138 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Jan. 31, 1914. 
An Object Lesson in Game Conservation 
By Henry Chase 
Author of “Game Protection and Propagation in America.” 
T HE history of the deer of Vermont is, in¬ 
deed, an interesting and absorbing subject. 
It is not only of interest locally to the 
people of that state, and absorbing to those who 
are striving for the conservation of our wild 
life, but it is both interesting and absorbing to 
the people of this nation. Particularly is this 
latter statement true as to the American sports¬ 
men. It furnishes an object lesson in game con¬ 
servation to every state in the Union, for the 
bare statement of the true facts and figures can¬ 
not be gainsaid as a real demonstration, and what 
Vermont has accomplished for its deer any other 
state may do for its local game by intelligent 
and positive action. Above all it conclusively 
proves that the game of a state may be pre¬ 
served and increased by wholesome protective 
laws which are properly enforced. 
Before proceeding with our narrative of facts, 
however, it is important to recall and constantly 
bear in mind that Vermont, with a total area of 
9,565 square miles, is among the smallest states 
of the Union—only New Hampshire, Massachu¬ 
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey 
and Delaware being smaller—and yet in 1900 over 
600 deer were killed in each of its counties of 
Windsor, Washington and Rutland, the county 
of Windsor alone reporting 870 deer lawfully 
taken during the open season. The same year 
the great state of Pennsylvania, with a total area 
of 45,215 square miles, or about five times as 
large and with equally good deer territory with¬ 
in its borders, reported to Dr. Palmer of the 
U. S. Biological Survey, that only about 500 deer 
had been taken in the entire state. 
When the hardy New England pioneers from 
Connecticut and New Hampshire first arrived 
in Vermont about the middle of the eighteenth 
century they found the ancient Green Mountains, 
which form the backbone of the state, filled 
with game of every description and the clear, 
sparkling waters therein teeming with speckled 
brook trout and other varieties of food fish. So 
plentiful, in fact, were the game and fish that 
they furnished the principal articles of diet on 
the tables of the early settlers, while the pelts of 
the numerous fur-bearing animals supplied them 
with warm clothing with which to withstand the 
long and rigorous winters. Prof. Samuel Wil¬ 
liams, in his Natural and Civil History of Ver¬ 
mont, prepared by him in 1807 and which is con¬ 
sidered an authority on this subject, says: “The 
deer is one of our most common animals. * * 
The deer are numerous in Vermont and on ac¬ 
count of their flesh and skin are of much value.” 
(Page 102 id.) “Our forests afford shelter and 
nourishment for the moose, bear, wolf, deer, fox, 
wild-cat, raccoon, porcupine, woodchuck, skunk, 
martin, hare, rabbit, weasel, ermine, squirrel, 
mole and mouse. In our rivers, ponds and lakes 
the beaver, muskrat, mink and otter are found 
in large numbers.” (Page 98 id.) It seems that 
the people of this state never made any consistent 
effort to protect any of this game in the early 
days, except the deer alone. In 1842 Thompson’s 
famous history of Vermont was published, and 
it is significant to note what the author of that 
work says regarding the deer of his time. He 
says: “When the country was new this deer 
(the Virginia, or white-tail deer) was one of the 
most common and valuable quadrupeds found in 
our forests, and upon its flesh were the first set¬ 
tlers of the state, to a very considrable extent, 
dependent for food. Indeed, so eagerly was it 
hunted, and still so anxious were the people for 
its preservation, that a law for its protection 
from the 10th of December to the 10th of June 
was one of the earliest acts of our legislature. 
But notwithstanding all that has been done for 
their preservation, their numbers have been con¬ 
stantly diminishing within the state, till they 
have become exceedingly scarce, except in a few 
of the most unsettled and woody sections.” 
(Part I, chap. 2, p. 51.) At present we would be 
inclined to think our ancestors were using poor 
judgment in not prescribing a close season per¬ 
manently at that time and thus save the remnant 
of their deer supply. But they did not do so and 
the natural consequences, with which we are now 
so familiar, followed as a matter of course and 
the deer were practically exterminated. 
But to go back for a moment. The constant 
pursuit of these animals in those early days with 
flint-lock rifle, crude trap and fishing rod soon 
converted these people into a hardy, resourceful 
race of skilled marksmen and brave people. 
