ciation it is practically hopeless to attempt to prove 

 to them any type of beauty. For an example ; to me 

 there is no sound in music as beautiful as the songs 

 of certain birds ; no color or pattern in art so wonder- 

 ful as that of some butterflies ; or no form in architec- 

 ture or sculpture so delicate as that of certain species 

 of fish, coral, or sponges, or so magnificent as big 

 game in the wild? Maybe it is an appreciation pecu- 

 liar to me. Concerning that there can be no verdict, 

 but it is certain that since game does have an aesthet- 

 ic value to a great many people, altho it may appeal 

 in varying ways, yet they have the right to have that 

 game alive just as much as others have to have it dead. 



Now that I have finished attempting to show you 

 why I think game should be protected I will consider 

 the possible arguments against protection. All ideas 

 for this side must originate from one of four desires : 

 the pleasure of attempting to kill or of actually kill- 

 ing, the pleasure of keeping, the financial gain or the 

 use for food. These are respectively represented by 

 the sportsman or the game-hog, the collector, the rep- 

 resentative of furriers, milliners and similar trades 

 and the individual who eats game either for need or 

 for pleasure. 



Since I have already said that while I am a protec- 

 tionist I do not necessarily favor prohibition of all 

 killing, you will realize that in cases where I allow the 

 killing of game as being right I am not compromising 

 my cause in the slightest degree because I am favoring 

 not a prohibition but rather a reasonable regulation of 

 killing so that it may be kept down to a basis where 



33 



