45 8 



RECREA TION. 



this example at once. In fact all states 

 should have had such laws long ago. 



Each sportsman should look beyond his 

 own selfish interest. He should have some 

 regard for his children and his grandchil- 

 dren. He should have some regard for 

 posterity in general. He should have some 

 regard for the beauties of nature. What 

 would all our great marshes and lakes be, 

 without a water fowl sailing or drifting over 

 them? What would our uplands and our 

 great prairies be without a grouse or a 

 quail? What would our forests be with- 

 out a deer or a squirrel, or a song bird? 

 What would our Western mountains be 

 without an elk, a mountain sheep or any 

 other large mammal? 



Yet as I have said, unless we do consider 

 something else than our own love of sport, 

 or our own love of slaughter, then we must 

 expect to see the whole country as barren 

 of game, in 10 years, as the Alaskan glaciers 

 are of roses. 



You say you have shot for many years 

 and yet have never seen the man who would 

 fail to take every shot that offered. God 

 pity the 'blood-thirsty wretches you have 

 been hunting with! You admit that your 

 friends and companions are, or have been, 

 or would be law breakers if an opportunity 

 offered. You admit that the laws of Maine 

 limit each hunter to 2 deer. Yet you or 

 your friends would certainly shoot the 

 third if you knew you would not be caught 

 at it. This is a most pitiable confession 

 for any man to make who claims to be 

 a sportsman. Whenever you or your 

 friends have killed deer in Maine, or any- 

 where else, in excess the number allowed 

 by law, or of the number needed for camp 

 use, or to take home to your families, you 

 have descended to the level of game hogs, 

 and your names should all be so recorded, 

 that the public at large might know you. 



I wish you had been with me on some of 

 my many trips in the South and West. I 

 could have shown you many places where 

 men have stood and looked at great bands 

 of elk, or deer, or mountain sheep, or at 

 great rafts of water fowl, or great packs of 

 prairie chickens, within easy range, and 

 where not a shot has been fired, because 

 the men did not need game. According to 

 your admissions you and your friends 

 would have killed all you could of these 

 birds or animals, whether you had use for 

 them or not. 



With 2 friends I stood on the wall of the 

 Black Canyon, in the Big Horn mountains, 

 17 years ago, and for half an hour watched 

 a band of 150 elk that were almost under 

 our feet. We could have thrown a rock 

 in the midst of them, yet we had all the 

 meat we needed and had had all the sport 

 we wanted; therefore we did not fire a shot 

 at these animals. We had plenty of cart- 

 ridges in our belts, and more on our pack 

 horses.; but we were not game hogs, even 



in that early day. The annals of field sports 

 are full of such records. The readers of 

 Recreation could write down thousands 

 of them for your instruction. In fact many 

 of them have already been written and pub- 

 lished. 



I trust you will speedily change your 

 mind as to the justice and expediency of 

 any man killing all the game he can, with- 

 out regard to law or decency. — Editor. 



QUEER JUSTICE. 



Chester, Pa. 



Editor Recreation: I have been re- 

 quested by Dr. D. P. Maddux, who is a 

 member of the L. A. S., to call your atten- 

 tion to a case that was decided against the 

 Delaware County Fish and Game Protec- 

 tive Association, in the Delaware County 

 Court, to-day. The facts in the case are 

 that on January 15th we caused the arrest 

 of 2 men for having in their possession, 

 and exposing for sale rabbits, out of season. 

 The men were taken before an Alderman, 

 convicted and fined. They refused to pay 

 the fine, and appealed the case to court. 

 When the case came before the Grand Jury, 

 we produced 4 witnesses who testified to 

 the defendants having these rabbits in their 

 possession, out of season. What did the 

 Grand Jury do but ignore the evidence and 

 the bill and place the entire costs on me, 

 personally? 



How or by what authority they held me, 

 personally, for the costs I do not know; 

 for in the first place in entering the com- 

 plaint I did it in the name of our Associa- 

 tion, as Secretary; and we clearly proved, 

 to the Alderman and to the grand jury, 

 that my charges were true. This is shown 

 by the fact that the Alderman fined the 

 men. 



In the second place the action was 

 brought on behalf of the commonwealth, 

 as every one knows all game mammals are 

 commonwealth property. 



Then again, what right had this grand 

 jury to deprive us of a trial in court, after 

 producing sufficient evidence to show that 

 the defendents did have this game in their 

 possession, out of season? 



The affair appears to us as being a grave 

 injustice, from beginning to end; and it be- 

 hooves all persons interested in the pro- 

 tection of game to seek some means of 

 overcoming such infamous proceedings. 

 Why should I, as an individual, or as an of- 

 ficer, interest myself in the enforcement of 

 the game laws, knowing that I may be sub- 

 jected to greater prosecution than the law 

 breaker himself, when taken into court. 

 These grand(?) jurymen have no more 

 right to hold us responsible for these costs, 

 than they have a policeman who arrests a 

 thief. 



Our game law of '97 is clear; but when a 

 grand (?) jury becomes prosecutor, defend- 



