THE GAME BREEDER 



111' 



EFFECT OF A RATIONAL GAME LAW IN 



COLORADO. 



By J. T. Holland. * 



Ex-Game Commissioner of Colorado. 



[Reprinted by Request] 



[This article was printed in the July issue of The Amateur Sportsman, and this 

 number of the magazine soon went out of print. 



We hope all our readers will read this article by the State Game Officer of Colorado. If 

 the people of Colorado can have game and fish to eat, why should not the people of other 

 States enjoy this desirable food? Why should'not every State follow the lead of Colorado 

 and have "more game" and fewer game laws? — Editor.] 



The subject of game preserves hav- 

 ing been largely discussed throughout 

 the game sections of the United States 

 and in periodicals printed in this coun- 

 try, it may not be amiss for the writer 

 to express his opinion in regard thereto, 

 and particularly as to the State of 

 Colorado. In this State, as well as in 

 other parts of the country, more criti- 

 cism has been offered from time to time 

 of the laws existing on our statute 

 books permitting the formation and 

 maintenance of what are known as 

 "game preserves" than any other. A 

 great deal has been said in regard to 

 this matter and discussion is very fre- 

 quently engaged in before the different 

 committees of the legislature having 

 this particular branch of the law in 

 charge, and every time it is attempted 

 to introduce a law, or an amendment 

 which in any way bears upon this sub- 

 ject, it seems to be the opinion of 

 many people that game preserves are 

 for the rich and for those who can af- 

 ford to take the time and spend the 

 money necessarily required in estab- 

 lishing such an enterprise. A great 

 many people who do not understand 

 the conditions make the charge that 

 the game preserve system permits a 

 favored few to corner the game and 

 fish, which necessarily belongs to the 

 people of the State, and that the com- 

 mon people do not receive the bene- 

 fits that should be derived therefrom. 

 They say, further, that the common 

 people are robbed of what is theirs, 

 and accordingly are discriminated 

 against in a manner contrary to Ameri- 

 can laws and institutions. 



There might be some merit in their 

 contention if it were the people's prop- 

 erty that were being taken by authority 

 of law and placed in the hands of a 

 few individuals, who would reap the 

 benefit derived to the exclusion of the 

 masses, but this is not the case in 

 Colorado. To begin with, a person 

 desiring to establish a game and fish 

 preserve must necessarily secure his 

 stock from some private source, or 

 from some other State, and thus he is 

 prevented from taking what belongs to, 

 the people in the first instance. 



We have in Colorado a number of 

 game preserves and also a number of 

 licensed lakes, which are the same so 

 far as the fish are concerned, as game 

 preserves. Under our law if one de- 

 sires to maintain a game preserve, or 

 what is known as a licensed park, he 

 must secure the animals, Avhich he de- 

 sires to place in the park as a nucleus 

 upon Avhich to build his preserve, and 

 thus far the people have lost no rights 

 of their own, nor have they any interest 

 in the matter, except to place such rea- 

 sonable regulations and restrictions 

 upon such person so engaged as they 

 shall deem best for the protection of 

 their own game and fish. Under the 

 law when a licensed park is once estab- 

 lished by placing therein game taken 

 from private sources the owner thereof 

 is held to a strict accountability to the 

 State for his actions in regard thereto. 



For instance, in the first place he 

 must have his license for maintaining 

 a game park, and if he holds anv game 

 of an}' kind whatsoever without a 

 license he is guilty of violating the 



