208 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Who Owns The Game? 
By Ernest Schaeffle, Executive Secretary, California Fish and Game Commission. 
D issatisfaction over the control and 
use of wild game is probably as widespread 
in the United States as it ever was in 
Europe, where we point whenever we want to 
show a horrible example of selfishness and 
injustice to the masses. 
And, misunderstanding, as to the real trouble, 
is apparently as widespread as the dissatisfac¬ 
tion. No two people seem able to agree as to the 
cause of the universal complaint, the blame being 
usually placed upon the “game laws.” Was ever 
an institution or program so generally mis¬ 
understood as those compromise statutes, usually 
ineffective, intended to preserve the country’s 
wild life! 
The writer of this article makes no claim to wis¬ 
dom; but a peculiarly intimate acquaintance of 
many years with game and fish, ‘‘game laws,” 
so-called “poachers” and the general public has 
given him some knowledge of natural conditions 
and those unnatural conditions brought about 
by advancing civilization, and he feels capable 
of explaining and clearing up some of the 
existing dissatisfaction and misunderstanding. 
We must recognize the fact that in the United 
States, and in most foreign countries, land is 
subject to private ownership. Of course in 
every country large areas are collectively owned, 
or owned by the “government,” the “crown” or 
by free cities and by states; but, with the pos¬ 
sible exception of Russia, the private holding 
system obtains and is pretty generally regarded as 
being just and wise. We have the system in this 
country as an inheritance from our British pred¬ 
ecessors in occupancy, who, in turn, had it from 
the Romans. 
Along with the private land ownership system, 
however,has gone a somewhat conflicting system 
of public ownership in wild game and fish. That 
conflict should arise as a result of the dual sys¬ 
tem was inevitable; but that much of the present 
day discontent comes from it may not have 
occurred even to careful students. Let us state 
the case concretely, and see if it does not im¬ 
mediately become clearer and more convincing. 
About ten per cent, (more or less) of the pop¬ 
ulation owns the land that is not publicly owned. 
The remaining ninety per cent, owns no land and 
has no rights to or upon any “land” except 
public waters and highways, public parks, reser¬ 
vations, etc. 
The wild life belongs to the “people,” by which 
we always mean the hundred per cent, whether 
they own land or not. 
Now, the ninety per cent., being people—the 
same as the ten per cent.—like to ramble about 
on holidays and Sundays and to hunt and fish. 
But—and right here the trouble begins—the 
minority own the farms and the streams and 
lake beds and borders, and quite naturally 
object to trespassing and keep or put invaders out. 
All the while, mind you, the game and fish 
belong to the general public, and the general 
public knows it and curses a system of laws 
that keeps it away from them and in the prac¬ 
tical possession of the landholder. 
The fact that a tract of land is used by a 
“gun club” or “preserve,” whether by virtue of 
ownership or mere lease, is invariably sufficient 
to irritate the local public. For some reason 
the prejudice against a farmer who closes his 
place against public hunting is nothing com¬ 
pared to the ill feeling entertained for a club 
(or even individual) who keeps a place as a 
“preserve.” It seems also that, mingled with 
resentment at being denied a privilege, is to be 
found a rapidly growing belief that the public 
has a right to go on private land so long as 
the purpose is the pursuit and taking of “com¬ 
munity property,” and so long as no actual 
damage is done to the landholder’s own posses¬ 
sions. 
It is, of course, outside the purpose of this 
article to discuss the question of land ownership 
and trespass; but no argument over the owner¬ 
ship of game and the public rights in it can 
be engaged in without going smash against those 
questions. And, what is more disquieting, it 
seems certain that the present trouble between 
the hunters and fishmen and those who control 
the game and fish will continue and increase. 
What the outcome will be no one can foresee; 
but it is hard to even imagine that a people wed¬ 
ded to the idea of private ownership in land and 
in the unrestricted use of it, as well as to the 
idea of a divine right to protection in such 
ownership and use, would stand for the general 
“trespass” that would be needed to bring about 
the end desired by the public. 
That private ownership means careful and 
often complete protection to wild species is not 
always accepted by the public as sufficient excuse 
for the system. Too often sentiment seems to 
favor utter extinction of what can not be freely 
and universally enjoyed. This sentiment is, pos¬ 
sibly, weak and hysterical, besides being a menace 
to animals that have the same right to existence 
and comfort that man himself claims. 
