56 
Published Weekly by the 
Forest and Stream Publishing Company 
Chas. A. Hazen, President Charles L. Wise, Treasurer 
W. G. Beecroft, Secretary Russell A. Lewis, Gen. Mgr. 
22 Thames Street, New York. 
CORRESPONDENCE: —Forest and Stream is the re¬ 
cognized medium of entertainment, instruction and in¬ 
formation between American sportsmen. The editors 
invite communications on the subjects to which its pages 
are devoted, but, of course, are not responsible for the 
views of correspondents. Anonymous communications 
cannot be regarded. 
SUBSCRIPTIONS: $3 a year; $1.50 for six months; 
10 cents a copy. Canadian, $4 a year; foreign, $4.50 a year. 
This paper may be obtained of newsdealers throughout 
the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Foreign 
Subscriptions and Sales Agents—London: Davies & Co., 
1 Finch Lane; Sampson, Low & Co. Paris: Brentano’s. 
Entered in New York Post Office as Second class matter. 
OLD-FASHIONED GAME PROTECTION. 
While a discussion of the question as to what 
constitutes game protection may seem rather 
trite and common-place at this late day, yet it is 
apparent from many novel theories we hear ad¬ 
vanced nowadays that a recurrence to funda¬ 
mental principles may he both wholesome and 
helpful to the cause of wild life conservation. 
Accordingly, let us inquire: What do we mean 
in this country when we refer to “game protec¬ 
tion?” In answer we may say that all intelli¬ 
gent sportsmen agree it consists simply in the 
enactment and enforcement of salutary game 
laws. This being true, we will at once note that 
the essentials of this system are: first, the enact¬ 
ment of such statutes as will prevent indiscrim¬ 
inate slaughter of the wild life, and at the same 
time providing a period of rest or repose where¬ 
by each species is enabled to recuperate by repro¬ 
duction the losses sustained during the killing 
time and thus maintain an even balance of sup¬ 
ply; and, second, a vigorous and continuous en¬ 
forcement of these statutes in order to accom¬ 
plish the results sought by the first essential. 
Certainly the above appears to be such a simple 
and reasonable proposition—appealing alike to 
our knowledge, experience and common sense— 
as to thoroughly convince our understanding. 
Notwithstanding all this, however, we are now 
hearing many new theories which are inclined to 
make us believe these principles have been chal¬ 
lenged or wholly discarded for something better. 
A number of game commissioners and other pub¬ 
lic officials have recently declared openly their dis¬ 
sent to this idea, and some have even gone to the 
length of asserting that it is a false theory and 
ought to be repudiated. These statements are 
really so remarkable that it behooves those old- 
fashioned protectionists among us to either de¬ 
fend our system or acknowledge its weakness 
and retire from the firing line. 
We very often hear men say: “Enforcing the 
laws won’t save the game.” Well, in a sense, this 
may be true. Perhaps, in certain sections of the 
country the laws are ill-advised or the game has 
FOREST AND STREAM 
become so scarce as to require the aid of addi¬ 
tional measures to supplement this system. The 
fact remains, however, and cannot be successful¬ 
ly refuted, that if proper laws, well enforced, had 
been in operation in those sections years ago the 
game could and would have been saved. Timely 
protection would have done it. Possibly, now, we 
have reached a stage where we must supplement 
in all of the states protective measures with arti¬ 
ficial propagation; or in other words, assist nature 
in the work of reproduction to maintain the 
balance of supply. But while we are doing this 
we should not overlook the fact, which is essen¬ 
tial to success, that protection is still just as im¬ 
portant as it ever was. But the tendency to lose 
sight of this truth is very natural in a way. It is 
founded upon self-interest. So let us speak 
candidly on the subject and say just why certain 
men are prone to put protection in second place, 
or even on the shelf, as a theory for preserving 
game. 
Undoubtedly everyone knows that enforcing the 
game laws is a rather disagreeable job. It is a 
task that congenial men. or “good fellows,” would 
fain avoid. It makes enemies for those charged 
with this duty. Very naturally, these officers, in 
order to retain their offices and emoluments, de¬ 
sire to make as few enemies as possible. That is 
a prerequisite to securing an office in a country 
like ours. The more enemies one makes the 
quicker he will be ousted from his position. 
Hence, a number of game officers are constantly 
seeking some new and untried method of increas¬ 
ing the game supply without performing the dis¬ 
agreeable duty of prosecuting anybody. They 
prefer to keep the record of law enforcement in 
the background and relegate it to a position of 
minor importance. 
