Feb. 20, 1909.] 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Connecticut’s Warden Problem. 
Highwood, Conn., Feb. ii. —Editor Forest and 
Stream: The article by “Interested,” in Forest 
.\ND Stream of Jan. 9, entitled, “Questions for 
Sportsmen,” has apparently fallen on barren 
ground. It is incomprehensible that this 
should be so, as the questions propounded are 
worthy of the gravest consideration. I shall 
not try here to answer them, except in a gen¬ 
eral way, yet perhaps the article may develop 
into a general statement of local conditions 
rather than anything else. 
Why the warden is “so often unpopular and 
even hated” is a mystery. The feeling exists 
largely among bogus sportsmen, men who pose 
as sportsmen, yet who come no nearer the 
genuine article than a discarded bath-tub re¬ 
sembles an ocean liner. 
If a warden chances to stop a charge of shot 
while in the performance of his duty, a howl 
of glee immediately arises from the ranks of this 
motley crew. They creep into some gun clubs, 
run things, and express the keenest satisfaction 
over their imagined greatness; yet I have heard 
them execrate the warden who has dared de¬ 
fend himself from the murderous attack of 
law-breakers like themselves. We have in this 
vicinity at the present time a case pending in 
the courts where the warden was seriously shot 
and defended himself by shooting and nearly 
killing his assailant. And one of our news¬ 
papers has even taken sides against the 
warden, and that before the courts have 
rendered a decision. 
As the result of a charge of shot fired in his 
face while in the performance of his duty about 
a year ago, D. M. Edwards, a deputy warden, 
of Beacon Falls, Conn., is almost totally blind 
to-day. About the same time another Con¬ 
necticut warden was badly wounded while at¬ 
tempting an arrest. It is the general opinion 
among real sportsmen that the punishment 
meted out to the murderous assailants of these 
officers of the law was entirely too light to 
fit the crime. 
It would seem that under such unfavorable 
conditions it would be impossible to induce 
anybody to fill either the office of warden or 
deputy warden. Yet, here in New Haven 
county, we have a game warden of whom any 
section might well feel proud. The man is 
David H. Clark, a wealthy builder of New 
Haven. Mr. Clark ranks high in the business 
community, and is an enthusiastic sportsman. 
He hunts and fishes from Canada to Florida, 
and fills his position of county warden only 
from a sincere desire to assist in the preserva¬ 
tion of fish and game. While there is no salary 
connected with the office, and it is money out 
for him, yet he runs his auto hundreds of miles 
at his own expense in the performance of his 
duties. He is fearless, and it is admitted by all who 
believe in the preservation of fish and game, 
that he is the most efficient warden New Haven 
county has ever haej- 
Mr. Clark, however, cannot be considered as 
a general type of warden—he is an exception. 
There are many good wardens, yet few men 
can afford to fill the office without remunera¬ 
tion. 
Why should a city policeman be better re¬ 
spected than a game warden, especially by our 
non-English-speaking foreign element? Serious 
consideration develops the conclusion that the 
explanation lies in the fact that the policeman 
is uniformed. Were our wardens uniformed, 
would not firing upon them by foreigners who 
do not understand our language and know 
nothing of our laws become a thing of the 
past? A policeman is seldom shot down by a 
non-English-speaking foreigner. Can it not be 
strongly argued that in the uniform the 
foreigners—and our own people as well— 
instantly recognize the majesty of the law, 
while in the non-uniformed warden they fail 
to recognize the authority which the uniform 
reveals. 
Not only should our wardens be uniformed, 
but they should be salaried as well, and should 
DAVID H. CLARK. 
Game Warden of New Haven County, Connecticut. 
be required to perform a stated amount of 
work—a certain number of hours on duty each 
week. The uniform should be worn only when 
on duty. It might be objected to the uniform 
that law-breakers would be warned by seeing 
it, and thus the more readily make their escape. 
