580 
FOREST AND STREAM 
lucination that a skirt in rough or brushy or 
heavily wooded country is not a handicap, borrow 
one some evening, as abbreviated as you please, 
and then rustle around a bit out side, climb a few 
fences and scramble through a few bushes. 
I know one lady who attempted to follow us 
through a manzanita patch after bear. She wore 
a khaki knee-length skirt of what would be 
scanty dimensions for bird shooting. She got 
just four* hundred yards, after a struggle that 
nearly exhausted her, then wound up in a hot 
catch-as-catch-can match with an eager bush 
which desired to see how that skirt fitted it. That 
wound up the skirt proposition on that hunt. If 
the lady really intends to get out and hunt, to 
follow you into the country where lives the big 
game, then she’s got to wear your sort of clothes 
or come to grief. 
Knickers, as furnished by the big New York 
I T was Forest and Stream which first an¬ 
nounced the great principle of conservation 
that “the sale of game should be forbidden 
by law at all times.” Since that early announce¬ 
ment it has come to be universally recognized 
that that doctrine is an absolutely essential part 
of any real system of government conservation of 
our wild life. The commercialization of game 
and this true principle cannot possibly exist side 
by side. They are like oil and water and will not 
mix. In view of this fact, and inasmuch as 
Forest and Stream has always stood firmly for 
government conservation in the interest of all 
sportsmen, rather than conservation for the bene¬ 
fit of a privileged class, it seems fitting to call 
attention in these columns to the true significance 
of the so-called “more game” movement. 
“More game and fewer game laws,” is the 
slogan of a new set of theorists in this country. 
This is, indeed, an alluring catch-phrase for 
sportsmen. It sounds pleasing to the ear, and 
meets the desire of every man and boy of us who 
is fond of hunting. We all wish it could be so. 
But if we put this slogan to the test of practica¬ 
bility, and so analyze it as to bring out its true 
meaning, what do we find? We quickly discover 
that, as far as the sportsmen in general are con¬ 
cerned, it is a siren call and very deceiving. 
There is no altruistic motive back of it at all, and 
it finally resolves itself into this: More game for 
a special class of people. That is, more game for 
those who can afford to engage, either individu¬ 
ally or as members of some organization, in the 
business of breeding, raising and protecting game 
for their own private profit or enjoyment, and 
fewer game laws to hamper or restrict this class 
in attaining their desired end, with special regu¬ 
lations to meet their wants and encourage them. 
In other words, the advocates of this new creed 
want to commercialize game and enjoy the privi¬ 
lege of killing it on their premises free from any 
legislative restrictions. 
This idea is not exactly new. It prevails in 
most foreign monarchies and other countries, 
save those of the Western hemisphere, and we 
must admit it is obtaining a strong foothold in 
sporting goods supply houses, are good, but I 
think the riding trousers of these establishments 
are preferable. They should be made of material 
similar to our army olive drab, made plenty large, 
and should lace up the calf, as do the breeches 
used by the men of the army. The puttee leg- 
gins go over the laced up portion of the trousers, 
and there is no possibility for brush to disturb 
the adjustment at the knee, as there is with 
knickers. They should be loose enough at the 
knee so the leg can be bent as far as it will go 
without a feeling of binding. Needless to say, 
the proper outdoor equipment of this sort is the 
one that least accentuates feminine lines. 
An equipment of the sort is sensible and modest, 
but at the same time, when entering ranches, or 
settlements, particularly if on horseback, the lady 
feels more comfortable if in her familiar skirts. 
(To be concluded.) 
Canada and parts of this country. The writer has 
often called attention to the fact that history 
shows this system is the result of the selfishness 
and indifference on the part of the people of a 
nation toward their game supply. As a body, such 
people take less interest in preserving their game 
than in killing it. They seem unwilling to curtail 
their selfish desires until the game is about exter¬ 
minated, and then the wealthy class take up the 
matter and continue the preservation movement 
for their own private enjoyment. 
For one, however, I cannot assent to this 
“more game and fewer game laws” movement, 
unless I can be convinced that our supply of game 
has so diminished that further efforts to have and 
replenish it by state agency are futile. At pres¬ 
ent I cannot concede that this condition exists, 
and, therefore, I must reject this idea, because I 
believe in conservation for the public good. 
