170 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Aug. io, 1912 
The Duties of Game Protectors 
By T. S. PALMER, Assistant Chief, U. S. Biological Survey 
Read at Annual Convention of Game Protectors of New York State. 
around the red boulder for the second time. 
His troutship was waiting and so was I. Well 
hooked, instantly he went into the air, shaking 
himself as does a small-mouth black bass in a 
vain effort to be rid of the hook. Then straight 
across the river he dashed, the line ripping through 
the water, throwing up a thin foam against 
which the sun built fairy castles, destroying them 
instantly. The line sang, but not so loud as to 
still the beating of my heart. The battle lasted 
for fifteen minutes or so, then suddenly came 
the end, and the rainbow was struggling in my 
landing net and I towed him ashore. Did you ever 
think of it, when you play a large fish to the 
finish, the finish comes suddenly? All at once, 
after fighting strenuously for half an hour per¬ 
haps, the fish comes to the conclusion that the 
game is not worth the candle and gives up ; at 
least that has been my usual experience. The 
fish was not over large; weighed two and a half 
pounds when hooked on the pocket scales. In 
the stream he was a five-pound fish, and had 
he escaped would have gone down in memory 
as such. You can draw your own conclusions 
from that statement concerning my large fish 
that “get away.” 
At 2 o’clock I was compelled to leave the 
stream in order to catch my train, but when I 
did so my basket contained sixteen good fish; 
rainbow and trout beside the large one, and I 
was satisfied. When my driver asked: “How 
is To-morrow to-day?” I replied: “To-morrow 
to-day is more satisfactory than To-morrow was 
yesterdajY’ (Honestly, I do not see how the 
natives stand it, for every visitor must try his 
hand a-playing on the name of the stream, and 
the concoctions of “to-day” and “to-morrow” 
equals Washington cocktail.) 
The To-morrow River is not as well known 
as it should be, though there are a few Chicago 
and Milwaukee anglers who visit it regularly. 
Perhaps it is best early in the season if one can 
hit the right combination of weather, though 
I hope to speak from personal experience con¬ 
cerning August fishing when this season closes. 
The stream can be conveniently reached from 
the Windy City. A night train will land a man 
in Waupaca, Amherst or Amherst Junction at 
such an hour that a day’s fishing can be enjoyed 
and the return made again at night. The hotel 
accommodations are good, or one can put up 
with a farmer who lives right on the stream, 
which to my mind is much the best plan and 
saves the drive to and from town. The Green 
Bay and Western road runs trains most con¬ 
veniently for those who can reach it. Go to 
the To-morrow and put up at a little red farm¬ 
house for a week and see if you do not fall in 
love with the stream as I have done. 
Wild Ducks Brooding in New Jersey. 
Chatham, N. J., July 31.—For the first time 
in twenty years wild ducks are brooding in the 
meadows of the Passaic known as Big Piece, 
Little Piece, Swinefield, Troy, Black and Great 
meadows between Two Bridges and Hanover. 
Farmers cutting meadow grass report see¬ 
ing broods of woodduck, teal, beach duck, mal¬ 
lards and spoonbills. 
The cold and wet spring and the law against 
shooting wildfowl at that season are assigned 
as the causes of the ducks staying there to 
brood. — N. Y. Sun. 
T WO years ago when I had the pleasure of 
addressing the convention of New York 
game protectors, I endeavored to show 
that the work of the game protector or warden 
should be regarded as a profession rather than 
a temporary job, and in order to succeed, the 
officer must do much more than perform, in a 
perfunctory way, ordinary police duties. The 
subject assigned to me is along the same 
general line, probably for the reason that on 
the protector’s efficiency depends very largely 
the success of the work of game protection. It 
is natural that the protector and his work should 
receive careful consideration, not only by the 
Conservation Commission, but by the general 
public, when it is recalled that one of the largest 
expenditures for game protection is the outlay 
for salaries, fees and traveling expenses of war¬ 
dens. The results obtained by these expendi¬ 
tures are usually the main return which the gen¬ 
eral public receives for the special tax or license 
fee which it cheerfully pays to carry on the 
work of protecting the game. 
The warden service of the United States is 
different from that of other countries. In England. 
