44 CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



isolated from the <>ame hnvs of the o()vernin<2; power. Thus, although 

 laws relating to game are often formulated, and are administered by 

 the respective game departments, laws for the control of trespass are 

 usually among the general statutes. This means that officers em- 

 ployed to enforce game regulations do not have authority to prosecute 

 trespass violations, and they seldom have the inclination. It there- 

 fore becomes necessary for the landowner to swear out a warrant, and 

 appear in a court if he wishes to obtain legal protection against 

 trespass. 



The courts have repeatedly held that the owner has the right to 

 designate who may or who may not enter upon his property and to 

 this extent only does he control the game and hunting privileges. 



In some States it has been held that if the landowner prohibits the 

 pursuit by the public of wild birds or animals on his property, he 

 likewise forfeits his right to take publicly owned wild birds or animals. 

 Although a person has no inherent right to hunt on the premises of 

 another, a right to so hunt may be acquired by a grant from the owner, 

 or the owner may sell or lease his premises and reserve to himself the 

 hunting and fowling rights thereon. In the case of Bingham vs. 

 Salene (15 Oreg. 208), the court decided that "an owner of lands may 

 convey specific hunting rights thereon to hunt so as to bar himself from 

 hunting on his own premises." 



The difficulties involved in the legal administration of game are 

 complicated by the fact that public attitude frequently determines the 

 degree of enforcement of laws. It has been said that under certain 

 local administrations, a sporting license to all intents and jiurposes 

 constitutes a search warrant since the game officials or other State 

 law-enforcing officers take no active part in prosecuting trespassers. 

 In recent years, there is greater public recognition of the fact that 

 the farmer has the right to say who may enter upon his property, and 

 where and when. This changing attitude is making possible the pas- 

 sage of laws which more adequately protect the farmer and his pro])- 

 erty, and enable him to receive consideration, if not remuneration, 

 in connection with hunting privileges. 



In the past, most hunting, trapping, and wildlife-conservation laws, 

 regulations, policies, and attitudes have failed to give sufficient con- 

 sideration to the landowner or to the protection of his rights, and have 

 usually been concerned with local conditions only. Each State has 

 developed a different set of laws, regulations, and policies relative to 

 wildlife production, conservation, and utilization, few of which give 

 just credit to the farmer for his part in producing game and fur 

 animals or for allowing the public to use his land while using wild- 

 life. The three outstanding shortcomings of these laws and regula- 

 tions are: (1) The inadequate provision made for enforcing trespass 

 laws; (2) the failure to explicitly grant the farmer permission to 

 control wildlife and hunting on his land, subject to reasonable State 

 and Federal control; and (3) the failure either to place conservation 

 personnel on a stable and efficient basis, or to remove wildlife con- 

 servation and utilization from the influence of pressure groups. Dur- 

 ing recent years there has been a tendency toward the recognition and 

 remedying of these shortcomings. 



