1910] FOREST, GAME AND FISH WARDEN. 29 



Courts and Officers who have attempted to enforce and execute these laws, have, 

 as a rule, met with rebuke and opposition, and it is to be regretted that this law 

 is made a part of Chapter 62 of the Code. 



Repealing of Resident License a Mistake. 



% 



It is of but little use to lock the stable door after the horse has been stolen, 

 or to grieve over split milk, and it may seem a waste of energy to at this time 

 discuss the repealing of the $1.00 resident hunter's license, but to one who 

 has made the subject of game protection and propagation a study, and com- 

 pared the systems and methods of dealing with this question in the different 

 States, it must be apparent that if there was a single mistake made by the 

 Legislature of 1911, that this was it. 



From a position in the front among the States that were showing a pro- 

 gressive spirit in the protection and propagation of game and fish, we have, 

 by the repeal of the resident license law, taken a position among the few States, 

 that through political and ulterior motives have yet failed to take this pro- 

 gressive step, which has proven a success where ever tried. Thirty-eight 

 States are now charging a resident liqense, and West Virginia is the only State 

 that has ever repealed the law after having once adopted it. 



It may be true that there was some objection to the resident hunter 's license 

 by a certain class of individuals, for seldom do we find a new Statute agree- 

 able to all classes of people, before time is given to demonstrate its usefulness; 

 and this would have been certainly true, if the license fund for the years 1909 

 and 1910, amounting to the sum of $40,209.00, had been appropriated and made 

 available for use in protecting our forests, game and fish, and thus turning back 

 to the sportsmen their own money to aid in restocking our forests and streamss. 

 However, if this fund is to be used for other purposes and not for the purpose 

 it was intended, as directed by the Statute of 1909, then of course it was right 

 and proper to repeal the law, for the reason that by this system money was 

 being taken from the pockets of the sportsmen and nothing given in return. 



The only equitable or fair method that has in the past, or will in the future, 

 prove a success in any state in building up and bettering game conditions, is 

 the license system, and no State has ever, or w r ill ever make a success of this 

 problem in any other manner. 



The whole basic principle of game protection is to have game to shoot and 

 fish to catch. We can have neither if we persist in depleting our forests and 

 streams and make no effort to restock same. To restock costs money. How 

 can this be raised? It is apparent that if the Legislature will not even allow 

 a law to stand, permitting the sportsmen to raise such a fund, that they would 

 not be willing to appropriate for such purposes from the general fund in the 

 State Treasury. 



The farmer who furnishes the land on which to hunt, and provender to feed 

 the game, did not, under our law, have to procure a license. The sportsmen 

 who paid the license seem unanimous in favor of the license system. Then who 

 is objecting? Not the farmer. Not the sportsmen. Possibly a few thought- 

 less individuals who have not given this question the proper consideration, and 

 who deem it their cohtsitutional privilege to shoot when, where and what they 

 please of all the wild creatures of the earth, without thought of a future supply, 

 or Avith no regard for others. 