Scotland and Ireland the protection of game is 
chiefly entrusted to gamekeepers employed by 
private individuals, supplemented, of course, as 
with us, by the work of local police officers. In 
Germany the work is performed by forest offi¬ 
cers, who may be either State or municipal of¬ 
ficials, or employed by private individuals, but 
game protection forms only a small part of their 
duties. In the British colonies of East and 
South Africa officials are provided to look after 
the game, but under very different organization 
and conditions from those which obtain in this 
country. In New Zealand, under the act of 1884, 
rangers were authorized to exercise the powers 
of constables in the performance of their duties 
in connection with game. In Canada, the war¬ 
dens, commonly known as game guardians, will 
be found more nearly like our own, but in num¬ 
ber, powers and organization, considerable dif¬ 
ferences will be noticed. In 1910, the last year 
for which statistics have been published, the 
game warden force of the United States num¬ 
bered about 9,354 officers and deputies, distributed 
among forty States. Of these, 748 received 
regular salaries; 1,167 a P er diem, and 7,439 
worked without regular salary, or received as 
compensation fees or part of the fines imposed 
for violations of the game laws. The salaried 
warden force, aggregating about 750 men, was 
distributed among twenty-nine States. Of these 
twelve States had twenty-five or more each and 
six had fifty or more, namely: New Jersey, 25; 
Massachusetts, 30; Indiana, 33; Utah, 34; Maine, 
40; Minnesota, 44; Oregon, 52; South Dakota, 
58; Wisconsin, 60; California, 73; Louisiana, 74, 
and New York. 90.* Even this force in the States 
which had the largest number of wardens was 
entirely inadequate, though it be urged that these 
men are employed largely in a supervisory capa¬ 
city, and form as it were the skeleton of the 
*Under Chap. 318 of the Laws of 1912, this number 
has now been increased to 125, thus giving New York 
the largest salaried warden force in the United States. 
warden service. The result is not reassuring, 
whether measured by area or population. For 
example, theoretically in New Jersey, with its 
area of 7,815 square miles and population of 
2 >537>!67, each protector was responsible for 312 
square miles, or 101,486 people, while in New 
York with its 49,170 square miles of territory 
and 9,113,279 people, each protector was sup¬ 
posed to cover 546 square miles, or watch for 
the violations of about 101,250 persons. Of 
course these figures, while convenient for com¬ 
parison, are of relative value only, and do not 
represent actual conditions, since the protectors 
are not evenly distributed. 
Turning for a moment to the origin of 
our warden system it will be interesting to see 
how this specialized body of men came into ex¬ 
istence, and what progress has been made in its 
organization. The officer in charge of game is 
commonly known as a game warden; in New 
Jersey and New York, as a game protector; and 
in several of the Provinces of Canada as a game 
guardian. In all cases the position is practically 
identical, and the title differs only in designa¬ 
tion and not in meaning. The first officials 
charged with the protection of game were ap¬ 
parently those appointed in Massachusetts in 1739 
to enforce the deer laws and were designated in 
1764 as “deer reeves.” This title is interesting 
from a historical standpoint, as the correspond¬ 
ing title is still preserved in the case of one of 
our county officers. In former times the war¬ 
den, protector, or guardian of deer was known 
as the “deer reeve” and the guardian, protector 
or warden of the county or shire, was called the 
“shire reeve.” The latter term exists to-day in 
the form of “sheriff,” but the title “deer reeve” 
has been lost and almost forgotten. 
It was not until nearly a century after 
Massachusetts had provided special game officials 
that the example was followed in other States 
by the appointment of local moose wardens in 
Maine in 1852. For many years these officers 
were paid by fines or on the moiety plan and 
worked more or less independently. In 1878 
California and New Hampshire made provision 
for general officers in charge of the work under 
their State fish and game commissions. Another 
decade passed before the next important step 
was taken. Apparently it was not until 1887 that 
the office of game warden was considered of 
sufficient importance and dignity to be worthy of 
a regular salary. In the last quarter of a cen¬ 
tury progress in the organization of the service 
has been rapid. Nearly two-thirds of the States 
now have commissions or State officers in charge 
of game. New duties and responsibilities have 
been added, a higher standard of work is re¬ 
quired, more care is exercised in making appoint¬ 
ments, five States have applied the merit system 
or civil service methods to selection of war¬ 
dens, and a serious effort is being made to re¬ 
move the service from politics. In many cases 
the compensation has increased so that to-day 
the salaries of deputies or privates range from 
$600 to $1,500 per annum, while those of war¬ 
dens, commissioners or heads of departments 
range from $1,000 to $10,000 per annum. It is 
