r 



THE GAME BREEDER 



121 



WHAT THEY SAY 



[We reprint some of the opinions of sportsmen and naturalists who read "The Game 

 Breeder" in order that those who have undertaken to secure the much needed legislation en- 

 couraging the increase of our North American game in all the States and provinces may 

 have them for handy reference. — Editor.] 



Mr. Charles Hallock, dean of American 

 Sportsmen and author of the Code of Uni- 

 form Game Laws, says: "I hope the good 

 work you have begun may be perfected. I 

 am heartily writh your reform movement. Its 

 objects have been my study and pursuit for 

 forty years. . . . Individual handling and 

 conservation of game is to be encouraged." 



In another letter on the subject he said: 

 "Truly we need a revolution of thought and a 

 revival of common sense," and intimated that 

 we must contend against game politics. 



Mr. Wm. B. Mershon, one of the most 

 prominent sportsmen of Michigan, wrote : 

 "Certainly private enterprise must be depended 

 upon to protect and propagate our wild na- 

 tive game." 



Wm. T. Hornaday : In view of the appalling 

 decrease of wild game everywhere, and the 

 many difficulties attending the rearing of game 

 birds and mammals in preserves, I do not see 

 how any sportsman or naturalist can find 

 fault with your declared objects. It sounds 

 almost ridiculous to say that I wish you un- 

 bounded success for I do not see how any 

 American citizen can wish you anything less 

 than that. 



In the Zoological Society bulletin, June, 

 1909, Dr. Hornaday said: We believe that 

 every owner of a private game preserve is 

 entitled to the right to kill the game that he 

 owns and maintains, whenever he pleases pro- 

 vided such killing does not interfere with the 

 execution of laws for the protection of game 

 and other wild life outside of private pre- 

 serves. We believe this is not only good law 

 but also good common sense. . . . The 

 situation is absurd, and therefore can not long 

 endure. 



Prof. L. H. Bailey, director of the State 

 College of Agriculture, Cornell University, 

 N. Y., said: Looking at the subject from the 

 outside, it has appealed to me for years that 

 the most unsatisfactory, chaotic and uncorre- 

 lated of all laws relating to the open country 

 are those that have to do with game. I have 

 been more or less in touch with our own 

 State legislature on other business for some 

 years, and I have always been impressed with 

 the inadequacy of the kind of game legisla- 

 tion that is nearly always on foot. If you 

 can bring some system out of the game law 

 matter you will render a great service. The 

 sportsman is ordinarily set over against the 

 farmer. The two are really antagonistic. I 

 think the only real solution is in some way 

 to bring about a community of interests be- 

 tween the two, or at least to eliminate the 

 antagonism. In other words, I think that the 



farming interests must be distinctly consulted 

 in the game laws, if we are to have game 

 laws that will serve the interests of the 

 people, and which will stand the test of a 

 reasonable length of time. ... I am sure 

 that your fundamental idea that the farming 

 interests should be considered in game pro- 

 tection laws is sound. 



Harry V. Radford, the distinguished sports- 

 man and explorer, said : I was once a,s 

 strong an advocate of repression, limitation, 

 non-sale and other bugaboos as any, but your 

 revolutionary papers on game preservation in 

 the Independent completely converted me to 

 your theories and views. I am with you heart- 

 ily in your new and splendid campaign, having 

 for its object the upbuilding of sportsmanship 

 and the cultivation of good shooting and 

 marksmanship, rather than their total aban- 

 donment, into which the present system (or 

 lack of it) is rapidly leading us. I wish you 

 great success. 



In another letter Radford said he was op- 

 posed to the "potting of vacationists from 

 sister States." 



Mr. G. O. Shields, editor of Shields' Maga- 

 zine, wrote : "Generally speaking, I am in 

 favor of anything and everything that can in 

 any way prolong the life of the few species 

 of game birds and wild animals remaining in 

 this country. The time will come, and that 

 within a few years, when the only game to be 

 found in the United States will be on public 

 and private preserves with possibly some over- 

 flow. Sb' I am always glad to hear of indi- 

 viduals or clubs creating game preserves. 

 Your scheme is good in many respects." 



Mr. Charles J. Vert, Plattsburg, N. Y., 

 wrote : Permit me to express my hearty 

 appreciation of the advanced position taken by 

 The Amateur Sportsman as expressed in the 

 current number touching the sale of fish and 

 game from private ponds and preserves. The 

 attitude there taken must and will find an 

 effective expression in an altered statute. En- 

 lightened public opinion will demand it : in- 

 deed, it is always demanding it. When public 

 weal and private advantage combine in calling 

 for a change, imaginary difficulties will not 

 long be permitted to block the wheels of 

 progress. (Amateur Sportsman, Mch., 1909.) 



Mr. Henry H. Fuller, of Boston, Mass., 

 wrote : "In the February number of the 

 Amateur Sportsman is an article under the 

 title, 'The Breeders' Association,' which should 

 be in the hands of every legislative committee 

 on fisheries and game. The Massachusetts 

 Legislature this year have before them the 

 usual grist of bills, most of which approach 

 the question of game preservation from the 



