FOREST AND STREAM 
654 
lessly by. He tried all manner of soft speech to 
separate the quarreling dogs. Failing in this, he 
was heard to remark by a friend who happened 
along at the moment, “Peace, Hector! peace, 
dog! But if thou wilt not have peace, then lay 
hold with all thy might till I can pull thee off!” 
And the good man voiced the sentiments of most 
dog owners. 
The bulldog has changed in many ways since 
the days when his principal occupation was in 
the bull ring. His jaw is far more undershot 
than it was in those days, and he is now used 
principally for exhibition in the show ring. 
There is not a dog show at which his peculiarly 
attractive, but admittedly very homely, counten¬ 
ance is not greatly in evidence. He still retains 
all his old-time courage and strength, but his 
undershot jaw prevents him from possessing the 
tremendously strong hold that he formerly had. 
His quality as a fighting dog is strongly inherited 
in the bull terrier, which combines all of the bull¬ 
dog’s strength and courage with the agility of the 
terrier. 
The strain of the bulldog will always be kept 
pure, if for no other reason than that he will al¬ 
ways be recognized as the greatest line for im¬ 
parting courage to other breeds that happen to 
be lacking in this desirable trait. His intelligence, 
despite assertions to the contrary, is of the high¬ 
est order, and he is capable of learning tricks 
with a facility that is surprising to those who 
have been accustomed to look upon him as a 
mere fighting savage. There is hardly a breed of 
sporting dog that has not at some time or other 
been strengthened by an infusion of bulldog 
blood, and it is to him that we owe the great dis¬ 
plays of grit that so often call forth our admira¬ 
tion in such dogs as the foxhound, the larger 
greyhound, and the pointer. 
When we stop to consider the debt that we owe 
to this snub-nosed, bow-legged animal, as a pro¬ 
ducer of courage for breeds that have since be¬ 
come famed for their pertinacity, we are inclined 
to disagree with the sweeping demand that he be 
wiped off the face of the earth, and to feel all 
the more grateful for the knowledge that the un¬ 
savory reputation he bears in some quarters is 
altogether without justification. 
Virginia Game and Game Fish Protective Association 
Richmond, Va. April 23, 1914. 
Editor Forest and Stream : 
We note in your issue of April 18, page 510, a 
letter from a Mr. Craig Eggleston of Ameiia 
Court House, Va. It has never been our policy 
to indulge in arguments and controversies 
through the medium of the press, but as this let¬ 
ter contains so many statements which cannot be 
substantiated and so many theories which can¬ 
not be proved, we feel it incumbent upon us to 
reply in order that the sportsmen of Virginia 
may not be misinformed. We will take the state¬ 
ments contained in the letter up in sequence. 
(1) The gentlemen states that should “written 
permission” be required in order to hunt on lands, 
that the “shooting rights will be bought up by 
wealthy non-residents and the only amusement 
open to countrymen of ordinary means abolished.” 
Let us ask why should non-residents buy up 
shooting rights after the passage of the Hart- 
White bill to a greater extent than they do at 
present. Would it not be because the non-resi¬ 
dent believed that the passage of this bill would 
increase the game of the state and afford a pro¬ 
tection for his investment? But why should the 
gentleman think that a majority of the land would 
be so controlled by non-residents? Can he give 
any statistics from other states showing that ih;s 
is true? We do not believe that he can. We 
grant that it would encourage the non-resident 
to lease and buy lands in this state but not to an 
extent that would abolish the hunting of the farm¬ 
er. Evidently the gentleman is opposed to an in¬ 
crease in game to such an extent as would atttract 
n< 11-residents simply for the reason that it might 
curtail in a small measure the large hunting ter¬ 
ritory over which he is now shooting. Is this not 
a selfish motive? Is it the motive of a true 
sportsman? Usually when hunting rights are 
bought by non-residents in this state the land 
owners and their sons retain the right to shoot 
over said lands, and are in most cases treated as 
hosts of the non-residents leasing the hunting 
privilege. 
