T^! Game Breeder 



Published Monthly. Entered as second-class matter, J\i\f g, igis, at the Post Office, New York City, 



New York, under the Act of March 3, 1879. 



VOLUME XI 



MAY, J9I7 



Co:) 



NUMBER 2 



SURVEY OF THE FIELD. 



More About the Police Raid. 



One of our readers who has a big wild 

 duck breeding plant, outside of New 

 York, was interested in our comment on 

 the police raid on the Long Island duck 

 farmer and wrote : 



"I am a subscriber to The Game Breeder 

 and I am breeding large numbers of mallard 

 ducks under a keeper I got through an adver- 

 tisement in your paper. 



"In the April .number I read about a man 

 in New York State being fined $15,000 for 

 trapping ducks for breeding purposes. As I 

 understand the case he had permission to trap 

 a number of ducks for breeding purposes, but, 

 in place of doing so, he killed the birds and 

 sold them. May I ask if this is correct?" 



This excuse for the outrage, which in 

 effect says that the duck farmer per- 

 mitted the people to have a sample taste 

 of the game they are said to own, might 

 be regarded as a mitigating circum- 

 stance in favor of the force, since no 

 doubt it is a bad crime in some of the 

 United States, including New York, to 

 sell wild ducks. 



A letter addressed to the Department 

 at Albany was answered as follows : 



Albany, April 20, 1917. 

 Editor Game Breeder: 



I beg to state in reply to your inquiry con- 

 tained in communication of April 18, that this 

 Department has no information as to Mr. 

 Phipps marketing any black ducks. 

 Very truly yours, 



George D. Pratt, 



Commissioner. 

 By Llewellyn Legge, Chief D. F. G. C. C. 



It would seem, therefore, that the 

 $15,000 was "lifted" from the duck 

 farmer because an employee took some 

 wild ducks alive in order to make twenty 

 ducks grow where only one duck grew 

 before. 



We again say the police, no doubt, 

 were within their rights although to us 

 the rights seem to be wrong. A poorer 

 farmer would have been required to go 

 to jail for life. 



We again wish to remark that we be- 

 lieve New York has a good Game Com- 

 missioner who can and will see that such 

 outrages be not perpetrated. 



He should ask to have the law 

 amended so as to encourage the taking 

 of wild fowl, under proper regulations, 

 for breeding purposes. The country may 

 ne^d the food. Laws encouraging game 

 breeding are popular in other States. 



Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? 



In every civilized country, excepting 

 America, it is legal to take and sell wild 

 ducks as food just as oysters and other 

 fish are taken and sold as food. 



Granting that it is a public wrong or 

 crime in some States, including New 

 York, for a game keeper to take fowls 

 for breeding purposes ; granting that in 

 the case reported he did so, we insist that 

 the punishment does not fit the crime. It 

 is too big. Many sizes too big. 



The Asking Price. 



We understand, moreover, that the 

 "asl<ing price" of the game police was 

 several times larger than the closing or 

 compromise price. In other words, the 

 owner of the duck farm was threatened 

 with a jail sentence which would keep 

 him behind the bars .for life, granting 

 that he had an expectancy of living for 

 fifty or possibly an hundred years. Sup- 

 pose he could not have raised the $15,000. 



