784 
FOREST AND STREAM 
fights. He “feels” for one of his razor-like rips. 
The hound, with throaty growls, spars for the 
throat clutch. Over and over, first one upper¬ 
most, then the other, they battle. 
Clawing, biting, they tumble over the edge of 
the ravine and into the pool below. The icy 
water dampens in no wise their fiery blood. 
Into the water leaps Jasper, vainly endeavoring 
to get in a shot with that rattle-trap old muzzle 
loader. 
“If you shoot, I’ll murder you!” yells chum. 
Now the beasts have fought their way to the 
bank: and upward toward the leaf-strewn roots 
of a giant maple. The coon has enough: he is 
making desperate efforts to get to his den tree. 
Now it is all over. Jasper picks up the dead 
coon: the hound lies down to lick his wounds. 
Jasper leads the way back to where the fire 
can be seen flickering in the gray of the morning. 
■On a log, as close as he can get, sits Yawcob, 
snoring like the exhaust on a camel-back loco- 
From time to time in the past a number of 
serious-minded sportsmen have been calling at¬ 
tention to and protesting against the establish¬ 
ment of large private shooting preserves in this 
country. The present writer has been among 
these. For these efforts we have been termed 
everything from fanadcs and class-baiters to 
anarchists by our opponents, yet none of the lat¬ 
ter has ever attempted in a serious way to an¬ 
swer our arguments. 'We have a right to as¬ 
sume, therefore, that they are unable to do so- 
Surely, no one of intelligence and observation can 
fail to see that the preserve question has come 
to be a vital issue in the American sportsman’s 
life. It is even more than that. It .is becoming 
a menace to our system of free institutions and 
is serving to destroy our democratic plan of con¬ 
serving the wild life for the benefit of all the 
people. That the people as a whole are fast 
awakening to this fact in various parts of the 
country can hardly be doubted. Witness the case 
of California at the recent election. 
In that state a very commendable law was 
enacted by the legislature prohibiting the sale of 
wild ducks in the open market. By means of 
the referendum this law was referred to the 
voters for their approval or rejection. During 
the campaign the real question was confused and 
obscured by opponents of the law making the pri¬ 
vate preserve the principal issue. The result was 
an overwhelming vote against the measure. 
Of course, in this the voters were somewhat 
deluded. Evidently they wanted to destroy the 
private shooting preserve, but just ‘how permit¬ 
ting the sale of wild ducks in the market will 
accomplish this, without also destroying all of 
the ducks, passes comprehension. Nevertheless, 
it does show the mind and temper of the citizens 
on the preserve question most clearly. 
The American people plainly see that the pri¬ 
vate preserve is a false institution here. Sports¬ 
men also see that its general adoption is a rever¬ 
sion to the European plan of game preservation 
and class privilege. It is a distinct menace to 
our notions of free hunting and fishing, and to 
motive. He does not know that what remains 
of the seat of his pantaloons is smoldering. Per¬ 
haps he does not care. 
On the hard porch of the bungalow, Freetz 
stretches, “dead to the world.” We prod him 
into a semblance of life. He is stiff, sore and 
sleepy. “Und,” he wails, “Dot tarn tog, she 
break mine pottle!” 
Heavy groans from the sympathetic Senegam- 
bian —always ready! 
We catch the first car cityward in the dawn- 
light. A new, and also grouchy conductor eyes 
us with suspicion: perhaps he pulls from his 
inside pocket a police paper and scans it for 
“rewards offered.” Who knows? 
The “con” stirs up the fire in the heater, 
breathes hard, and then says, “Sa-a-a-y! which¬ 
ever ob youse fellers dat is de woist, ’ll hab ter 
straddle de trolley pole. See? Dis ain’t no 
menagerie car.” 
And so we came home. 
the conservation of game and fish by the Gov¬ 
ernment in the interest of all classes of its 
citizens. 
