BULLETIN NUMBER FIVE 213 



ing seriousness. Wherever the game supply is perpetual, 

 there is no worry; but where game extinction looms up 

 ahead, there is a crisis to be dealt with. We may as well 

 face this situation now, and resolutely grapple with it. 



In the first place, the principle that the protection of game 

 and other wild life must be supported by the killing of game, 

 is thoroughly and everlastingly wrong! We might as well 

 assume that every public school must be supported by its 

 pupils, or go out of business. 



Through the force of circumstances we have been drifting 

 with the current of game slaughter, until we have lodged 

 upon a foundation of sand. The principle of game protec- 

 tion only through game slaughter, is reprehensible and un- 

 tenable. For the people of any state to assume that pro- 

 tection must come through slaughter or not come at all, is 

 to assume that the song and insectivorous birds are not 

 worth protecting when their defense must be paid for by 

 the tax-payers at large. Shall robins be slaughtered by 

 pot-hunters because there are no more ducks for licensed 

 sportsmen to kill ? Shall the wild birds and beasts of game- 

 less states have no protection? 



The duty of the citizen, — to protect wild life according 

 to its needs, — has nothing whatever to do with regulations 

 for the killing of game, or the income to be derived there- 

 from. Game-killing and modern wild life protection are 

 two very distinct and widely-separated industries. If the 

 licensing of game hunters happens to produce a considerable 

 revenue, that incident is merely the good fortune of the 

 state treasury, and nothing more. If hunting is a legitimate 

 sport, and of genuine benefit to a large body of good citizens, 

 it is the duty of the state to regulate it, and make it bear 

 its share of public burdens; but the protection of wild life 

 must not depend for its life blood upon hunting-license rev- 

 enues. Wherever the hunting-license fees can and do pay 

 the costs of game and song-bird protection, that is the good 

 fortune of the state taxpayer, but it does not in any manner 