The answer to this argument is that the very 
sight of a uniformed officer of the law appear¬ 
ing at regular intervals in law-breaking dis¬ 
tricts, would in itself soon effectually eliminate 
the law-breakers. 
The foreigner breaks the law principally 
through ignorance. But with some gun club 
members in this vicinity it is different—they 
break the laws knowingly, sneakingly and 
viciously. And their sympathies are always en¬ 
listed on the side of other law-breakers who may 
half-kill a warden. They are worse criminals than 
those who break our laws through ignorance 
and set a worse example to those criminally 
inclined than the others. Constant success on 
Sunday shooting trips, when the law makes 
the day a close one, and other law-breaking 
performances, embolden them to a point where 
some of them actually act as if they were 
bigger than the State. A way can be devised 
297 
to reach even these to eliminate them entirely. 
The laws could be so revised that all charters 
issued to gun clubs could contain a forfeiture 
clause on the following plan: 
1. Whenever a gun club member shall be 
convicted for breaking the game or fish laws 
of the State, the club to which said member 
belongs shall expel him from membership, or 
forfeit its charter. 
2. All gun clubs shall post copies of the 
game and fish laws in their rooms, plainly ex¬ 
posed to view, or forfeit their charter. 
3. Any gun club knowingly taking in as a 
member any person expelled from another gun 
club, for conviction for breaking the fish and 
game laws, shall forfeit its charter. 
Besides the above, it would be an easy 
matter to pass a law making it a crime for any 
person whatsoever to apply for membership in 
gun clubs, if he has been convicted of break¬ 
ing the game laws. As for the criminal who 
dares to raise and discharge a firearm at a 
warden while the latter is in the performance 
of his duty, even if his act should not land 
him on the gallows, the law, after he has been 
released from substantial confinement, should 
forever deny him the right to again carry a 
gun afield. 
Every law-abiding sportsman should assist 
the warden of his district. He should furnish 
information which may lead to the arrest and 
conviction of the game-law breakers, just as 
quickly as he would were the man a burglar. 
Especially should he move against gun club 
members who pose as sportsmen, abuse game 
wardens and arrogantly break the laws. Be¬ 
fore this article goes to type, I shall hand Mr. 
Clark, warden of this district, the names of 
certain gun club members against whom I 
hold suspicion of Sunday shooting, so that 
when the proper time arrives they may be 
placed under surveillance. 
Since writing the above, to-day’s paper has 
come into my hands, I enclose clipping bear¬ 
ing on this very subject. To verify the clipping, 
I called Mr. Clark on the phone, and he en¬ 
dorsed it O. K. 
It reads in part as follows: 
For the last year there has been a regular war between 
the game wardens of this State and violators of the 
hunting law, the wardens getting much the worst of it. 
Within the last year, five or six of the game protectors 
have been nearly killed, one man having his eye torn 
out. Of course, the offenders were placed under arrest, 
but this does not seem to help the situation any. The 
“last straw,” as Commissioner John M. Crampton, of 
this city, said to a Journal-Courier man last night, oc¬ 
curred Sunday, when M. II. Schriver, the Burlington 
game warden, was doing duty near Bristol, and seeing a 
man directly violating the hunting law, he promptly 
placed him under arrest. 
The result was that the game protector was brutally 
assaulted, and now lies in a critical condition between 
life and death. Frank Peterson, the offender, surrendered 
later and is held under $1,000 bond. Warden Schriver 
is not expected to live. 
Here is an officer of the law murderously 
assaulted—while in the performance of his 
duty. He is lying at death’s door, while his 
brutal assailant who may be a murderer even 
as I write is held under a bond of the immense 
sum of $1,000!—hardly enough to secure a com¬ 
mon sneak-thief. This is a sample of Connec¬ 
ticut’s protection of its officers of the law! It 
is not wonderful that we cannot find anybody to 
fill the'warden offices. 
William H. Avis. 
