Jan. 9, iQOQ-l 
FOREST AND STREAM 
57 
Can We Bring Back the Game? 
Glastonbury, Conn., Dec. 25 .—Editor Forest 
and Stream: That the birds of America, game 
and otherwise, are sadly depleted in numbers, 
no reasonable person will deny. Still more to 
be deplored, the decrease seems to be steadily 
progressive. 
While this depleted supply may not be ap¬ 
parent to those who dwell in specially favored 
sections, it is regrettably obvious when the game 
supply of the country is considered as a whole. 
In many great areas, certain forms of bird life 
seem to be approaching extinction. 
Years and years ago. Forest and Stream 
called attention to the progressive destruction 
of the game birds, and the need of energetic 
action everywhere to secure efficient legislation 
for their protection. 
We recognized that, so long as they were a 
subject of lucrative trade, the game laws would 
be inoperative—a dead letter—and so hailed with 
joy the courage and foresight which led Forest 
AND Stream to announce its platform plank, 
“stop the sale of game.” That plank, though at 
first so unpopular, has now, we all know, been 
incorporated into the laws of many States. 
The event has amply proved that this game 
plank was sound in principle—the only solution 
of a peculiar situation. So long as there was 
a wide and profitable market, there would al¬ 
ways so long be persistent attempts to supply it. 
There has been no general public sentiment 
in support of the game laws. The chief in¬ 
terest of city dwellers, in respect to game birds, 
is almost exclusively from an epicurean view¬ 
point. The eating of a game bird out of sea¬ 
son is not considered an offense to society save 
by a few sturdy enthusiasts who are in favor 
of respecting the game laws. In fact, game out 
of season seems to have a better flavor, it being 
forbidden fruit. 
While many good game laws have been en¬ 
acted, whose honest purpose was to protect the 
game and other birds, they have proved in¬ 
adequate to an important degree. This inade¬ 
quacy was not so much from any inherent de¬ 
fect in the laws as laws. It was from their in¬ 
adequate enforcement. There was no earnest, 
general public opinion to insure their vigorous 
administration. The appropriations and provis¬ 
ions for their enforcement were conspicuously 
meagre and weak. The force of game war¬ 
dens, except in a few States, has always been 
too small to properly police the vast game areas, 
or what once were such. 
The game laws, at such rare times as they 
were invoked, were feebly administered. In 
cases whera poachers were caught redhanded, 
the court has too often showed sympathy with 
the offender by imposing a ridiculously small 
fine or a suspended sentence. Indeed, there was 
no justice in imposing a severe penalty on the 
poacher—who oftentimes was poor and needy— 
when his wealthy accomplices, the purchasers of 
the game, had almost legal immunity. 
If some wholesale offender was caught red- 
handed, the case, if prosecuted seriously, took 
the form of dilatory interminable litigation, in 
which manifold questions as to the status of 
property rights, of game as a matter of inter¬ 
state commerce, of the rights of common car¬ 
riers, etc., came up in bewildering, unending 
repetition, befogging the issue and clogging the 
law’s action. Later decisions, however, by the 
Supreme Court of the United States tend to 
bring order out of chaos. 
The available money on hand for prosecution 
has been always within modest limitations. On 
the other hand, the mammoth cold storage 
plants, the thousands of exclusive clubs and 
fashionable hotels of the great cities, the power¬ 
ful express companies, etc., all interested com¬ 
mercially in game, seemed to have unlimited re¬ 
sources wherewith to conduct an interminable 
defense from court to court. The prosecution 
had, moreover, much that was disheartening in 
judicial support. One judge was very likely to 
hold an opinion directly contrary to that of some 
other judge, so that there was always a certain 
degree of the vague and indefinite as to how a 
game law would be judicially construed when 
invoked. Had there been an earnest general 
public sentiment in support of the game laws, 
there is no doubt but what they would have been 
much more efficiently and beneficially adminis¬ 
tered. However, as intimated before, the recent 
Supreme Court decision should eliminate much 
of the litigation which heretofore has been 
largely dilatory and obstructive. 
Nevertheless, the patent fact is in evidence 
that the game supply is diminishing rapidly year 
by year. The game laws have restricted traffic 
in game to a degree, but no doubt the wealthy 
man, when so disposed, can enjoy the eating of 
a game bird at any season. The high prices 
of game, heretofore unknown, make the enjoy¬ 
ment of it prohibitory to all except the ex¬ 
tremely wealthy. 
