40 GAME REFUGES. 



THE REAL MEANING OF THE CHAMBERLAIN-HAYDEN GAME SANCTUARY BILL (s. 6881; 



H. R. 11712). — A SUMMARY. 



Under "State control" the big game of the West has been well-nigh exterminated. 

 Look at Colorado. In that State there Is to-day no more hunting of elk, deer, moun- 

 tain sheep, antelope, wild turkeys, quail, or pheasant. Other Rocky Mountain States 

 are but little better off. 



The Chamberlain-Hayden game sanctuary bill is before Congress because the repre- 

 sentative people of the West sincerely desire to have what it will provide. Note in 

 Bulletin No. 2 (the red one) of the permanent wild-life protection fund, State by State, 

 the array of supporting governors (12), institutions, newspapers, organizations, and 

 prominent men and women of the national-forest States. 



This law is needed and desired because it will bring back some of the vanished big 

 game, and do things that the States alone never will do unaided. 



This bill would take nothing from the public domain. It would not change the- 

 legal status of 1 acre of public land, except bv protecting the game upon it from being 

 killed. 



It would sequestrate no agricultural lands and no grazing lands. The areas in view 

 for these sanctuaries are the wild, remote, rugged, and now useless regions, utterly 

 useless for agriculture and for grazing. Any settler who goes into such a region to live 

 is doomed to perpetual poverty, because he can not conquer steep mountain sides and 

 V-shaped valleys. 



It is not the part of wisdom to let those now desolate regions forever remain desolate, 

 producing nothing of value to man save timber and water. Even the sheepmen and 

 cattlemen admit this — so far as heard from. 



No State can be forced to accept game sanctuaries against the will of its governor. 

 For example, if Utah, or any other State, has no forest lands that are unsuitable for 

 agriculture and stock grazing, then Utah need not have any game sanctuaries. There 

 is nothing mandatory about this plan, and each governor has a check on operations in 

 his State. 



If the western States had not said that they desire these sanctuaries and all that they 

 will do for the West, the sanctuary bill would not now be before Congress. The East 

 can endure lifeless western forests if the West can. The people of the East have not 

 been asked to try to "rush" the Chamberlain-Hayden bill through Congress. 



This matter is proposed to Congress on a basis of absolute good faith. It is not in- 

 tended as an "entering wedge" for big new appropriations and a lot of new high- 

 salaried positions; but eventually it will cost about $20,000 per year of extra money. 

 The undersigned never will ask for and never will approve the making of "big appro- 

 priations" under this head. If the plan is not worth $20,000 per year, it is not worth 

 considering. We call it real, constructive conservation, on a large scale, at practically 

 no extra cost. 



If at any time the people of the United States decide that the public welfare demands 

 the breaking up of the national forests, and their opening to settlement and land 

 speculation, then "let the tail go with the hide," and deconsecrate and break up the 

 game sanctuaries at the same time. The East can stand it if the West can; and there is 

 nothing in the proposed law that can prevent its repeal. 



In the States that will be affected by the proposed game-sanctuary plan, there are 

 probably 1,000,000 men and boys who go hunting each year and kill game— if they 

 can find any. To them this bill means a continuation of legitimate sport; and State 

 control alone means the extermination of big-game hunting in the near future. These 

 are hard facts, not theories; and the American people can take them or leave them. 



STATEMENT OF MR. W. G. BARNES, ASSISTANT FORESTER. 



Mr. Barnes. Gentlemen, I do not want to enter into the question 

 of ownership of the game or the constitutionality of this law, hut I 

 want to point out to you gentlemen the administrative difficulties 

 which we are meeting in the Forest Service in handling the game 

 question. I will preface my remarks by explaining that I am a 

 westerner, born and raised. I have been for 26 years in the range 

 cattle business of the West, and I have seen the buffalo, deer, and 

 all the game disappear, as every western man has, before the settlers' 

 farms and live stock, 



