10 



THE GAME BREEDER 



you would appreciate the fact that compro- 

 mises were necessary and that it seemed de- 

 sirable to get what was possible, instead of 

 getting nothing. 



We believe from now on legislators and 

 courts will be more favorable to game breed- 

 ers. We are in favor of the utmost freedom 

 and encouragement. There is a difference be- 

 tween game and poultry. There are many 

 who believe, for the present at least, the game 

 sold in the markets as food should be iden- 

 tified. ■ There is not a sporting paper in Amer- 

 ica that openly advocates the sale of game as 

 food. With these facts in mind, we hope you 

 will agree that we have been doing the best 

 we could in the interest of harmony and prog- 

 ress. We have been told repeatedly by legis- 

 lators and others who have the power to de- 

 feat us that we must at the outset agree to 

 stricter regulations than would obtain later. 

 We have preferred to work harmoniously with 

 those who seem to be strong enough to defeat 

 all progress than not to get any legislation 

 favorable to the breeders' industry. 



We have refused to be muzzled when out- 

 rages have been perpetrated on game breeders 

 in the name of the law. We have raised money 

 to protect the innocent when attacked, and 

 we shall continue to do so. Mr. Talbot has 

 secured a law which is eminently satisfactory 

 to breeders who have game "in captivity." 

 If this covers all game bred wild in inclosed 

 fields, so long as it remains on the premises, 

 and if such game can be sold as food in other 

 States, and the law proves to be satisfactory, 

 it no doubt will be copied in other States. 



The Game Breeder is the proper place for 

 discussions about amendments to encourage 

 game breeding. We believe the discussions 

 can be carried on without ill-feeling. The 

 magazine is open even to those who may see 

 fit to denounce it for going too fast or too 

 slow. We hope to see all interested in the 

 important subject acting in harmony. We are 

 glad to publish your interesting letter, and we 

 hope it will lead to others which may tend 

 to settle the questions relating to the owner- 

 ship and sale of game by breeders.— Editor.] 



rWe hope our readers, especially those who 

 are interested in amending the game laws in 

 the interest of breeders, will read the follow- 

 ing interesting communication from Mr. John 

 Talbot, president of The Bird Society. We 

 are always glad to print both sides of any 

 question. We desire, above all things, to be 

 fair. The only difference between Mr. Talbot 

 and The Game Breeder is one of method. We 

 are quite sure there is a legal difference be- 

 tween game and poultry where game is bred 

 wild in the fields and that the breeders do 

 ^yell to submit to reasonable regulations a 

 license without charge or for a nominal 

 amount. If there is no difference legally be- 

 tween s-ame and poultry, Mr. Talbot clearly 

 is riffht. If there is such difference there 

 would seem to be good grounds for reasonable 

 regulations, especially in a country where 



there is a strong sentiment against the sale 

 of wild game legally taken. Many able law- 

 yers and judges read The Game Breeder, and 

 we shall be glad to hear from some of them 

 on this point. — Editor.] 



By John W. Talbot. 



Here are my views of an article in 

 The Game Breeder entitled "A Money- 

 Making Industry." Mr. Huntington ob- 

 jects to the words "in captivity" in the 

 Indnana law, which reads: "All birds 

 and animals reared and bred in captiv- 

 ity shall be considered domestic fowls 

 and stock, and the owner or raiser 

 thereof may keep, sell, ship, transport or 

 otherwise dispose of them, and the same 

 shall not be affected or covered by tiae 

 laws prohibiting or regulating the killing 

 or disposition of birds and animals 

 grown or propagated in a wild state." 

 He does not understand the legal mean- 

 ing of "captivity." The dictionary says 

 captivity means "subject to domination 

 or control." Captivity is a synonym jf 

 subjection, and an antonym of "free- 

 dom" and "independence." In the days 

 of slavery the courts held that although 

 a slave be permitted unshackled to go 

 on errands for his master, even at a 

 great distance, he was nevertheless in 

 "bondage" and therefore in "captivity." 

 New York courts have held that a 

 swarm of bees is in captivity although 

 the individual bees roam all over the 

 countryside away from their owner's 

 property. Friend Huntington says: 

 "... There is a decided difference be- 

 tween game and poultry." The differ- 

 ence, he might have added, is one of 

 structure and is anatomical. There is 

 no difference between poultry ownership 

 and game ownership. Occasionally there 

 is born a cow with five legs and a five- 

 legged cow is different from a four- 

 legged cow, but no person would urge 

 the State to require the owner to obtain 

 a license to keep the five-legged cow. 

 Brother Huntington says "the idea that 

 the State owns the game has been given 

 prominence by the courts in America." 

 Truly. It has been given prominence 

 by the courts everywhere. Courts have 

 given prominence to the idea also that 

 the State owns Huntington and can take 



