Foolish and Ineffective N. Y. Game Laws 
A n EXISTENT INJUSTICE.—I noticed in The 
R. N.-Y. an article by Henry M. Brigham advo¬ 
cating the passage of a law enabling the farmer to 
protect his land from being overrun by so-called 
sportsmen hunting for game. Such a law would, in 
ray opinion, not only be just, but would result in 
a large increase in the amount of game. It seems 
to be the policy of Mr. Pratt, the present head of 
the Conservation Commission, to deprive farmers 
and landowners of the right to protect their lands 
against depredation and to retain what game there 
may be on them for themselves. Under the present 
complicated law it is impracticable to keep the pub¬ 
lic from overrunning other people’s land in pursuit 
of game. They destroy fences. Their dogs run 
sheep. They kill chickens and song birds, and do 
all sorts of things that are injurious. 
THE OWNER’S RIGHTS.—Under our constitu¬ 
tion and laws, the owner of the land is entitled to its 
exclusive use. and to every benefit arising from such 
ownership. The policy of the present Conservation 
Commission is to make the rights of the owners sub¬ 
own land. This, Mr. Pratt, the Conservation Com¬ 
missioner, refuses to do or to try to do. 
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. — Landowners will 
not propagate and preserve game upon their lands 
simply for the purpose of attracting the rabble to 
kill it, and at the same time commit depredations. 
My own experiences are in point. I undertook to 
form a refuge for pheasants upon a tract of land 
particularly adapted for the purpose. I posted the 
land under the present law at considerable expense. 
I raised and released about 75 pheasants upon it. 
which I did not intend to shoot, in the hope that 
they would remain there, breed and spread over the 
adjoining country. Two men, one colored and one 
white, were found shooting these birds; when or¬ 
dered off they refused to go, stating that the land 
was not properly posted and that they were only 
liable to the sum of six cents for trespass, and that 
the sport they were having was worth more. They 
continued to shoot many of these birds, and drove 
the rest away. Subsequent examination disclosed 
that they were right. Many of the notices had been 
each year, although there is practically no game to 
protect, except deer and . ild ducks. The present 
policy of the commission, so far as game birds are 
concerned, is not only ineffective, but tends to de¬ 
feat the very purpose for which it was created. If 
the law provided that no person should shoot upon 
another person’s land without written permission, 
it would be but a short time before the farmers and 
landowners would feed, protect and propagate game, 
because game adds greatly to the value of the land, 
£and is profitable. Many people living on farms 
would doubtless raise pheasants if for no other pur¬ 
pose than seeing them about, were it not that rais¬ 
ing such game would simply entice trespassers. 
Under the present law should a farmer’s young 
daughter buy a few pheasants’ eggs and hatch them 
under a hen. without paying $5 license fee. she 
would be liable to a fine of $25. What an incentive 
to raise game birds! The general policy of the 
commission seems to be to maintain a voluminous 
and complicated system of laws for the protection 
of game which is rapidly ceasing to exist, and fail- 
servient to the use of the public, to open all private 
lands to the use of the public for the purpose of 
shooting thereon. The result of this policy is not 
onl\ injurious to the owners, but tends to defeat one 
ot the very purposes for which the Conservation 
Commission was created, viz., to increase the pro¬ 
duction and supply of game and increase the food 
supply. 
A FALLACIOUS VIEW.—The Commissioner 
apparently impressed with the idea that a grea 
\olumiuous and complicated system of laws minute 
icgulatiug the killing and possession of game 
''hat is most necessary. The Commission is e 
deavoring to protect and preserve something tin 
hardly exists any more. It attempts to protect at 
preserve and persists in a system which will abs 
luielv destroy that which it desires to preserve, 
destroys with one hand that which it attempts i 
piosorve with the other, and the destructive hand 
much more effective than the protective hand. T1 
Commission refuses to recognize and profit by tl 
ixpeiionce of all the older countries whose polk 
has resulted in an abundance of game both for foe 
••md sport; neither will it profit by the experience i 
" ur °' vn country. Experience has demonstrated 
as a fact that, in order to have an abundance ( 
-aiiie. die landowner must be given an absolul 
'i-ht to propagate, preserve and protect it on h 
A Fluclc of Mater Babies and their Nurse. Fiy. 180 
torn down: perhaps the trespassers themselves had 
torn them down, but this was, of course, impossible 
for me to prove. The State of New York is spending 
large sums of money yearly in maintaining game 
farms and raising pheasants. For what purpose? 
For the rabble to shoot? Is it is not absurd that the 
State should spend large sums of money for the 
raising of a few pheasants in order that the rabble 
may have a little pheasant shooting, which really 
amounts to very little? 
A LEGAL ABSURDITY.—If it is the claim of the 
Conservation Commission that these farms are main¬ 
tained for the propagation of pheasants, the claim 
is absolutely refuted by the provisions of the law 
itself, which has the approval of the Commission. 
The law provides that the birds shall be distributed 
free to those who apply for them. But should such 
applicant turn them loose upon his own laud, such 
land by that act cannot be protected. 11 becomes open 
to the public. The rabble then becomes possessed 
of the right not only to kill the few birds turned out. 
but all other birds. A person accepting these birds 
simply opens his land to public depredation. Can 
a more foolish sta.te policy be imagined? The State 
game farm should be abolished or the policy entirely 
changed. 
USELESS EXPENSE.—The protection of game 
in this State costs the State a large sum of money 
ure t<> take available measures either for the con¬ 
tinued existence or increase of such game. 
EDWARD G. WHITAKER. 
New York Supreme Court. 
Tame Rabbits and Injured Trees 
Last Spring I bought SO peach trees. They arrived 
safely and looked tine: looked so fine that I hated to 
follow planting directions and cut the beautifully-shaped 
trees back to whips or sticks two or three feet high. 
But I did it. planting them in my chicken yards. How 
they grew! Neighbors came along and said if I did 
not get any peaches the season they were set out I 
surely would rhe following year. Last Fall I carefully 
cleaned up about them for fear of rats, and I trusted 
they would winter all right. Last Summer a neighbor 
went into the Belgian hare business, of which I knew 
not. When her garden was over and the ground frozen, 
she allowed the hares to run, I am told that they were 
so tame that they returned to their quarters at night. 
When the heavy snows came in January, finding noth¬ 
ing to eat at home, they tackled my peach trees, with 
very disastrous effect. About 40 of them are more or 
less damaged, some girdled completely, some partially 
and some having only their branches girdled. As there 
was a foot or more of snow on the ground the girdling 
was done above the graft. Will it pay to cut these 
trees back lo 12 or 15-inch stumps or whips, or will the 
shock be too much for them? The growth last year was 
so wonderful above ground they probably make a growth 
equally as good with their root systems. I want to save 
a year’s time if possible, because l am getting along. 
What about those that are only half girdled? Will 
these possibly heal over? Those whose lim’" are badly 
damaged can be cut back. As to the Belgian hares, is 
the law up on them in Connecticut? I have been told 
