the game continues to be preserved and is not de- 

 creased or in cases where a species is rare is increased, 

 notwithstanding the allowed amount of killing. 



I am now going to discuss which kinds of this kill- 

 ing we allow, that is, which of the arguments for the 

 defense of killing are able to stand as just. First in 

 line comes the sportsman. It seems to me that I was 

 obliged to go so deeply into this subject in my defense 

 of true sport that any discussion here would be repeti- 

 tion ; but let me say that I consider the sportsman who 

 exceeds a fair limit to be a game-hog of the worst de- 

 gree, for he is killing merely for the pleasure of kill- 

 ing, which is certainly not a very noble pursuit, and 

 furthermore he is taking more than his share, thereby 

 depriving others of that which should be theirs. In 

 modern days the collector has an exceedingly weak 

 case. His former defense in those regions which are 

 now settled and his present defense in regions which 

 are still left to a degree unexplored is that of scientific 

 research; but so much has been done and is still being 

 done by proper authorities in almost all regions that 

 the work of an amateur who is merely a collector is 

 practically useless. If he merely collected a few indi- 

 viduals of game the case would not be so strong 

 against the collector, but statistics prove that this 

 group of game killers take far more than their share. 

 Therefore we realize that they, too, must be regulated 

 and controlled by protection or else we shall lose our 

 game. 



Practically the same arguments which I used 

 against the collector hold good against the repre- 



34 