Now, let us get down to the crux of the case 
of the private shooting preserve. In the first place 
we admit that its tendency is to conserve the 
game, but that conservation is in the interest of 
the few at the expense of the many. Each pre¬ 
serve saves the. game for its owner and at the 
same time curtails the privilege of free hunting 
of hundreds of sportsmen. It limits the latter’s 
opportunities of procuring the game. So it is 
clear that when a large number of these estab¬ 
lishments exist, inclosing most of the available 
hunting grounds, the free and unattached hunter 
has scarcely any opportunities whatever. Natu¬ 
rally, he objects to this and loses all interest in 
the subject of conservation by the government 
and suspects the motives of those who advo¬ 
cate this plan. He argues that game protection 
by the state is for the benefit of the preserve 
owners and does him no good at all. And when 
he sees laws enacted affording the preserve own¬ 
er special privileges, protecting his land by harsh 
special penalties and encouraging him in estab¬ 
lishing more preserves, there seems to be sbme 
basis for his contention. This also confirms his 
opinion that the official game commission is 
working against his rights and in the interest of 
the preserve owners. The result of it all is, 
the average man loses sight of the fundamental 
necessity for government conservation. He 
either doubts its value or rejects the theory al¬ 
together, and devotes his efforts to fighting the 
preserves, even though all of the game may be 
destroyed in the meantime by so doing. In other 
words, he iis willing to kill the goose that lays the 
golden egg, if only he can thereby accomplish 
the downfall of his enemy—the private preserve. 
Another strange thing is this. In the printed 
reports of the recent meeting of the state game 
commissioners of the country, the writer noticed 
that this important subject was not discussed at 
all, or even referred to, and yet here is the most 
serious obstacle we have to contend with before 
we can have any real government conservation 
of lasting value. Undoubtedly it is a delicate 
topic for officials to discuss in public. Some are 
afraid of it; others think it will right itself in 
course of time, while still others are openly in 
favor of the private preserve. But such a policy 
will not answer. The preserve issue is a plain 
and palpable condition of affairs, and not a mere 
theory. It is a condition which must be faced at 
once before it is too late. Thousands—yes, even 
millions—-of acres of good hunting land are being 
converted into private shooting grounds annually, 
so the crisis of the movement is near at hand. 
If it continues, and the sportsmen become re¬ 
conciled to the changes it will bring it will be 
within the memory of the present generation to 
see America adopt the European idea of game 
and fish preservation. But the important ques¬ 
tion is, will free hunting and fishing be abolished 
in this country without a violent struggle? If it 
is, then surely the character of the American peo¬ 
ple has undergone a decided change in the past 
century. 
It is the view of some that this country is large 
enough forboffi private preserves and ample free 
hunting territory on the outside. This is certainly 
a mistake. The free hunting domain has been 
so limited and restricted within the last decade, 
while at the same time the number of sportsmen 
has so increased and the game so decreased, that 
clashes between the two elements during the open 
seasons are now almost a daily occurrence. Also, 
these clashes are becoming more violent and por- 
tentious, producing lawlessness and anarchy in 
some places. 
In the meantime the preserve owner rests in 
the fancied' security of his constitutional and 
legal rights, and believes that the people have no 
legal weapons left with which to -attack him. Let 
us see about that. 
Now, then, let it be remembered that we oppo¬ 
nents of the preserve owner have never doubted 
advocated assailing those rights in a violent and 
his present legal status, nor have we -in any way 
unlawful manner. Our contention right along 
has been simply this: The value of the wild 
game of a state as an asset to the people thereof, 
does not lie wholly in its intrinsic worth as an 
article of human diet. Far from it. Owing to 
present-day condhions—the increase of popula¬ 
tion, the tendency to crowd together in cities, the 
lack of a large standing army for national de¬ 
fense, and the necessity of preventing epidemics 
of disease—it is for the public welfare of the 
state to induce its people to lead an active out¬ 
door life. The game is of more value to the 
people as incentive to this end than as a food 
product. Hence, it is the duty of the state to 
encourage its citizens to hunt and fish in the open 
air, to acquire skill in the use of firearms and 
become resourceful in taking care of themselves 
under hard conditions, and to this end provide a 
fair supply of game for these purposes. Private 
preserves have a direct tendency to prevent the 
masses from cultivating and enjoying these bene¬ 
fits. Their effect must, therefore, be considered 
and weighed from this standpoint. 
This being so, is it possible that the people have 
no legal means of controlling or destroying 
them? In a government where the supreme 
power rests with the people the question answers 
itself. Certainly they have. There is a clear, 
definite constitutional method of meeting the sit¬ 
uation. Let us see how. 
The Leading Issue With The American Sportsman 
By Henry Chase. 
