NOV. 22, 1913. 
FOREST AND STREAM 
649 
The State and Private Shooting Preserve 
By HENRY CHASE. 
Bibber and Jim Lubee weren't novices at the 
game, either. 
“Coming,” said Frank, tensely. We sighted 
six what we called “horseheads” (surf scooter). 
They came until we could distinguish their white 
eyes and red bills, then we gave them a barrel 
each. The leader wavered for a moment, hesi¬ 
tated, then crumpled and fell. Again we opened 
up and three more dropped out. The remain¬ 
ing two, widely separated, flew over one of the 
Bailey’s Island youngsters. He stopped one, 
then as easily as anything you could imagine 
completed a pretty double by downing the other. 
I wish I could have done it that way. 
I was reaching into my “ferkin” for shells 
when Frank fired twice so quickly that I almost 
jumped overboard. He had cut three out of a 
bunch of five that had picked up our rear de¬ 
coys. I had forgotten all about them. One of 
these, a cripple, swam over toward “Wood” 
Bibber, and he obligingly shot it for us. Such 
was the cooting fraternity of those days. 
I remember one old fellow from the islands. 
He was shooting a single barrel muzzleloader. 
The ancient weapon was somewhere in the neigh¬ 
borhood of seven feet in length. It was a regu¬ 
lar “scatter gun” and kicked like a mule. When 
he fired into a bunch of coots they fell all along 
the line. 
The wind was freshening. Off around Half¬ 
way Rock the surf was rolling and piling at a 
great rate. Jacquish Shoals were breaking 
feather white and the “Boom! boom!” of the 
combers on the island was becoming more fre¬ 
quent. The spectacle of these lashings and 
splashings didn’t exactly tend to soothe the tur¬ 
moil in my stomach, and I suggested mildly that 
we really ought to be getting in. I anticipated 
an argument from Frank, but contrary to cus¬ 
tom he readily agreed. It wouldn’t have been 
hard to guess why. Just as soon as we got by 
the end of Bailey’s Island, the seasickness left. 
But the ducks remained. 
Books Received. 
The Boy Scouts’ Hike Book, by Edward Cave, 
Doubleday, Page & Co., 243 pages, 100 illus¬ 
trations, price 50 cents. 
This book is a real necessity for the boy on 
a hike, be he boy scout or boy grown to man¬ 
hood. It ought to be subtitled, “boys’ size.” 
It is written simply so that boy or novice man 
may get all there is in it, and not need a copy 
of Nessmuk or Eddy Breck as a reference book. 
The author says—Flike—“anything from a half 
hour walk to a 1.000-mile bicycle trip. This 
book tells all you need to know”—and we think 
it does. Mr. Cave is a practical camper, having 
learned from years of experience on the trail, 
while as editor of Recreation he has handled 
enough “theoretical copy” to know what not to 
use. In addition to which he is a scout master. 
Some of the chapters are devoted to How to 
Walk, The Hikers’ Kit, Grub, Tents and Tent 
Making, Making Camp, Rough Weather, Explor¬ 
ation, Woodcraft, Emergencies, Observations, 
Useful Hints. It is a book for every outdoor 
boy, be he scout or just plain boy. Get a copy 
for your son, and he will soon grow to a man 
in woods lore. 
We live to learn; and only when 
We learn to give, 
We live to learn that only then 
We learn to live. 
W HAT should be the public policy of the 
state government toward private shoot¬ 
ing preserves? Here is a question, not 
only of vital moment to sportsmen and game 
conservationists, but of great importance to all 
citizens who believe in popular forms of govern¬ 
ment. It is also one of the pressing problems of 
the hour in connection with game protection. In 
the past it has received but scant attention by 
sportsmen, except in those sections where such 
establishments have become numerous and ob¬ 
noxious, and there they have been universally 
condemned. In other places they have been wel¬ 
comed. And there appears to be quite a large 
body of worthy sportsmen who believe that the 
private preserve offers the only logical solution 
of the game preservation problem of this coun¬ 
try. Some states have enacted laws giving special 
privileges to such preserves, while others have by 
indirect legislation committed reprisals on them 
and treated them harshly. Which is right? In 
my humble judgment both policies are wrong in 
principle. Private shooting preserves should be 
treated exactly the same as the general law of 
the land treats other private rights, privileges 
and business enterprises. The state government 
should offer them no special privileges or en¬ 
couragement, nor should it discriminate against 
them and deny them the equal protection of the 
law unless they become too arrogant and act as 
oppressors of the people’s substantial public 
rights. 
I shall now attempt to show why I consider 
this is the proper attitude for the states to adopt. 
