112 



THE GAME BREEDER 



won't be enough to go around. That plan 

 would be all right when there was a 

 large amount of game to shoot, but it 

 won't do to-day. 



I want to make another point in clos- 

 ing — and that is in addition to what has 

 already been said — that by stopping the 

 sale of game in the District of Columbia 

 you will stop the killing of game in the 

 surrounding states and presrve that for 

 the ordinary sportsman, the man who has 

 got to get his shooting close at hand or not 

 at all. The rich man can have his pre- 

 serve or go a long distance away in his 

 private car to some wild section and 

 shoot, but the poor man has got to get his 

 shooting close at hand or not at all. This 

 bill will preserve the shooting for that 

 poor man, for the average citizen, the 

 man who makes a good American. 



Under present conditions the District 

 of Columbia is draining the game re- 

 sources of the States of Maryland and 

 Virginia and a number of other Southern 

 states. I know personally that the rep- 

 resentatives of the farmers and game as- 

 sociations of those states are heartily in 

 favor of this bill and I understand that 

 "Mr. Graham has testimony from those 

 men. A year ago last winter I was talk- 

 ing with a market shooter in North Caro- 

 lina, which still permits some market 

 shooting at certain periods, and he told 

 me that he and his brother made an 

 average of $1 1 a day during the time wild 

 fowl were permitted to be shot for sale. 

 They were shooting geese. They had a 

 lot of live geese decoys, and he told me 

 they got 50 cents apiece. The price had 

 been raised from 25 cents, and at 50 

 cents apiece those men were making $11 

 a day shooting those geese, which were 

 sent up here to the Washington market. 

 Now, that means less geese for the local 

 men living in North Carolina. 



The first state in the Union to pass a 

 nonsale game law was the State of Texas. 

 The southern states have been well to 

 the fore in this matter of looking after 

 their game, preserving it for their own 

 citizens, and if you gentlemen will fa- 

 vorably report this bill and put it through 

 it will do more to protect the game of 



the Union than almost any other thing 

 that can be done at the present time for 

 the people that should have it for use. 



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 

 sportsmen, or what are they for? 



Mr. Burnham. I think the chief object 

 is to keep up the supply for shooting. 



Mr. Wheeler. For shooting? 



Mr. Burnham 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 entire- 

 ly for sport, do you? What we call the 

 sportsman doesn't shoot entirely for 

 sport. He doesn't shoot a bird that isn't 

 eatable. 



Mr. Burnham. No ; it is for sport and 

 food, and the general recreation, and also 

 incidentally it benefits the farmer, be- 

 cause these birds all have some agricul- 

 tural value. 



Mr. Crosser. Of course, if you are 

 looking at it from the standpoint of the 

 agricultural value, you wouldn't be 

 thinking about shooting them at all, 

 would you ? 



Mr. Burnham. Well, perhaps not. It 

 is utilization to the greatest extent pos- 

 sible. 



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 pur- 

 pose was to increase the supply of game. 



Mr. Burnham. The purpose is to in- 

 crease the supply of game. 



No Grumbling. 



It ain't no use to grumble and complain, 

 It's jest as cheap and easy to rejoice; 



When God sorts out the weather and 

 sends rain, 

 W'y, rain's my choice. — Riley. 



More Game and Fewer Game Laws. 



