182 



THE GAME BREEDER 



"Letter from the Biological Survey. 



„ ^ . , August 27, 1918. 



Mr.'Dwight W. Huntington, 

 Game Conservation Society, 



150 Nassau Street, New York City. 

 Dear Sir : 



I have your letter of August 24 in which 

 you state that you have decided not to comply 

 with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and that 

 you will make no application for a permit to 

 possess, buy and sell migratory water fowl 

 I regret that you have taken such a decision 

 since I hoped that we might haye your co- 

 operation in the sincere effort which this 

 Bureau will make to build up game farming 

 of migratory wild fowl. Of course, it is our 

 duty to enforce the law and the regulations as 

 they now stand. However, I wish to call your 

 attention to the fact that the regulations are 

 subject to change, and where a regulation can 

 be shown to be unreasonably burdensome I 

 t shall be glad to recommend a change. 



So far as concerns the food supply to be de- 

 rived from birds raised in captivity and shot, 

 I am inclined to think that the number of 

 North American preserves on which wild fowl 

 are grown in sufficient numbers to be shot is 

 comparatively small. I shall, however, be 

 glad to ■ be enlightened on this subject, and 

 would be very glad indeed to have a complete 

 list of such places with the acreage they con- 

 tain. I may add that matters of this kind are 

 subjects which we desire further 'to investigate 

 at the earliest, possible moment for the purpose 

 of securing information on which any neces- 

 sary action may be taken. 

 Yours truly, 



E. W. NELSON, 



Chief of Bureau. 



The Game Breeder's View Point. 



New York, N. Y., August 29, 1918. 

 Hon. E. W. Nelson, 



Chief of the Biological Survey, 

 Washington, D. C. 

 Dear Sir : 



My point is not that I do not intend to 

 comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

 but that so long as you refuse to comply with 

 the terms of this act, I must decline to enter 

 into any agreement in writing with you. 



I have no objection to complying with the 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As a matter of 

 fact, I shall be willing to list all of the ducks 

 we -have although they are not migratory and 

 I am sure any court will hold that thev are 

 personal property not covered by any law 

 enacted since the title for this food property 

 was acquired. I say I would be willing to list 

 these birds and to keep you well informed 

 about the numbers we rear and the numbers 

 we shoot and sell. The point I wish to make 

 is that we would stop production instantly if 

 you attempted to raid us as food producers 

 have been raided by State officers for trivial 

 offenses, fanciful in the extreme, containing no 

 moral turpitude, and absolutely at variance 

 with the terms of the Migratory Law. 



The word preserve has a well defined mean- 

 ing. If you will turn to the Standard Dic- 

 tionary published by Funk & Wagnalls you 

 will find "preserve, a place in which game is 

 protected for the purpose of sport." 



The Congress when it enacted the Migratory 

 Bird Bill had been fully advised that your 

 chief adviser does not want any preserves or 

 the sale of food which goes with them. The 

 Congressional Record shows that he made this 

 statement to a Committee of the Congress and 

 tried to make it very plain that he might be 

 able to excite some prejudice against food 

 production and the employment of skilled 

 labor, such as gamekeepers, to produce the 

 food. Having heard the argument against 

 food production the Congress added a section 

 to the Migratory Bill which reads, "Nothing 

 in this, act shall be construed to prevent the 

 breeding of migratory game birds on farms 

 and preserves and the sale of birds so bred 

 under proper .regulations for the purpose of 

 increasing the food supply." You will ob- 

 serve having heard the statement that we 

 don't want any food production in this coun- 

 try or any preserves or the. sale of food from 

 such places, the Congress proceeded to say that 

 nothing in the act shall prevent the sale of 

 food from not only farms but also from pre- 

 serves. The fact that shooting causes the 

 abundance of the food is well known and it 

 seems to me highly unreasonable for those 

 who were defeated in the Congress to attempt 

 to win out by having you make a regulation 

 which will send food producers to jail pro- 

 vided it be executed, unless the courts decide 

 against your regulation. 



I am absolutely sure of my position that 

 when Congress says you shall not interfere 

 with food producers on farms and preserves 

 that you cannot upset the action of the law- 

 makers by passing a subsequent law which is 

 intended to prevent food producers from pro- 

 ducing food on preserves. 



It seems that the same persons who were 

 defeated in Congress are behind the regula- 

 tion which says there shall be no sport and 

 this means no food production on the places 

 named by Congress as places which should not 

 be interfered with on account of their ability 

 to increase the food supply. I notice your re- 

 quest for a complete list of the places where 

 birds are bred for sport and for food. There 

 are a large number of such places in spite of 

 the hostility of some small politicians. You 

 may have read the story of one man being 

 arrested and fined $15,000 because he trapped 

 a few birds for breeding purposes. Of course, 

 in States where grafters can take in half of the 

 money collected in fines and where they have 

 the opportunity to threaten people with arrest 

 and tell them they will not arrest them if they 

 will pay a good, big sum, there are not so many 

 food producing plants as there would be if 

 they could be freed from what I have long 

 regarded as- legal atrocities. The Congress 

 was advised that in England the shooting is 

 only for the rich. I think it likely most of 

 the men in Congress know that this is abso- 