Nevertheless, I could not see anything particu¬ 
larly wrong in this theory if its advocates did not 
ask for special privileges which serve to injure 
the cause of state preservation, and trench upon 
the duty of the state to conserve its game in the 
interest of all its citizens in common. But right 
there is just where the danger lies in this move¬ 
ment, and its votaries are constantly seeking such 
privileges and immunities. 
They publish a special organ which purports to 
be the mouthpiece of private shooting preserve 
owners, dealers in live and. dead game, hotel keep¬ 
ers who desire to serve game to their guests, and 
those who wish to engage in breeding game as a 
private enterprise. The interests of this class are 
inimical to the great body of sportsmen in gen¬ 
eral. As such this organ may possibly have its 
legitimate place, just as the organs of certain 
farming, manufacturing, mining, financial and 
other interests have their place, and as long as it 
keeps within its proper sphere no one can take 
exception to it. But when this publication openly 
advocates special privileges for its patrons at the 
expense of the rights of the public in game, and 
proclaims its theory as the only proper one to be 
adopted in this country, then some of us do most 
strenuously object to its views. 
In reference to the sale of and traffic in game, 
there is this to be said: If it should be found 
that a system can be devised whereby game pri¬ 
vately bred can be positively identified and distin¬ 
guished from wild public game, there may be no 
harm in permitting its sale as a legitimate article 
of food. But can this be done? That’s the ques¬ 
tion. Can it be so arranged that market hunting 
will be wholly destroyed, and still permit these 
sales to be legalized? Personally, I am from 
Missouri on this question and “want to be shown.” 
As to special privileges: I find upon examina¬ 
tion of the statutes of a number of states that to 
owners of land devoted to private shooting pre¬ 
serves, game breeding or private fish culture, have 
been granted many unjust special privileges, and 
they are constantly seeking more in this line. For 
instance, in many states where a person trespasses 
on such premises the landowner can recover, in 
addition to any real substantial damage done to 
his property, a specific sum of money in the 
nature of a penalty. In other states such trespass 
is made a crime and punishable by the state. Why 
should this be so? These people are merely en¬ 
gaged in private enterprises and should be sub¬ 
ject to the general laws in the same way that any 
other business is, and surely they have no right 
to claim that their establishments confer any pub¬ 
lic benefit for which they are entitled to special 
protection and privileges. Also, preserve owners 
want longer open seasons on their places and no 
bag limit to their kill. Of course, if all the game 
on their places was bred and raised by them¬ 
selves there could not be very serious objection to 
this, but this is not and cannot possibly be so. 
Some game from the outside, owned by the pub¬ 
lic in common, is sure to be taken, so when they 
get this privilege it is extending to them a vicious 
class demand. 
To sum up, then, the true significance of this 
new movement is that its success would spell the 
end of free hunting in America. It means that 
nine out of ten of us would be compelled to lay 
aside our rods and guns forever; that Americans 
would cease to be a race of expert marksmen able 
to cope with the trained armies of Europe; that 
the National government could not depend upon 
its volunteer soldier, trained to resourcefulness 
m the wilds, in time of danger; that we should 
be compelled to support a large standing army 
manufactured out of mollycoddles unused to 
handling firearms, and it threatens a general 
weakening of the race from lack of outdoor ex¬ 
ercise. Can any human mind be so obtuse as to 
doubt that this would be the logical and inevi¬ 
table result of this new propaganda? Let me 
illustrate. 
Suppose this new creed attains the dimensions 
of a fad, and suppose, further, that every farmer 
and other owner of wild land should conclude 
there is profit or pleasure in raising game or cul¬ 
tivating fish on his premises. Of course, it fol¬ 
lows that they will all post their lands and exclude 
the public therefrom. Meantime, wealthy sports¬ 
men will not worry. Either individually or as 
club members they will have their private shoot¬ 
ing grounds. Certainly, these, too, will be posted. 
Now, in the name of common-sense, where is the 
average sportsman going to hunt or fish? He 
cannot afford such luxuries, and severe penalties 
are prescribed against him for even setting his 
(Continued on page 601.) 
Significance of the So-Called “More Game” 
Doctrine. 
By Henry Chase. 
