120 



RECREATTUN, 



United States. It is rare indeed that we 

 can find a man in such a position who is 

 willing to take up violation of the game or 

 fish law and push it to a finish, as the 

 attorney-general in Montana has done in 

 this case, and when we do find such a man, 

 it makes every friend of game protection 

 feel like throwing up his hat and shouting. 

 The attorney-general of Montana deserves 

 to be governor of the State. If he ever 

 decides to seek that office, he has only to 

 remind the sportsmen of that State of his 

 action in this case, and they will do the 

 rest. I am willing to bet on this. — 

 Editor. 



Game laws benefit farmers. 



Mr. Z. T. Sweeney, State Game and Fish 

 Commissioner of Indiana, in his annual re- 

 port to the Governor says : 



"Until within the last few years the opinion 

 generally prevailed among our citizens that game 

 and fish laws were for the benefit of the rich. 

 This is now conceded to be a mistake. The 

 rich man can have his sport whether there is 

 protection in his locality or not, for he is not 

 confined to it, but the whole country is open to 

 him as a sporting ground. If game and fish are 

 scarce in a neighborhood, he has but to step on 

 a train and in a few hours be transported to a 

 country where they are plentiful; but the poor 

 man and the man of average means, who have to 

 work from month to month, have no such oppor- 

 tunity, and unless they can find game and fish in 

 their own locality they are practically cut off from 

 hunting and fishing. The people now see clearly 

 that the protection of game and fish is in the 

 interest of the average man rather than the rich 

 man. In reality the non-protection of game is 

 for the benefit of the wealthy man, the game 

 dealer and the market hunter, while protection 

 is in the interest of the man of moderate means. 



It would simplify the problem of game 

 protection greatly if farmers and other 

 laboring men could be convinced of the 

 truth of what Mr. Sweeney has said. There 

 is a well defined prejudice existing, in the 

 minds of farmers especially, all over the 

 country, against the men they term city 

 sportsmen, dudes, etc. The farmers persist 

 in saying and believing that game laws are 

 made solely in the interest of these men ; 

 but such is not the case. Game laws are 

 for everybody, and the great majority of 

 law makers invariably consider the interests 

 of their agricultural constituents carefully 

 when they form and pass laws for the pro- 

 tection of game and fish. One remedy for 

 such a state of affairs would be for city 

 sportsmen to lease from farmers the shoot- 

 ing privileges on their lands, paying a small 

 price per acre per year therefor. If this 

 plan were generally adopted the farmers 

 would then consider the game one of their 

 valuable crops and would protect it in so 

 far as possible from the depreciations of 

 pot hunters. All true sportsmen should 

 consider this proposition carefully. The 

 plan has already been adopted in many in- 

 stances with good effect, and it should take 

 general ly. — Editor. 



DEFENDS MICHIGAN MEN. 



I note, with regret, in October Recrea- 

 tion, the remarks of E. E. Stokes, on 

 Michigan hunting. I have hunted deer in 

 Michigan 15 years, and I have never known 

 or heard of such conditions as he de- 

 scribes. No doubt there are many violators 

 of game laws in Michigan, but my experi- 

 ence has taught me that hunters from other 

 States have far less regard for Michigan 

 laws than resident sportsmen. 



Mr. Stokes laments that more hunters 

 were not killed, and says of the 12 un- 

 fortunates who met death in the woods 

 that they were "probably worth less than 

 one deer." In all human probability he 

 knew not one of the 12, certainly not 

 all of them, and his rash judgment in that 

 matter discredits the rest of his conclu- 

 sions. 



I, of course, am not prepared to say that 

 his statements as to the number of deer 

 illegally killed in his vicinity are untrue, 

 but I can not believe that of .s-6ths of 

 the deer shot many were fawns in the 

 spotted coat. It is possible to find a fawn 

 in the spotted coat in the fall, but to say 

 that many of the deer killed at that season 

 were spotted fawns is absurd. 



Even if all his statements were true, I 

 regret that he should have published them. 

 Thousands of hunters read Recreation, 

 and some, no doubt, will conclude from his 

 article that anyone can come to Michigan, 

 hunt regardless of law, and not be mo- 

 lested. Mr. Stokes would have done better 

 had he laid his information' before the 

 game officers of our State, who could, and 

 no doubt would, have brought the guilty 

 parties to justice. 



I am a subscriber to Recreation, and 

 heartily indorse its good work, but I be- 

 lieve if we all would give information to 

 the wardens, instead of advertising the 

 localities where violations go unpunished, 

 we would be doing more to save our wild 

 friends in the woods. 



Rufus F. Skeels, Hart, Mich. 



AMENABLE TO STATE GAME LAWS. 



The game laws of Vermont allow deer 

 to be hunted the last 10 days of October. 

 Can deer be shot out of season on a 

 Government Military Reservation by an 

 officer of the U. S. Army? 



Harold M. Hone, Northfield, Vt. 



ANSWER. 



Military reservations are governed under 

 regulations of the Secretary of War, and 

 in absence of express provisions in the 

 regulations for privileges of this kind, deer 

 or other game can not be killed during the 

 close seasons established by States in 

 which such reservations are situated. The 

 law governing the gage is as follows ; 





