1G8 
Uonomy, one of the four seasons of the year, 
beginning for the northern hemisphere at a time 
of the vernal equinox or on March 21st and end¬ 
ing at the time of the summer solstice or June 
2ISt.” 
This publication was issued and compiled by 
Harvard Professors, U. S. Army and Naval offi¬ 
cers and scientific men of national and interna¬ 
tional reputation. 
The framers of the Federal migratory bird 
law cast the work of scientific research aside and 
on the spur of the moment, or on something 
even less material, they made a new calendar, and 
shoved spring back into bleak and dreary winter. 
It is surprising that they did not complete the 
job by making the sun rise in the south and set 
in the north, and thus make breeding grounds 
extend from pole to pole. 
When the law was framed up and passed, the 
hunter woke up and found he was cut out of 
winter shooting and naturally felt that he had 
been double crossed. 
Now, if he buys a state license to hunt, its 
only use is to give his name and address in case 
he is injured in a train wreck, but it is of very 
little use as a license to hunt, when the birds are 
here during the winter months in which the 
Federal act prohibits shooting. 
The hunter proves that he recognizes the law, 
as is evidenced by his taking out the hunting 
license; he is a law-abiding citizen and not a 
“game hog,” “gangster,” or the outlaw that Dr. 
Hornaday of New York Zoological Park would 
like to paint him. In Dr. Hornaday’s reply to 
Mr. L. M. Gietzer’s letter, which he had pub¬ 
lished in the Sportsmen’s Review of January 
30th, he states “that the spring shooting advo¬ 
cates (winter shooting), who live in Illinois, 
Nebraska and a circle around Kansas City (he 
does not define the size of the circle) have 
made up their minds to rule or ruin the whole 
Federal Law. For the Kansas City gang, I have 
not the slightest sympathy. I am against men 
who feel that way and I enjoy fighting them.” 
He states that no exception could be made to 
Nebraska, as similar claims from twenty-five 
other states would have to be considered, if one 
exception was made in Nebraska. One of the 
"gang” who lives within a circle embracing the 
State of Nebraska and twenty-five other states, 
remarked that he was surprised that Hornaday 
would publish such a letter, admitting he advo¬ 
cated a law so unpopular. 
The facts in the case are that the hunters of 
the Middle West will stop shooting, if compelled 
by law to do so, but as long as they observe 
short “open season and small bag iimit,” they 
fail to understand why it is such an unpardonable 
crime for a “gang” sportsman in Nebraska and 
twenty-five other states, to kill a few ducks when 
the Federal authorities permit wholesale slaught¬ 
er in the southern states by market hunters. 
The other states in the Union, that have not 
complained to Dr. Hornaday, are evidently the 
southern states, that have loose game laws and 
permit market hunting; does Dr. Hornaday 
propose to close the northern zone to benefit the 
market hunters in the winter zone? 
On the other hand, the man who pays a li¬ 
cense to hunt in the Middle West, will not shoot 
FOREST AND STREAM 
out of season, whether it be State or Federal 
law. 
The hunter of the Middle West has been 
vilified because he has insisted that the Federal 
Law should be enforced. This, the Federal 
authorities have so far refused to do. 
The licensed hunters of this section have al¬ 
ways upheld the Federal law, but when people 
who will not take out a hunting license can go out 
and kill game and not be molested, the licensed 
hunters called the Federal officers attention to the 
violations. The Federal officers say they have 
no authority to make arrests or prosecute. 
The licensed hunter then took the stand that 
if the law was a dead letter and would not be 
enforced, the embargo should be lifted so that 
those who paid the states a fee to hunt, could do 
so without breaking the law. 
O11 the other hand, if the Federal authorities 
will not permit an open season when the birds 
are here, why not make the same rule effective in 
the south, where the market hunters operate, and 
where the sale of game is sanctioned? Why 
make a horrible example of the people who haye 
made the Federal act possible, yet legalize the 
wholesale slaughter of game in the South? 
The writer of the article in the February num¬ 
ber of Forest and Stream states that the “re¬ 
volt against the Federal law in the Middle West 
was started by someone because an Arkansas 
justice of the peace has overridden, by means of 
the mysterious reasoning process of his own 
mind, the dictate of Congress.” Possibly it start¬ 
ed because the justice of the peace, did think 
Congress did have power to regulate. Possibly 
the one arrested did not agree with the rulings of 
the justice of the peace, and appealed the case; 
possibly the judge in the higher court thought the 
justice of the peace was correct in his rulings; 
otherwise, how would the case have reached the 
United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Arkansas? 