From the standpoint of the sociologist their chief 
characteristics were their independence and inhe¬ 
rent love of liberty, which they prized above 
everything except life itself. Their habit of 
wandering afar in pursuit of their quarry, with¬ 
out let or hindrance, and unrestrained by local 
custom or law, naturally tended to develop this 
spirit of independence and liberty to its utmost. 
From all we are able to gather at present day, 
while we know the deer were plentiful in those 
early times, yet they were never so numerous 
in the history of the state as they were in 1909. 
This is significant in itself. Excepting an act 
passed in 1812 to protect the muskrat of the 
state, no protective measures were enacted but 
the one above mentioned by Prof. Thompson, 
passed in 1797, providing for a six months’ close 
season for deer. In the meantime the people of 
the state placed in their first constitution, adopt¬ 
ed in 1777, a provision to secure and safeguard 
their rights of free hunting and fishing—the lib¬ 
erty to hunt on all uninclosed land and to fish 
in all boatable waters. That provision still con¬ 
tinues a part of the constitution of Vermont. 
(See section 40, chapter II, con. of Vt.) 
Now, it seems that the above constitutional 
rights of the people were deemed by them so 
sacred and valuable that for many years after 
the adoption of this provision it was a bold legis¬ 
lator who dared to propose any sort of measure 
to protect the game. The result was the inhabi¬ 
tants of the state were left unrestrained by law 
for many years to hunt and fish when, where and 
howsoever they pleased, and gradually, but sure¬ 
ly, the deer were almost wholly exterminated. 
In some parts of the state a few escaped the 
hunters and survived, but over far the greater 
part they were completely wiped out. This con¬ 
dition continued for many years. The first col¬ 
lected and revised edition of the statutes of the 
state was authorized by the legislature of 1837 
and is known as the “Revised Statutes.” It con¬ 
tained one chapter, number 90, on the “preserva¬ 
tion of game and the destruction of noxious 
animals.” Section 1 of this chapter made it an 
offense, punishable by a fine of $10, to kill “any 
wild buck or doe, fawn or any other kind of 
deer, between the tenth of January and the first 
day of the following July.” The remainder of 
the chapter consisted of provisions offering 
bounties on wolves, panthers, bears and foxes. 
Until during the late seventies the above includ¬ 
ed about all the game laws that existed in Ver¬ 
mont. In 1876 the first real step was taken to¬ 
ward rehabilitating the deer. In that year the 
legislature provided for a close season on deer 
until September 1, 1880. 
This act caused an agitation among the sports¬ 
men of the state to consider ways and means of 
re-establishing the deer in their former haunts, 
and some worthy men in the southern counties 
immediately took decisive action. But what did 
they do? What was that action? Did they plan 
a private shooting preserve for their own profit 
and enjoyment? Not them. No such idea ever 
entered their minds. They were true sportsmen 
and good citizens, seeking only to benefit their 
brethren and promote the best interests of. their 
commonwealth. Hence, their names deserve to 
go down in the history of sportsmanship as real 
brothers of the great outdoor guild. They were 
Dr. Middleton Goldsmith, Martin G. Evarts, 
Wm. Y. W. Ripley, James C. Dunn, Wallace C. 
Clement, Percival W. Clement, Waldo P. Clem¬ 
ent, Edward H. Ripley, Frederick Chaffee, Sam¬ 
uel E. Burnham, Henry W. Cheney, Dr. A. Kil- 
burn, Levi G. Kingsley, Walter C. Landon, Henry 
A. Sawyer, Redfield Proctor and Albert F. 
Davis, all of Rutland; Mason S. Colburn and 
Charles F. Orvis, of Manchester, and ex-Gov. 
Fairbanks of St. Johnsbury. 
“Prior to 1878,” says ex-Game Commissioner 
Thomas in one of his biennial reports, “to see a 
deer in Vermont was certainly a rarity, and if 
one was seen it was of so much importance it 
was published by the press throughout the 
state.” This gives an idea of how scarce the deer 
were at that time. During the above year these 
sportsmen raised a fund among themselves with 
which they procured 17 deer. Ten were pur¬ 
chased from the keeper of the state’s prison at 
Dannemora, New York, and the others secured 
elsewhere by purchase and gift. In the months 
