March, 1920 
107 
FOREST AND STREAM 
THE PROTECTION OF ALASKA GAME 
SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE GAME LAWS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION 
IN VIEW OF SOME 
I HAVE read in the February number 
of “Outdoor Life” an editorial advo- 
cating a reduction of the bag limit on 
game permitted under the present Alaska 
law. Mr. J. A. McGuire, the proprietor 
of this journal, is the foremost game pro- 
tector of the West, and for the persistent 
far seeing ideas of game conservation 
which he has constantly pushed in his 
magazine, he deserves the grateful rec- 
ognition and thanks of all who are in- 
terested in the subject. With his pur- 
pose of better conserving Alaska game I 
am in entire sympathy and I sincerely 
hope that my following remarks on the 
subject will not be misunderstood. 
After giving reasons and suggestions 
for the reducing of the bag limit in 
Alaska, the editorial goes on to say: 
“With the hearty co-operation of sports- 
men, sportsmen’ s organizations, and the 
officials of Yukon Territory and Alaska, 
we hope to see put thru very soon laws 
providing for the relief mentioned.” 
This causes me to suggest that the quo- 
tation in italics very well illustrates 
what, during the last two years of dis- 
cussion about Alaska game laws, has 
been the greatest difficulty in establish- 
ing any basis for a common understand- 
ing, because like most of the other writ- 
ers who discuss this subject the writer 
of this editorial seems wholly to fail to 
realize the significance of, and the prac- 
tice under, a wise provision of the pres- 
ent Alaska law. 
To reduce the bag limit — so far as 
Alaska is concerned — it is not necessary, 
as suggested, to put through a new law. 
A provision in the present law permits 
the Secretary of Agriculture at any time 
to reduce the bag limit or to make a 
close season on any game, or to restrict 
in any way the privileges granted by 
the law. This provision does not, how- 
ever permit him to relax any feature of 
the law. If the people of Alaska, or the 
Governor, desire to have the bag limit 
reduced, they have only to give good rea- 
sons and make the request and the Secre- 
tary will act accordingly. Thus far he 
has not failed to do so after every re- 
quest for restrictions from the Alaskans. 
The remarks in the editorial as to the 
inadvisability of granting hunting li- 
censes to those who have the time and 
money to shoot in both Yukon Territory 
and in Alaska the same .season, or on 
the contrary, of permitting licenses for 
such purpose should the bag limits be re- 
duced, may be quite sound in so far as 
the plan relates to the regions along the 
International Boundary line, particularly 
the White River region. But it is very 
questionable whether this plan should be 
applied to other regions, which I believe 
should be treated quite independently 
both by Alaska and by Yukon Territory. 
There is no good reason why a sports- 
man, if he can afford it, should not get 
CHANGES WHICH HAVE R 
By CHARLES SHELDON 
An Alaska sheep hunter 
his legal bag limit of game in one sea- 
son both in any part of Alaska and also 
in the widely separated localities of Yu- 
kon Territory like those of the Upper 
MacMillan, Pelly, and Stuart Rivers, or 
the Ogilvie Rockies. The game of such 
widely separated areas in the Yukon has 
no more relation to that in Alaska, than 
has the game of Florida to that of Ore- 
gon. Such being the case, it would be 
unwise to attempt to withdraw the 
possible economic gains which the ex- 
penditures of sportsmen might bring to 
both countries in one season. 
I REGRET very much to have observed 
during the last two years a growing 
feeling on the part of Alaskans, voiced 
by the Governor, antagonistic to outside 
sportsmen. I believe that this has been 
caused by a lack of co-operation on the 
part of both Alaskans and outsiders to 
meet, discuss, and consider broadly the 
whole aspect and significance of the 
problems of game protection. 
I know very well that Alaskans feel 
that outsiders should have nothing to do 
with Alaska game conservation, which 
they believe is purely a question to be 
considered and settled by themselves, and 
therefore they resent the intrusion of 
outside influence. It is also clear to me 
that this feeling has developed because 
most of the Alaskans have been isolated 
at a distance from the wide game pro- 
tective movements in the States, and they 
have been so absorbed in developing their 
country that they are not familiar with 
BEEN PROPOSED 
the growth and spirit of game protection 
as it has developed elsewhere in America. 
They do not realize that the movement 
exisits throughout the United States and 
that it is active in both Federal and 
State regulation, and that the extension 
of its influence to Alaska is nothing ex- 
ceptional, but is only the same practice 
which has been growing for many years. 
The influence has been very real and ef- 
fective, and most of the States once held 
an attitude exactly similar to that now 
existing in Alaska. Long ago the activ- 
ities of the game protection movement 
naturally centered in those organizations 
composed of citizens who were most in- 
terested in the game, and who were will- 
ing to work for its conservation, name- 
ly, Sportsmen’s Organizations. Through 
them the various movements were co-or- 
dinated. For many years throughout the 
States these organizations have been 
active in promoting progressive game 
protective legislation, and practically all 
the good laws, both State and Federal, 
have been enacted owing to their influ- 
ence. These organizations obtained their 
influence by studying the problems and 
by arousing the public interest in behalf 
of sound ideas of game conservation. 
When either good or bad legislation 
is proposed, State or Federal, at once 
Sportsmen’s Organizations are called 
upon for support or opposition. It would 
be a mistake, however, to believe that 
the comparatively few members of these 
organizations are the real force which is 
effective. They only have influence in 
proportion as they represent the major- 
ity of citizens who support their ideas 
and principles and who entrust to them 
the leadership. 
I am sure that it could be made clear 
to the Alaskans that outside interest in 
their game is not, as they suppose, mere- 
ly the selfish interest of the few mem- 
bers of Sportsmen’s Clubs especially se- 
lecting the game of Alaska for protection 
because it is abundant and provides good 
sport. The interest in Alaska game is 
only a part of the whole game conserva- 
tion movement supported generally by all 
our citizens, and Alaska is included in 
the movement just in the same way that 
every individual State is included in it. 
It is only natural that because of the 
abundance of game in Alaska much in- 
terest in it centers there where laws are 
made by United States citizens, who feel 
the responsibility for them, through Con- 
gress. 
I N the States a proportion of the people 
feel an aesthetic interest in the game. 
I thoroughly believe that like propor- 
tion of Alaskans have the same feeling. 
But I also know that appeals to them 
to preserve their game on this grounu 
alone will be wasted, if they think that 
(continued on page 158) 
