THE GAME BREEDER 



83 



A Poor Time. 



It seems to be a poor time for the game 

 politicians to trifle with such an import- 

 ant food supply as game and game fish, 

 which are becoming plentiful under the 

 influence of the more game movement 

 advocated by The Game Breeder. 



Ornithological Fun at the Hearing. 



At the hearing on the bill to make the 

 District of Columbia a game prohibition 

 area there were as usual some humorous 

 remarks. Mr. Wheeler, a member of the 

 committee, observed : "Well, I would 

 like to have a woodcock once more be- 

 fore I die. They are the finest eating in 

 the world." Mr. Graham, another mem- 

 ber of the committee, describing a visit 

 to the local market, said : 



"Red-heads were $1.75 a pair. That 

 was when they were quite cheap. I paid 

 $2.50 for a pair one day myself in order 

 to see what they were like." 



Mr. Wheeler: "In order to what?" 



Mr. Graham : "In order to see what 

 they were like." 



Mr. Wheeler: "You didn't eat 

 them!"^ 



Mr. Graham : "Yes ; and they were 

 not very good, because they had been 

 brought in here from a distance." 



Mr. Reed: "Are cranes considered a 

 food bird?" 



Mr. Graham : "Well some of them 

 are. The sand bill crane is edible. It 

 is quite a good bird." 



Mr. Mason : "All except the drum- 

 stick." 



Mr. Graham: "Yes." (Laughter.) 



A Catechism. 



At the hearing the following: 



Mr. Wheeler — Let me ask you this 

 question : What do you consider to be 

 the chief object of these game laws? Are 

 they only for the protection of sports- 

 men or what are they for? 



Mr. Burnham — I think the chief ob- 

 ject is to keep up the supply for shoot- 

 ing. 



Mr. Wheeler— For shooting? 



Mr. Burn h Am — Yes ; just so the sup- 

 ply will not be destroyed. 



Mr. Wheeler— Then it is to secure 

 sport. 



Mr. Burnham — To keep breeding 

 stock up ; yes. 



Mr. Mason — You do not mean en- 

 tirely for sport, do you? What we call 

 the sportsman doesn't shoot entirely for 

 sport. He doesn't shoot a bird that is 

 not eatable. 



Mr. Burnham — No, it is for sport 

 and for food, and the general recreation, 

 and also incidentally it benefits the far- 

 mer, because these birds all have some 

 agricultural value. 



Mr. Crosser — Of course, if you are 

 looking at it from the standpoint of the 

 agricultural value, you would not be 

 thinking about shooting them at all 

 would you? 



Mr. Burnham — Well, perhaps not. 

 It is utilization to the greatest extent 

 possible. 



Mr. Crosser — I am not quarreling 

 with you. I just want to get your view- 

 point from a rather fundamental stand- 

 point, whether you had objection to the 

 killing of game, or whether your purpose 

 was to increase the supply of game. 



Some Answers That We Would Make. 

 Paradoxical as it may seem, shooting 

 may be made to cause a rapid increase 

 of the game and cause an abundance on 

 places where no game can be found to- 

 day. Such shooting has a great eco- 

 nomic importance. Darwin says if 

 shooting were prohibited in England 

 there would be fewer game animals than 

 there are. The reason is that sport pro- 

 perly conducted controls the natural ene- 

 mies of the game and the sportsmen 

 safely can shoot, eat and sell great quan- 

 tities which would have been eaten by 

 vermin had it not been controlled in the 

 interest of sport and the food supply. 

 Game birds are beneficial to agriculture 

 because they eat insects. Shooting and 

 the sale of game which cause game 

 abundance for food should be encouraged 

 and not prevented. Often when game 

 properly is looked after the insects be- 

 come so scarce that there are hardly 

 enough to go round. Ant eggs are sold 

 to supply the deficiency. 



