

THE GAME BREEDER 



183 



lutely untrue; that many thousands of market 

 gunners shoot the migratory fowl and bring 

 them to the markets just as our fishermen bring 

 in the fish. I am sure many people in a coun- 

 try where game can be freely produced, and 

 where it is always a cheap food in the mar- 

 kets, would not tolerate the many thousands 

 of arrests which 'have been made in America, 

 many of them being made because the party 

 who was arrested was attempting to produce 

 food on land which he owns. 



In order to make my position perfectly plain, 

 I wish to say that I am prepared to apply for 

 a permit at any time when I am not obliged 

 to sign away my right to field sports, as your 

 adroit regulations now require me to do. In 

 other words, I regard your regulation (which, 

 it is claimed, is a criminal law) as an attempt 

 to defeat the statute made by Congress and I 

 feel absolutely sure when the question goes to 

 the courts, if you wish it to go there, that 

 quickly they will decide that of the two law- 

 making powers, that of Congress is superior 

 to that of those by whom you are surrounded. 

 You perhaps will understand now why I have 

 siad that I believed it would be wise for the 

 National Congress to create a Bureau of Game 

 somewhat similar to the Bureau of Fisheries. 

 The Bureau of Fisheries does not, when it 

 gives fish to people in order that they may 

 propagate them, insist that they cannot use a 

 hook or a line. If the Bureau should get into 

 any such fanciful frame of mind, I believe I 

 would do a great public service if I should 

 insist that that Bureau be abolished. 



I do not altogether like your regulation pro- 

 viding that it is a United States crime in 

 some parts of the country and not in others 

 (the lines running somewhat irregularly, I 

 do not know where) to shoot a dove, which 

 is a very desirable food, as Audubon says, 

 somewhat better than a quail. You may be 

 interested to know that I produced several 

 hundred doves one season by providing an 

 abundance of food for them, and, being a 

 law-abiding citizen, as I am, I did not shoot 

 any of the birds-or eat any of the food pro- 

 duced on the place. As a matter of fact, I 

 heard that numerous people had excellent 

 dove shooting, and, of course, enjoyed the 

 food. Under your regulation, when the food 

 leaves my place it can go to another place in 

 the United States where it is not criminal to 

 take it and eat it. I was taught that criminal 

 laws should be uniform in their operation. 



I do not approve of your saying to me or 

 to others that we cannot get quail from Mex- 

 ico now. The Mexican people are willing to 

 sell these food birds for breeding purposes. 

 There is plenty of money among older men 

 who have been rejected for military duty, as 

 I was, who would be willing to perform a 

 patriotic duty and nroduce some large quanti- 

 ties of food providing they be not interfered 

 with too much by what I am pleased to re- 

 gard as fool regulations. If anvone can noint 

 out why, the weather being suitable,' the Mex- 



icans being willing to sell, food producers 

 being willing to buy, no one should be per- 

 mitted to produce any quail or make prepa- 

 rations to do so, I should be glad to have 

 them do so. Our whole game law structure 

 seems to be built on the idea that it is 

 criminal to produce food on the farms and 

 preserves and that such industry must be 

 checkmated. I feel perfectly right in my 

 opinion that numerous arrests of men and 

 women have been made by small people be- 

 cause they wished to break up a food-pro- 

 ducing industry which does not happen to 

 meet their views as to what the people may 

 produce on their farms or other lands which 

 they may own. The Agricultural Department 

 does not favor the arrest of farmers because 

 they take other foods in what seems to them 

 the best way to take them. There should be 

 no regulation (even in the absence of the 

 preserve owners' protection in the United 

 States law) preventing people from taking the 

 food in the only way they can be expected to 

 take it. To say that the sportsmen must run 

 about and put salt on the tails of their birds 

 or must catch them otherwise in order to kill 

 them with a hatchet, is to say that there will 

 be no production, and it may seem, to some 

 people, that this is the intention of the regula- 

 tion, since it is proposed by people who were 

 defeated when they said to the Congress we 

 do not want preserves or gamekeepers, or food 

 production or the sale of game, or anything 

 like that in this country. This in effect is to 

 say that we do not want the freedom which 

 there is in other countries where people can 

 raise any kind of plant or animal on their 

 property and where market gunners can shoot 

 and sell the desirable food to the people as 

 freely as the fishermen sell food to our people. 

 It seems likely that the farmers will take a 

 very decided interest in this throughout the 

 country, and I regret very much to have a 

 bureau of the Agricultural Department hos- 

 tile to their interests. I could tell you, if, I 

 would; of places where many thousands of 

 acres of farm lands are freed from taxes be- 

 cause it is legal for sportsmen to take birds 

 from the farms, and in order to do so they 

 pay the farmers' taxes. I do not think it is 

 desirable for people who ar& hostile to such 

 industry to know where such places are. I 

 know perfectly, well that many people do not 

 desire to have any publicity which may bring 

 down upon them the animosity of people who 

 say we do not want any food production in 

 America, or, as I have sometimes heard them 

 put it: "There is plenty of beef and mutton 

 in America and the people do not need to have 

 other food." The only reason for this that I 



(Continued on pag-e 187.) 



