100 



RECREATION. 



ment of State game laws. If this condi- 

 tion could be overcome and State officers 

 would unite with Federal officers, the game 

 laws would be comparatively safe from vio- 

 lation. 



Your attention is called to my recommen- 

 dation in regard to this matter on page 44 

 in the report for icpor from which I quote : 



The provision in the Act of March 3, 1899, 

 which has been reenacted annually, by which all 

 forest officers and employees are required to aid 

 in the enforcement of the local laws for the pro- 

 tection of game and fish in their respective re- 

 serves, has been of great service in those States 

 or Territories where such assistance was desired. 



If there could be a unity of action between the 

 Federal and State authorities great good could be 

 accomplished in game protection. 



It is generally conceded that the larger game 

 animals, now chiefly to be found in the moun- 

 tains of the West, should be protected from ruth- 

 less and wanton destruction. A Federal statute 

 which would tend to harmonize State legislation 

 on this subject, without creating a divided juris- 

 diction over forest reserves, and which would not 

 encroach on the proprietary rights of the States 

 to control the game and fish within their respec- 

 tive boundaries, would do much toward accom- 

 plishing that purpose. 



I recommend that the attention of Congress be 

 called to this subject. 



As to your question whether or not a 

 State officer may go on government forest 

 reserve in the discharge of his duty, I have 

 to reply -that there appears to be no doubt 

 of the State officer's authority in this mat- 

 ter. The Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat, 

 34-36), states: 



Jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over per- 

 sons within such reservation shall not be affect- 

 ed or changed by reason of the existence of such 

 reservation, except so far as the punishment of 

 offenses against the United States therein is con- 

 cerned; the intent and meaning of this provision 

 being that the State wherein any such reservation 

 is situated shall not, by reason of the establish- 

 ment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhab- 

 itants thereof their rights and privileges as citi- 

 zens, or be -absolved from their duties as citi- 

 zens of the State. 



This office is always willing and anxious 

 to render assistance in the matter of game 

 protection in the forest reserves. The for- 

 est reserve field force appreciates this fact. 

 Any negligence on its part in this matter, 

 if brought to the attention of this office, 

 receives due consideration. 



Yours respectfull}'-, 

 W. A. Richards, Commissioner. 



WHAT IS SPORT? 



REV. G. W. LUTHER. 



In March Recreation there was an ar- 

 ticle entitled, "Sport or Meat?" At its 

 close Mr. Farrell says, "I should like to 

 hear more in regard to what our wild game 

 is for." 



It seems to me self-evident that game 

 exists for the very purpose for which it 

 should be protected. That game is for the 

 enjoyment of man, like everything else in 

 this world, will not be denied If, then, it 

 be true that wild creatures v/ere made for 



the pleasure of man, or as Mr. Farrell puts 

 it, "for sport," surely they should be pro- 

 tected in a way which will enable man to 

 continue to derive sport from them. 



Sport is an inclusive term, but really 

 means the pleasure which we get out of a 

 thing. Our game should be so protected 

 that the greatest possible pleasure may be 

 realized from its presence. How to get 

 the most pleasure out of game is the point 

 on which men differ. 



Mr. F. tells us how to get the most sport 

 out of a deer. First find its range, then 

 get a pack of dogs on its track, mount your 

 horse and follow. After covering miles of 

 country and spending hours of time, bring 

 the weary, half-dead creature to bay. to cap 

 the mountain peaks of sportsmanly ecstasy 

 by slaughtering it for sport. He says, 

 "Killing an animal for meat is only butch- 

 ery." No doubt this is true; but what 

 shall we call killing for sport? Is taking 

 life because we take pleasure in slaughter 

 really a more commendable act than taking 

 life because we are hungry? 



It is apparent that the word sport has 

 as many shades of meaning as there are 

 grades of men who carry guns. That is 

 why we need game laws, and why I believe 

 in Recreation and the grand work it is do- 

 ing in endeavoring to find a more sane and 

 humane definition of the word "sport." 

 Surely no one who has a true interest in 

 our game and the pleasure which can be 

 derived from it, can fail to rejoice at seeing 

 the definite change which is coming to those 

 who read this magazine from month to 

 month. 



My experience has been that sport is not 

 in the killing of game or in any form of 

 torture. That really decreases the pleasure. 

 To kill for food or in self-defense is legit- 

 imate, but it is not sport. 



There are few who do not relish well 

 cooked game, but the man who would not 

 rather hunt than eat could hardly be called 

 a sportsman. To make a good shot with 

 a favorite gun is a real pleasure, but a 

 marksman is not necessarily a sportsman. 

 This pleasure is not at all dependent on 

 our wild game. To protect game simply 

 for gun practice would be at least a low 

 motive. 



After all is not the sport found in match- 

 ing our cunning and prowess against that 

 of the game we pursue? For years I lived 

 where deer were plentiful, and though I 

 never shot at one I derived as much 

 sport from them as many who killed 

 their allowance each year. To be able to 

 come within a few yards of one of these 

 beautiful creatures, to know that ears, eyes 

 and nostrils almost perfect in their powers 

 were unable to detect my presence, and, 

 best of all, when the animal did see me, to 

 behold his utter amazement at being de- 



