THE GAME BREEDER 



IN CAPTIVITY. 



By S. V. Reeves. and J. W. Talbot, with Comment by the Editor. 



O wad some power the gif tie gie us 

 To see oursels as others see us ! 

 It wad frae monie a blunder free us, 

 And foohsh notion. 



State Ownership. 



By S. V. Reeves. 



Some points that you have made in 

 your article on pages 169 and 170 of the 

 September issue will not bear the test 

 of analysis. Your reference to the old 

 Roman laws does not in reality h^lp 

 your contention. You say the. State 

 owns the game? — When? Why, if at 

 all, when it is in a wild state (?) How- 

 ever, this contention has never been 

 positively settled. It may be of interest 

 to some of your readers to show the 

 actual operation of this law as involving 

 a general principle. For instance, bees 

 in the forests might be taken by any- 

 one if they were not under the control 

 and management of the owner of the 

 land. In that state of non-control or 

 immediate supervision they were as 

 much the . property of the State as the 

 game in question. Of course, the ele- 

 ment of trespass is never lacking. After 

 th^ bees have been hived or brought 

 under the control of the person taking 

 them and the same placed on his prem- 

 ises they become his property — free 

 from the control of the State (their 

 former owner (?). While they are 

 now confined (?) they have the same 

 freedom as before, but the State has 

 no more jurisdiction over such property 

 than it has over your poultry, and that 

 same Roman law applied precisely to 

 other animal life, under the same con- 

 ditions, as it did to bees. Right here we 

 must consider the term "in captivity." 

 This, correctly stated, means under di- 

 rect supervision and control ; not neces- 

 sarily enclosed by fences, pens, etc. 



We have no desire to wage a fight 

 with the State over the question of game 

 in a wild state, providing "wild state" 

 is properly defined. To consider game 



reared on one's premises with a direct 

 purpose and supervision; by "domestic 

 enterprise" (if you please), is a positive 

 abridgement of a constitutional right, 

 and the espionage resulting from such a 

 contention is most offensive. In this 

 connection much of my former article 

 defining the policing of game in the wild 

 state could be cited to advantage. How- 

 ever, I do not have it handy for refer- 

 ence at this moment. 



Personally I regret that . the Game 

 Breeder does not take a positive stand 

 against the license and tag nuisance. 

 When we ask to be rid 'of this ahrioy- 

 ance and injustice we haye not failed 

 to show the State how it can at the same 

 time protect the game in the wild state. 



[The United States Supreme Court' has de- 

 cided that the State owns the game and that 

 it can regulate the taking of it. Many State 

 statutes declare . that the ownership of game 

 is in the State. , _ 



We have pointed out often that the State 

 should not and . probably does not own the 

 game, produced by industry. The trouble has 

 been that State game officers have in many 

 eases taken the idea of State ownership too 

 seriously, and unfortunately the courts have 

 upheld them when people have been arrested 

 for selling pheasants and other game, even in 

 cases when the stock birds and eggs were im- 

 ported from foreign countries. 



The first game breeders' bill introduced in 

 New York, the Lupton bill, was written by 

 the editor of The Game Breeder. It was held 

 up, and, in a:nswer to a letter, the author of 

 the bill informed the writer that the State 

 Game Department was opposed to permitting 

 game breeding, and that its influence was suf- 

 ficient to prevent the passage of the bill. 



It was only by the combined efforts of the 

 hotel men, the game dealers and some intelli- 

 gent sportsmen that it was possible to amend 

 a subsequent bill prohibiting the sale of game 

 so as to permit breeders to sell pheasants, 

 ducks and deer under regulations which have 

 since been modified. The license, $25, has been 

 reduced to $5. The "otherwise than by shoot- 

 ing" nonsense has been repealed also, If you 

 realized how hard it was '^o get anything done 