(2) The second paragraph of his letter states 
that it will be practically impossible to determine 
“whose land we are on,” as thousands of acres 
belong to colored people, etc. We agree that it 
is impossible at times to tell when one has crossed 
the boundary line, and one does not know at all 
times on whose property he is hunting, but does 
this change the aspect of the case at all? Em¬ 
phatically, no! for have we any more right to 
hunt on a piece of land whose owner is unknown 
to us and whose boundaries are unfamiliar, than 
we have to hunt on the land which has its boun¬ 
daries clearly marked, and is it not our duty to 
know on whose property we are hunting? Is it 
not always our duty to know on whose lands we 
are trespassing? The day of the free hunter and 
the free range is a thing of the past. It went out 
with the buffalo. Now, if we are not conversant 
with the territory over which we are hunting, 
then it is our duty to engage some one to guide 
us who is conversant with the territory. As the 
law stands at present in this state, we have ab¬ 
solutely no right to walk across or trespass on a 
man’s property, and a penalty is already attached 
for such trespass. In all probability the gentle¬ 
man in question has, from his own confession, 
volated this state law for years. We cannot see 
how anyone can scrape together the slightest bit 
of argument against this clause of “written per¬ 
mission” except that of pure selfishness, and the 
desire to shoot over lands without permission. 
“Written permission” has been required in Ala¬ 
bama since 1907, and we are informed on most 
excellent authority that the farmers themselves 
are the strongest advocates of this particular sec¬ 
tion of the Alabama game laws because it is the 
one means by which the law can be enforced and 
under which the farmers may really enjoy any 
choice or discretion as to who may hunt over 
their property. How is it possible for a man 
who has given the question any thought to make 
a statement that “written permission” to hunt on 
lands is more to the advantage of the city sports¬ 
man than to the advantage of the farmer and 
county land-holder? Is this not absurd on the 
face of it? Why, the average city man does not 
own county property and it is he, the city sports¬ 
man, who must obtain “written permission” to 
shoot. Does it not seem as though the burden 
of the inconvenience is put upon the city man 
rather than the farmer in this case? 
We note the gentleman states that thousands 
of acres belong to colored people. Pray let us 
ask, does he venture to offer this as a reason for 
nt obtaining permission, simply because the man’s 
skin is black? Has not this man the same free 
man's rights under the law as the man with the 
white skin? We ask the gentleman to remember 
that the Hart-White bill was framed from the 
standpoint of justice to all and did not contem¬ 
plate discriminations of color or a consideration 
of previous conditions of servitude. We do not 
agree with him in this statement, and we deny 
that “if a man hunt at all it would mean that he 
would necessarily violate the law,” for it would 
not be a herculean task to obtain this “written 
permission.” There are many convenient ways 
in which a true sportsman could obtain his hunt¬ 
ing permission without undergoing any unneces¬ 
sary expense or loss of time. It is being done in 
several states to the satisfaction of the majority 
concerned, and why can it not be done in Vir¬ 
ginia? 
(3) The gentleman states that “95 per cent, of 
our rural population cherish hunting as their one 
sport and privilege.” Statistics fail to substan¬ 
tiate this statement. From the best information 
obtainable it cannot be shown that more than 10 
per cent, of the population of the state indulge in 
hunting. This information is taken from records 
of the state which require resident hunting 
licenses. 
(4) Now, here is where we absolutely agree 
with the gentleman—when he makes the statement 
that “the people of Virginia have never taken the 
game laws seriously,” and we predict that they 
never will take the game laws seriously until there 
is a state game department formed with a defi¬ 
nite head, said department to have the means 
and authority by which to enforce the statutes 
of the state. 
(5) He states that our “country people” be¬ 
lieve that these laws are put forward by the rich 
city men for selfish purposes. We are not in a posi¬ 
tion to dispute relative to what the correspond¬ 
ent’s neighbors “believe,” but if it is true it only 
shows that Mr. E. and his friends are ignorant 
of the contents and real purposes of that com¬ 
prehensive game law mentioned, for an open- 
minded man cannot take the Hart-White bill as 
passed by the Senate and consider it to read to 
the advantage of the city man rather than the 
farmer. The shoe is most emphatically on the 
other foot. It is undeniably a fact, and can be 
proven, that in those states which have compre¬ 
hensive game laws the farmers receive the great¬ 
est protection and enjoy the greatest benefits 
thereunder. We have on file a letter from a very 
prominent farmer of Powhatan County, Va., and 
which ,in discussing the provisions of the Hart- 
White bill’s contents, he made the following 
statement: “If this proposed law was drafted 