The future may prove the viciousness of such 
feeling by developing some different scheme of 
holding land, under which every one will have 
real ownership in such wild life as may be spared 
by the present ruthless generation. I say present 
generation advisedly, for it is evident that 
another twenty-five years will see the practical 
extermination of every desirable wild species in 
North America, unless the present slaughter is 
checked. Some doubting Thomas may say, “That 
can’t be true, for in Great Britain, with her 
forty-five millions of people, they have been 
slaughtering for centuries, and still there’s plenty 
of game.” Another doubter will say, “Why, 
just establish public game preserves, like those 
they have in Oklahoma, and everybody can have 
game.” And even another will say, “All they 
(note the they) need to do is to start farms 
everywhere and raise pheasants and wild ducks 
and deer, etc.” Just for fun I am going to show 
the fallacy of all three arguments—partly because 
they’re all fallacious and dangerous, but largely 
because they have been given wide circulation 
by irresponsible and dishonest agencies and are 
accepted, more or less, by the public. 
The first argument is advanced by superficial 
thinkers. It is true that there is still wild game 
in Great Britain; but it exists because millions 
and millions of pounds are spent freely by 
sportsmen and landholders in fencing and drain¬ 
ing building of roads, trails and telephone lines; 
in the wholesale poisoning and trapping of preda¬ 
tory birds and animals; in the rearing, liberating 
and "training” of millions of birds; in the 
feeding, watering, sheltering and even doctoring 
of wild deer, grouse and partridges, and in the 
continuous patrol against “poachers” by a body 
of “keepers” nearly as large as the regular army 
of the United States. 
Further than this, the kill of game in Great 
Britain is not to be gauged by either area or 
population, for out of forty-five millions of 
people, less than sixty-eight thousand do all the 
hunting, and the number is decreasing. There 
are now over one hundred and sixty thousand 
hunters in California and the number is increas¬ 
ing by leaps and bounds. 
As to argument number two—that about public 
preserves. We have them—have had them for 
years—and will have more and larger ones. But 
if the entire state were one preserve it would 
not raise the game that the public wants. Further¬ 
more, not all varieties would breed in the state; 
most species of wildfowl breed only in more 
northern latitudes. What we must realize is that 
game must be treated like any other crop, sa\ing 
each year enough seed for the next season’s 
planting, with something over as a safeguard 
against bad weather, epidemics, etc. 
And now we come to the last argument, which, 
of the three, sounds the best to many enthu¬ 
siasts. The answer is that the game farms and 
preserves cost money, even in England, where 
families have owned the same tract of land 
until its value has been forgotten or is no longer 
appreciated, and where labor is dirt cheap. I 
have been told (by one of them) that capable 
gamekeepers work in England for $6.00 a month 
“and found.” The same man would demand 
from $40.00 to $60.00 a month here and would 
refuse to work as hard or as long. But the great 
trouble is that successful game preserves and 
farms are almost an impossibility because of the 
public’s determination to pursue and kill “wild”' 
game, even on private holdings. It is true that 
every hunter does not “poach” and it is also true 
that some preserve owners are able to protect 
their property; but a great many hunters 
will hunt wherever the shooting is good, 
and the average farmer or preserve owner 
gets laughed out of court whenever he attempts 
the prosecution of a trespasser. Some preserve 
owners have given up the courts and rely upon 
the shotgun, which is a favorite plan in Europe. 
Obviously the plan fails here, and what is worse, 
carries the whole scheme of things into increas¬ 
ing disrepute. 
And now, lest the reader quit with the feeling 
that the situation is utterly hopeless, I will ven¬ 
ture—a prophecy, shall we call it ? It is my strong 
belief, based upon the knowledge gained though 
experience and investigation, that the American 
public at last realizes the value of wild life and 
the terrible necessity of protecting the pitiful 
remnant left. I believe also, that we will, if 
we find that the tinkering of the past and of 
the present has resulted in nothing but a sense 
of false security, and if compromise measures 
are not soon found, close down on all killing, 
whether for commerce or for sport. 
Report California Game Commission. 
