74 



THE GAME BREEDER 



their game provided the sale of game taken on 

 public lands and waters be prohibited. We do 

 not think they object to such prohibition. We 

 have said that in countries where there is more 

 freedom than there is in America the market 

 gunners own the game they shoot and we think 

 it important that people who imagine only 

 Dukes and Lords shoot in the free countries 

 6hould know that not only small farmers and 

 town clerks and business men who produce 

 game but also non-producers, the market gun- 

 ners, shoot and sell it. 



Secondly, allow me to take exception 

 to the emphasis which you place on game 

 as a food supply. I "feel it in my bones" 

 that to make food production one of the 

 major objects of game conservation will 

 eventually lead to trouble. Game con- 

 servation has one object and only one — 

 to perpetuate wild life as an indispensa- 

 ble source of human recreation. Game 

 conservation is not a matter of the flesh- 

 pots. It concerns not so much the belly, 

 as it does the eye, the mind, and the 

 soul. To bring home a mess of game 

 for the family — this indeed is necessary 

 to satisfy that high human instinct, the 

 exercise of which we call sportsmanship. 

 In so far forth, game conservation is a 

 matter of food. But to produce game 

 to sell as food is a human benefit of 

 such insignificance, as compared with 

 producing game for recreation, that the 

 two can hardly be mentioned together, 

 much less listed together as the two main 

 objectives of game conservation. 



This may sound like pretty fine-spun 

 theorizing, but I think it highly import- 

 ant that the cause of game conservation 

 should rest on its real merits, not on its 

 incidental benefits. I am reminded of 

 those preachers, happily few, who tell us 

 we should go to church because church- 

 going benefits our business standing. By 

 thus emphasizing the incidental they de- 

 base their high calling, and inspire not 

 confidence, but disgust.* 



*The most devout preacher will 'tell you that 

 money is needed to keep the church going. 

 Laws preventing the profitable production of 

 sermons would be disastrous. I once said, 

 when speaking at a sportsman's dinner, that 

 if our game laws were applied to religion they 

 would close the churches. A minister who 

 was present asked what I meant by the state- 

 ment. When I explained that money was 

 necessary he agreed with me. 



Thirdly, are you not a bit unfair about 

 closed seasons and restrictive game laws? 

 "Laws have not restored the game- 

 therefore abolish laws and try game 

 farming; cure guaranteed." This, I 

 think, is but a very slight exaggeration 

 of your general attitude. For my part, 

 I fully share your impatience with the 

 paper game protector- — the man who 

 thinks that laws alone, enforced -or un- 

 enforced, will save the game. Of course 

 laws alone will not raise game any more 

 than a "no trespass" sign will raise a 

 crop of melons, but is that any reason 

 for tearing down the sign, burning down 

 the fence, and chloroforming the bull- 

 dog?* Hardly. But for restrictive laws, 

 game farmers might today hunt a long 

 while for even a seed-stock of many of 

 our best game species. And how about 

 law enforcement? What could we ex- 

 pect of laws that due to the slothfulness 



*You are entirely mistaken about our atti- 

 tude. We agree, no doubt, that laws do not 

 produce and cannot permit upland shooting in 

 populous regions. Where they do permit a little 

 shooting the game vanishes from the farms 

 for scientific reasons well known. We have 

 never suggested tearing down the sign, burning 

 the fence or chloroforming the bull dog on 

 farms where a game crop is produced. We 

 think there would be about as many quail as 

 there would be melons in places where the bull 

 dog is absolutely necessary for proper con- 

 servation. Your cattle barons have larger 

 ranches than most dukes. We strongly favor 

 the encouragement of the average sportsman 

 who can have cheap shooting. As to your idea 

 that game only should be conserved for those 

 who wish to shoot it for fun, we think the 

 average citizen is inclined to say that food 

 production, which will reduce the cost of meat 

 for all of the people, is fully as important as 

 class recreation is. The tendency is to de- 

 nounce field sports ; to say shoot only clay 

 pigeons and take all your exercise in the golf 

 course or tennis field. The field sport pro- 

 hibitionist is a big money maker and when the 

 people have cheap game to eat this class of 

 mischief-maker will be more easily circum- 

 vented. You may be interested to know that 

 I have seen many shore birds breeding abund- 

 antly in a club ground where they had the 

 protection from vermin. Snipe, tattlers and 

 plover fed within a few feet of where I was 

 seated one day making some sketches of the 

 marsh. This place and many others would be 

 uninhabitable for game were it not for the fact 

 that it has the same protection some melon 

 patches have. There are no Dukes but plenty 

 of Ducks. 



