sentatives of furriers, milliners and others who 

 are killing game for financial gain. If they were 

 each to take their allotted share of the extra 

 game in their region it would be perfectly allowable, 

 but since in almost every case they are slaughtering 

 not only their own and everyone else's share of the ex- 

 tra game but are drawing on the principle, as it were, 

 thereby causing a decrease in the numbers of the spe- 

 cies and finally resulting in the total extinction of the 

 species, their practices cannot be tolerated. Here for 

 the third time we realize need for a regulated protec- 

 tion. Against the cause of the individual who kills 

 game for food on account of actual need I have not a 

 word to say. His right is established before the case 

 is argued. But the truth is that this type of killing is 

 so rare in the present day that the resulting decrease 

 in game from this cause is practically zero. But we 

 are confronted with the question of whether the kill- 

 ing of game for food to satisfy peculiar or especial 

 tastes is right. It seems to me perfectly allowable if 

 regulated by a well-founded system of protection. 



We observe that it is not one cause which is to blame 

 for our decrease in the number of game — it is many; 

 but together the result is large. I ask for a regulated 

 protection favoring killing in a moderate degree to 

 those whose causes are just and granting game in a 

 lesser amount to less worthy causes. 



In fact my whole theory of protection is that out of 

 the two billion people in this world each should have 

 his one two-billionth share of game and that protection 

 should exist not to favor any particular class or to 



35 