The moral of all this is that, unless the people 
at large bestir themselves in earnest effort, many 
3'^ears will not have passed before the average 
citizen has no shooting at all. 
The close season should be shorter, the bag 
limited to a less number, and last but not least, 
all gunners should conscientiously observe the 
game laws. Every man who can do so should 
arrange to secure a preserve, either personally, 
if he have the means, or by organizing a club 
when the needed means for exclusive personal 
effort are lacking. Instead of relying on the 
State to preserve the game for him, the in¬ 
dividual would be wise to recognize that he 
must rely upon himself. It is all right to fur¬ 
nish reasons why the game should be preserved. 
It is all right to tell the other fellow how to 
proceed in matters of practical preservation. It 
also is all right to act as well as talk, as the 
matter pertains to onesself. Protectionist. 
Questions for Sportsmen. 
Editor Forest,and Stream: 
Now that the winter days are here in good 
earnest, and the devotees of the gun can gather 
together and talk over the sport of the past hunt¬ 
ing season and build castles in the air—or smoke 
—in anticipation of days yet to come, I would 
like to set them thinking on a subject of vital 
importance, hoping to start a movement that will 
benefit them and save the game. 
Before the advance of increased population 
and the disastrous work and wreckage of the 
portable steam sawmill, disastrous to game and 
forest alike, the game is bound to retreat. New 
laws for shorter and close seasons prove this. 
We delegate the protection of our game to war¬ 
dens, empowered to enforce the laws and pre¬ 
vent illegal hunting in and out of season. I 
believe that without a warden system the game 
would so suffer that it would before long be¬ 
come nearly, if not quite, exterminated. 
Granting this premise, it follows that the 
sportsman believing in the laws, and himself 
living up to them, is dependent upon the warden 
system of his State for the continuance of his 
sport, and I wish to'ask a few pointed questions 
based upon the above. 
Why is the warden, appointed to protect the 
game, so often unpopular and even hated? 
Why has it been so hard to get the best men 
to take up the warden’s work? 
Has it been the indifference—and so the fault 
—of the real sportsman that men have been 
appointed wardens who have been accused of 
crookedness and of using the office to further 
their own selfish ends? 
Does the average sportsman realize the need 
of enforcing the game laws? 
With the growing scarcity of game, can a 
sportsman, who knows that another is taking 
game illegally, afford to remain quiet for fear 
of appearing mean, or should he tell the offender 
openly and above board that he must stop or 
must accept the penalty? 
If all sportsmen would do this, would it not 
go a long way toward solving the whole question ? 
With all deference to the good men who 
are engaged in the warden work—often at a 
sacrifice—can we expect to engage the services 
of men gifted with horse sense, tact, courage 
and a knowledge of the woods, of the law of 
evidence, of how to prepare a case for the court 
and make a good witness for the State, until 
the State shall pay a salary sufficient to attract 
such men; and can we expect the best results 
until this is done? 
Is it true that in nearly every town one or 
two men, expert shots, with good dogs and 
guns and a knowledge of every cover, hunt the 
entire season and are reported as selling their 
game in violation of the laws? 
(a) If so, are not these men an important 
factor in the extermination of the game in their 
section ? 
(b) And could these men continue their prac¬ 
tice if the sportsmen stood together as a unit 
determined that it should stop? 
Do the Italians and other foreigners kill game 
birds or confine themselves to killing song birds? 
If the latter, are they a factor in the scarcity of 
the real game birds? 
Do sportsmen as a class give the wardens the 
full hearty support that they should have, de 
manding in return integrity and absolute justice 
to everyone alike? 
What are the qualifications of a good warden, 
and how best can we enlist the services of these 
men in the work? 
Anyone of these questions is open to argu¬ 
ment, and if discussed with a view of improving 
conditions would be of considerable help and 
profit to those laboring to so conserve the game 
that generations yet to come may know the pleas¬ 
ures that we now enjoy. Interested. 
Our cover picture this week is from a photo¬ 
graph made in the American Museum of 
Natural History. The exhibit depicts bird and 
plant life in the Arizona desert, and it is diffi¬ 
cult to tell where the plants-end and the mural 
background begins. 