Now, the plain truth is, any such men are abso¬ 
lutely unfit to hold the office of game commis¬ 
sioner. They know what their sworn duties are 
when assuming office, and if they don’t like to 
perform those duties let them retire in favor of 
men who have the moral courage to perform them 
thoroughly. Sportsmen know these duties are 
onerous and are willing to pay worthy men well 
for doing their duty, and they have no use for a 
commissioner whose vacillating policy destroys 
real game protection. 
And in this connection nothing can be more de¬ 
plorable than to see some politician of the dema¬ 
gogue type elevated to office as head of the game 
department. He is sure to start in with his ear 
to the ground; he wants to placate the game 
butchers and wilful violators and make them his 
friends. To acomplish this he discourages and 
takes the very heart out of faithful subordinate 
field officers, who have been making vigorous 
prosecutions, by admonishing them to prevent 
violations and not make so many arrests. Final¬ 
ly, he informs the sportsmen of his state he is 
going to expend more funds in extensive propaga¬ 
tion experiments and less for prosecutions. Thus, 
he says, he will give them more for their license 
money. But will he succeed? 
There is just one result sure to follow this 
program: Demoralization among the warden 
forces, lawlessness, slaughter and funds wantonly 
wasted in experiments which were foredoomed 
to failure at their very inception. Ah, let us hark 
back to truth, experience and good, plain com¬ 
mon sense. Let us read the history of game 
extermination and condemn these new methods 
before it is too late. Let us insist upon the true 
process of game protection, howsoever disagree¬ 
able it may be to politicians and weak, vacillating 
men. Let real protection be first and foremost 
and propagation can follow it in due time. Again, 
let us recall a pertinent fact or so and draw a 
few conclusions therefrom. 
Can anyone doubt for a moment if there had 
been wise laws, properly enforced, to protect 
them, that we would still have the wild buffalo 
in the West 10-day? Does any respectable body 
of sportsmen challenge the statement that the 
passenger pigeon, the elk, the wild turkey and 
several extinct species of wild fowl could have 
been saved by the same method? Certainly not. 
Now, without making invidious comparisons 
among the noble men of this country who have 
devoted their lives to preserving our wild life, to 
the writer’s mind the one big, rational man of 
to-day is Dr. T. S. Palmer of the Biological Sur¬ 
vey. The Doctor never rushes into any false 
theories nor gets excited over some newly dis¬ 
covered idea. He believes in progress in game 
preservation and intelligent work on that line but 
he always demands facts and demonstrations be¬ 
fore he will accept any novelties. Speaking on 
the above question, he says: 
“It is sometimes said that game legislation will 
not save a species from destruction, and that this 
fact is shown by the history of the buffalo and 
the pigeon. The most casual examination of 
their history will show that game legislation play¬ 
ed no part in the fate of these species. A close 
season during the period of reproduction was de¬ 
nied them until too late, and even then there was 
little serious attempt to enforce the laws. Such 
legislation as existed was enacted before the es¬ 
tablishment of an effective warden force, and the 
efforts at enforcement met with scanty support.” 
(Bulletin No. 41, at page 19). 
If, then, our new game protectors are going to 
deny fundamental principles and discard all that 
has been learned by the experience of the past, 
the outlook for saving the game for the benefit of 
all our people in common is, indeed, hopeless. 
But they won’t dare to do so much longer for the 
sportsmen are getting up in arms everywhere, 
and demanding real fighting men for commis¬ 
sioners. Consequently, this is no time to be pes¬ 
simistic. The prospects are brightening. It is 
most encouraging to note the recent awakening 
of the sportsmen in the Middle and Far West. 
Although it may be denied, the fact is the sports¬ 
men in the Middle and Far West have been far 
behind their brethren in the Eastern states. The 
East is now preserving its game, while the West 
is just waking up. Strange, too, when we re¬ 
member how enthusiastically they usually attack 
a new idea in the West. When we recall the 
abundance of game formerly existing in the wes¬ 
tern states and how it has been carelessly neglect¬ 
ed in the past, it is remarkable the sportsmen 
there have been asleep all of these years. Now, 
however, they appear to be rousing themselves 
and we may expect them to act with their cus¬ 
tomary dash and vigor in supporting this cause. 
Ohio, Illinois, and Minnesota seem to be taking 
the lead at present, while good work is being 
done in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Washington, 
Oregon and some of the other states. 