Judge Trieber is an able lawyer, and an 
authority, and has had wide experience in mat¬ 
ters of this kind. He ruled the act unconstitu¬ 
tional. 
If the Beef Trust or Standard 'Oil secured a 
similar ruling, they would have secured an in¬ 
junction preventing further interference pending 
final decision in the United States Supreme 
Court, and would have continued to do business 
at the same old stand in the same old way. 
The eastern writers had better beware of plac¬ 
ing all their eggs in one basket, by thinking there 
is no difference between the ability of Judge 
Trieber. and the average justice of peace. 
It is possible that because the promoters of the 
Federal act do know of Judge Trieber’s ability, 
that that is the reason they have instructed their 
deputies not to make any arrests or start prosecu¬ 
tions until after this case is finally determined. 
The licensed hunters of the w T est are taking no 
chances, and are using every effort to strengthen 
their state game laws, so as to have something to 
fall back on in case the Federal act is declared 
unconstitutional. 
The Hornaday attack on the licensed hunters 
of the Middle West was certainly ill advised, 
and uncalled for. In trying to incite the licensed 
hunters to start a fight against him personally, 
in order to advertise W. T. Hornaday, he is 
simply aiding the unlicensed and market hunt 
ers, in place of strengthening the cause he pre¬ 
tends to champion. 
Missouri, Illinois and Arkansas are in the 
midst of a hot fight, not only to prohibit the 
storage and sale of game, but to keep the game 
laws on the books. 
The unlicensed hunters and market shooters 
have representatives in the assembly that are bat¬ 
tle scarred, and are past masters in legislative 
cunning, and will stop at nothing to win their 
point. 
Bills have been introduced at Jefferson City to 
eliminate the Deputy Game Gardens of Missouri, 
and still another bill seeks to wipe out the game 
department absolutely, and turn all property and 
moijeys over to the good roads fund. 
Dr. Hornaday could have selected no better 
time to hurl a bomb into the camp of the licensed 
hunter, if his object was to create a feeling to 
resent the Federal law. 
With the Federal law declared unconstitutional, 
and the state laws wiped off the statute books, 
there would certainly be a fine situation to look 
upon. When a representative of the people of 
the state of Missouri gets up on the floor of the 
House, as did Mr. Fulbright of Ripley County, 
Mo., last Thursday, Feb. 4th, and demands the 
passage of a bill to abolish all Deputy Game 
Wardens, and to state that he had a standing 
offer to defend free of charge, anyone charged 
with violating the fish and game laws of the 
State of Missouri, we will leave it to the readers 
of this paper to determine whether or not the 
licensed hunter of the Middle West needs all the 
help he can get. 
This is no time for Dr. Hornaday to attempt 
to seek personal notoriety. The hunters of the 
Middle West have and are still supporting the 
Federal act, but it is far from perfect and in 
order to get a law that is equitable, and just, 
they have advised that it be properly amended. 
They feel that they are within their rights and 
care nothing about the exaggerated hobbies of 
Dr. W. T. Hornaday. When he can not back up 
his side of the question with substantial reasons, 
when he attempts to brand the sportsmen of the 
West as a “bunch of law breakers,” he adds 
nothing to the strength of an unjust Federal law, 
which legalizes wholesale slaughter and sale of 
game in the southern states, and prohibits 
limited game bags in northern states. 
The licensed hunter of the middle West has 
fought many a battle in the state legislatures to 
place and keep the present state laws on tile 
books and is still fighting to do so. 
He made possible the passage of the Federal 
Migratory Bird Law, and still supports the 
Federal act, but believes that by amendment, it 
could be made still more popular and effective. 
The licensed hunter of the Middle West de¬ 
plores the fact that foreigners and unlicensed 
hunters can kill migratory game birds, without 
fear of arrest or conviction, on account of the 
inactivity of the Federal officers. It is a farce 
the way our State Wardens act, but nothing so 
far has been accomplished by the Federal offi¬ 
cers that shows any improvement over state 
control. 
J. R. HICKMAN. 
