Jan. 4, 1513 
FOREST AND STREAM 
13 
Massachusetts F. G. P. Association. 
Boston, Mass., Dec. 27.—Editor Forest and 
Stream: At the conference of Massachusetts 
sportsmen in the Tremont Building, Boston, on 
Dec. 12, fourteen associations were represented. 
From the State association there were present 
several of its officers besides President S. D. 
Charles, who was chosen chairman of the meet¬ 
ing. Commissioner George H. Graham and four 
others represented the Springfield Fish and 
Game Association. Deputy Warden 1 . O. Con¬ 
verse and former representative F. O. Hardy 
appeared for the Fitchburg Sportsman’s Club; 
Bradford S. Turpin represented the Brunswick 
Fur Club, and the New England Fox Hunters’ 
Club sent C. J. Prouty. B. Preston Qark, who 
represented the Pine Island Club, is a son of 
the late Benjamin Cutler Clark, of Boston, for 
several years the popular president of the State 
association. 
The other clubs were the Hampshire County, 
the Eastern Massachusetts, Massachusetts Gun¬ 
ners’ Association, the Middleboro Fish and 
Game Protective Association, the Hudson 
Sportsman’s Association, South Shore Fox 
Hunters’ Club and the Greenfield Sportsman’s 
Club, whose president, H. E. Ward, acted as 
secretary. 
The members present voted unanimously in 
favor of the portion of the first topic which re¬ 
lates to the licensing of cats, and Messrs. Frank 
Murphy, Wm. Minot, Jr., and Geo. B, Clark 
were appointed a committee to prepare a bill. 
The second portion relating to the restraint of 
self-hunting dogs was referred to Messrs. Clark, 
Mason and Prouty to present such a bill as they 
deem proper. 
No. 4 was next considered and a vote was 
passed that the present bag limit on ruffed 
grouse, quail, woodcock and black ducks should 
remain as at present. 
On No. 3 a committee was appointed to 
draft a bill prohibiting all unnaturalized persons 
from carrying firearms for hunting. 
No. 2. As a committee to draw a bill per¬ 
mitting the killing of cock pheasants, Messrs. 
Wm. C. Adams, Geo. M. Poland and John B. 
Smith were appointed. 
No. 5. To restrict the use of “live decoys.” 
Majority vote opposed. 
No. 6. Voted that it is the opinion of this 
convention that the fish and game commissioners 
should see that publicity be given to all viola¬ 
tions of the fish and game laws, and that monthly 
the commissioners should issue a statement re¬ 
porting on the work of the commission for the 
period next preceding to be published in the 
newspapers or otherwise. 
No. 7. Changes in deer laws. A committee 
was appointed to consider and report such a bill 
as they consider desirable. 
NEW MEASURES. 
That the Fish and Game Commission be au¬ 
thorized to close a town or a section of the State 
against hunting birds protected by law. Com¬ 
mittee appointed to draft a bill. 
Committee named to act with reference to 
codifying the game laws. Another committee to 
request the fish and game commissioners to con¬ 
fer with those of other States to secure recip¬ 
rocal laws in regard to foreign licenses. 
Dr. G. W. Field and Geo. H. Garfield, the 
other fish and game commissioners, were present 
throughout the proceedings. 
Henry H. Kimball, 
Secretary Massachusetts F. and G. P. A. 
Present Day Needs in Game Con¬ 
servation. 
BY GOLDEN GATE. 
A SERIES of misleading articles on game con¬ 
servation, recently appeared in one of the San 
Francisco daily papers, the object of these being 
to create an opposition to a measure that will 
SITTING FOR HIS PICTURE. 
probably come before the State Legislature this 
year designed to make it unlawful for game to 
be offered for sale. In these articles assertions 
were made to the effect that in Europe, where 
game is sold, deer are plentiful, and game is no 
nearer extinction than was the case a century 
ago. The California Fish and Game Commis¬ 
sion has prepared a statement in answer to these 
articles for the benefit of the hunters of the 
State, which clearly sets for present conditions, 
this being in part as follows; 
Little need be said about the great slaughter 
of game that has gone on throughout the United 
States. Everyone who knows anything about 
game conditions in the country is aware that 
many varieties of game have become practically 
extinct, and that where formerly game was plen¬ 
tiful, there is now a scarcity. Here in California 
the game is disappearing as it has in various 
other States, and if the present rate of decrease 
continues, it will be but a few years when our 
State will be absolutely barren of game. 
In order not to deplete the supply and still 
allow the people a reasonable number of hunt¬ 
ing days during the year, it will be necessary to 
lessen the number of a species that may be killed 
in one day, and to shorten the season during 
which the species may be lawfully taken. 
It is true that the game belongs to the people 
of the State, but it is likewise true that it is 
the sportsmen of the State who pay for its pro¬ 
tection. The Eish and Game Commission does 
not receive one cent of its support from the 
general tax levy, nor any appropriation from the 
State Legislature. Its general revenue is de¬ 
rived solely from the sale of hunting and fishing 
licenses, and from fines imposed for violation of 
the fish and game laws. 
Unlicensed hunting is permitted in but thir¬ 
teen States in the Union, and the privilege is 
confined to residents only. In but one State, 
Florida, is it extended to include non-residents. 
There are none who would approve of plac¬ 
ing a bounty on game animals, yet allowing game 
to be offered for sale amounts practically to the 
same thing. It puts a price on the head of each 
quail, duck, deer or whatever game is in season, 
and is an incentive to those so inclined to hunt 
for the open market. The market hunter is not 
a producer; he is the reaper of a crop that should 
not be offered for sale. In the experience of 
the California Game Commission and every other 
State Game Commission, the market hunter is 
one of the chief game destroyers throughout the 
country. It was the hide hunter that killed off 
the buffalo; the aigrette hunter has almost ex¬ 
terminated the white heron; the market quail 
hunter has reduced the number of quail in our 
own State to almost the vanishing point, and un¬ 
less prevented it will be the market duck hunter 
that decimates the ducks to such an extent that 
they can no longer be classed as game. More 
than 95 per cent, of the market hunters do not 
stop at the bag limit, thereby violating a law 
that is one of the most important, as well as 
the most difficult of enforcement. 
The game laws should be so drawn that 
allowance is made for the killing of ihe surplus 
without encroaching upon the necessary breeding 
supply; in other words, the season and bag limit 
should be made consistent with the breeding 
capacity of the game. In some foreign countries 
the ownership of game is vested in the owner 
of the land on which the game abounds. Scot¬ 
land, for example, has no deer law, but the deer 
are given protection by the owners of the forests 
in which the deer are found. 
There are killed in Scotland every year 
nearly 7,000 deer. The forests in which deer 
are to be found cover something less than 2,000,- 
000 acres, while in California, with its area of 
158,000 square miles, of which perhaps one-half 
or about 48,000,000 acres, is suited to deer, less 
than 10000 deer were killed last year. Is it not 
possible to develop game in our own State to- 
