GAME PROTECTION FUNDS. 



The problem of providing funds for the support of a game depart- 

 ment or system has puzzled those interested in the preservation of 

 game ever since the necessity for such preservation arose. In many 

 States it has been found well-nigh impossible to secure legislation 

 providing for the appropriation of money, no matter how little, for the 

 preservation of game. The sentiment to which this condition is due 

 still prevails in a large part of this country, particularly in the South. 

 The creation of new offices, with salaries attached, is regarded with 

 great jealousy and disfavor. In the early history of the movement 

 for game protection the only provision considered feasible for pay- 

 ment of officers charged with the duty of enforcing the game laws 

 was an allowance of whole or part of the fines. A system maintained 

 on such an unsatisfactory and unstable basis, however, accomplished 

 almost nothing, and the advocates of better protection set about to 

 devise a more satisfactory means. This resulted in the creation of a 

 game protection fund composed of fees derived from hunting licenses 

 and other returns from enforcement of the game laws, thus placing 

 the department or office upon a self-sustaining basis. Aside from the 

 provision contained in the game laws of New York in 1879, authorizing 

 the board of supervisors of each county to levy a tax sufficient to raise 

 $1,000 a year for the purpose of enforcing the laws, and a similar 

 provision in the Montana laws of a few years ago, there seems to be 

 no instance of a specific authorization to any agency of a State govern- 

 ment to levy a tax on property for the maintenance of a warden serv- 

 ice. The provision in the Montana law (Laws of 1901, H. B. 147, sec. 

 15) required the board of county commissioners of each count}^, at the 

 time of levying the annual tax, to levy also a tax of one-tenth of a mill 

 upon the assessed valuation of all property in the county to be paid 

 to the State treasurer. The money thus arising, together with that 

 received from the enforcement of the game laws, was to constitute a 

 fish and game fund, and was to be used in defra} 7 ing the salaries and 

 expenses of the State and local wardens. This law remained in effect 

 until 1905, when it was repealed, doubtless because the funds arising 

 from other sources were sufficient to meet the expenses of the depart- 

 ment. 



The final solution of the problem of supporting a game department 

 without taxation of property or appropriation of funds from the gen- 

 eral treasury has been found in the hunting license system. Since 

 the first adoption of the plan of requiring every nonresident to pay 

 a fee for the privilege of hunting, nearly every State has established 

 either a State or county wardenship. Within a few years the plan of 

 34 