At the outset, however, permit me to say that 
personally I am and always have been opposed 
to great private shooting preserves, as I think 
they are a distinct detriment to the cause of 
game conservation in the interest of the many, 
and it certainly cannot be denied that they are of 
no public benefit whatever. Nevertheless, I rec¬ 
ognize facts and conditions as they exist, and 
owing to present conditions in some states I 
cannot believe that there the private preserve is 
an unmitigated evil that should be at once abated. 
If the people of a state do not take sufficient 
interest in game and fish protection to act affirm¬ 
atively in that behalf, then they have no just 
cause to complain of preserves usurping their 
free rights and privileges in regard to hunting 
and fishing. These preserves follow as a natural 
consequence of the people’s neglect and indiffer¬ 
ence toward preserving their game supply. Pri¬ 
vate preserves are the rule in all countries, ex¬ 
cept those upon the Western Hemisphere, and 
they are coming into existence here at an alarm¬ 
ing rate. If the public will not conserve its 
game in the interest of all its citizens, then 
wealthy sportsmen will do so for their own pri¬ 
vate enjoyment. 
In pursuing this discussion we should not 
include as private shooting grounds such institu¬ 
tions as 'bird refuges, game farms and game 
breeders’ establishments, for all of these are of 
some public benefit and it should be the policy 
of a state to encourage them. Let us consider 
rather, those large tracts of wild land and shore 
marshes owned by wealthy men and clubs and 
used for the purpose of private shooting to the 
exclusion of the public. 
Why should a state extend to these estab¬ 
lishments any special privileges? That is the 
first question of importance. Suppose you pur¬ 
chase a large tract of land and set up thereon a 
farming, lumbering or manufacturing business 
for your own private profit. Will the state offer 
you any special privileges for your enterprise? 
Would you even ask or expect such a favor? 
Certainly not. Then why should it offer special 
inducements to private preserves?- They are 
merely private enterprises, also, with no purpose 
or motive of benefitting the public. 
On the other hand, we can readily under¬ 
stand why some of the states condemn these pre¬ 
serves. The people feel that their rights and 
privileges have been unjustly curtailed when a 
few wealthy men buy up a whole township and 
exclude them from hunting- or fishing thereon. 
But if the state would simply extend to preserve 
owners the same legal rights vested in owners of 
real estate, and nothing more, there would not 
be so much ground for complaint against these 
establishments. Let us see, now, what are the 
rights of landowners with respect to game and 
fish found at large upon their premises. There 
is some conflict among the court decisions upon 
this subject, and we cannot say the policy of the 
various states is uniform in that respect. Still 
there are general principles of law and justice 
which cannot be gainsaid. The owner of the 
soil undoubtedly has the exclusive right to hunt 
and fish on his own land when the state permits 
its citizens generally to enjoy such a privilege. 
He has the right to forbid trespassing thereon, 
and if he should stock his land and propagate 
at his own expense all the game and fish found 
there, the universal principles of law and justice 
demand that this should be his private property. 
However, all private property is subject to regu¬ 
lation by the state in the interest of the public 
welfare. Therefore, the preserve owner must 
submit to reasonable game laws, enacted in the 
interest of all the people, the same as other citi¬ 
zens. But the question is, has the landowner 
any property rights in the game or fish on his 
premises which was found there when he took 
possession and which comes from without his 
inclosure? The highest courts of Illinois, New 
York and other states tell us he has not. These 
jurists hold the principle of law to be that the 
right to hunt or fish is a boon or privilege which 
may be granted to or withheld from individuals 
as the state legislature may deem best for the 
public welfare; and, as the individual has no 
inherent property 'in game found at large on his 
land, nothing belonging to him is taken from him 
if this privilege is withheld from him. 
The above is the settled law in those states, 
while in others the view taken by the Vermont 
supreme court prevails, which is to this effect: 
The general ownership of game is in the people 
in their united sovereignty, but when such ani¬ 
mals go upon private grounds, then the special 
right of property in the owner of the soil attaches 
by virtue of his exclusive right to hunt, kill or 
capture them while there, and this is upon the 
principle that property which a person has the 
special right to acquire to the exclusion of others, 
is private property. 
Let this property question, however, be final¬ 
ly settled as it may, there can be no doubt of the 
right of the state to regulate the privilege of 
hunting and fishing within its borders in order 
to preserve its game and fish from extermination. 
Aside from this, why should a state legislature 
enact a statute providing for a special forfeiture 
in the nature of a penalty against one who tres¬ 
passes on a private preserve, when if the same 
person trespassed upon the land of some farmer, 
lumberman or manufacturer he is not subject to 
such a forfeiture? Why confer this special right 
upon preserve owners? They are doing nothing 
