and 1190 have been less than $50.00, the great majority 

 having been ten dollar fines, and there were 95 cases of remis- 

 sion of fines or suspended sentence. A ten, or even a $25.00 

 fine is generally insufficient to have the effect contemplated 

 in the law. 



There have been only six cases in the state of fines having 

 been imposed of over $100.00 in the past eleven years or since 

 the famous $20,000 fines imposed on Wm. Kerr and Robert 

 Poole in 1903, which fines were sustained by the state supreme 

 court, but which were never paid. 



The highest fine imposed in the past ten years was that of 

 $500.00 imposed last month in the Ramsey county district 

 court for having game birds illegally in posession in a restau- 

 rant in St. Paul. 



Forest fires in British Columbia covered more than 300,000 

 acres during the past year. 



30 



