522 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Another Side of Game Protection 
The Farmer is Very Much Interested in the Subject but Seems to Have the Worst of It, Not Only 
Because of Visiting Sportsmen but Because of Rulings of Game Commissions 
F some of the remarks in the 
following seem rather sharp let 
it be remembered that the 
writer feels that he represents 
a class which does not often 
speak for itself with as loud a 
voice as some others and which 
is rather often placed in the 
background in the discussion of public matters. 
As a starting point let us consider who is in¬ 
terested in game protection. The game warden 
surely, for it is his business and yet the more 
real game protection there is the less need there 
will be for the policeman who enforces the game 
laws. The scientist is interested in the protec¬ 
tion of rare species. If the rare species becomes 
common and the common one rare the interest is 
shifted at once. The sportsman is interested in 
killing as many individuals as possible at the 
lowest cost and with a minimum of exertion. 
There may be individuals who would rather 
tramp many miles for the sake of making a dif¬ 
ficult shot on an old partridge than kill ten young 
pheasants in an open meadow but they do not 
make up the bulk of the membership of the 
sporting clubs nor do they furnish a large part of 
the influence which passes the game laws. The 
farmer is also interested in game protection. He 
sees the young pheasants in his meadows. When 
he is near he makes a little side trip to see how 
they are getting along. In the old brush lot he 
sees an occasional rabbit scurrying down the 
bushy path. In the woods he watches the gray 
squirrels in their play and their bickerings and 
thinks what a shame it is to kill them. He hears 
the quail whistling and the partridge drumming 
or sees the young ducks swim around the bend of 
the creek and it seems good to be alive. A little 
later the hunting season opens but the farmer’s 
work is pressing so that he can not get out in 
the woods that day. He hears the steady can¬ 
nonading in woods, meadow, swamp and brush 
lot. He sees the automobiles rush past his place 
or stop in his yard, with or without a request 
that he care for them "for a little while.” Per¬ 
haps a neighbor telephones in that his stock are 
out in the road where some party of "sportsmen” 
has left a gate open or perhaps even cut his 
fence. It may be that a favorite cow comes to 
milking time, blind in one eye or bleeding all 
along the sides from the charge of shot of a man 
who may have been nervous or only drunk. A 
few days later he may get a few hours when he 
can go hunting but everything is changed. The 
young pheasants are all killed. The squirrels can 
not be seen. Indeed, with all his exact knowl¬ 
edge of the habits of the game on his land he is 
indeed fortunate if he can get one or two shots. 
If he tries to protect himself under the trespass 
laws he finds that the courts will not uphold him. 
The law says that a man who trespasses on lands 
which have been laid out as a private park shall 
By Alfred C. Weed. 
be liable to exemplary damages in the sum of 
twenty-five dollars but I am informed that in 
certain recent cases of trespass on a trout brook 
a fine of five dollars was imposed although the 
amount of trout probably taken was so far in 
excess of the legal limit that the fish were worth 
much more than five dollars in any market. This 
information has come to me through two persons 
but I think the essential facts are nearly as 
stated. At any rate it is almost impossible to 
get a conviction for trespass and when you get 
it “what are you gonna do with it?” 
All this brings us to a realization that the game 
is decreasing largely because the farmer feels 
that it is not to his interest to have to do it 
otherwise. It has already been shown how the 
mere presence of game is often the cause of a 
money loss to the farmer. If he is willing to 
pocket this loss and really try to protect the game 
he encounters another danger. This can be best 
illustrated by a few cases which have appeared in 
some of the papers as well as some of which 
have not been published. The writer has had 
some interesting correspondence with the Chief 
Game Protector which makes him feel like 
swearing every time he thinks of it. About eigh¬ 
teen months ago a farmer in western New York 
found three pheasants nearly dead from expos¬ 
ure to a sleet storm. His duty under the law 
was to leave them where he found them. He 
might, if he wished, notify the game warden and 
if that officer saw fit he, the warden, might take 
some action to save the birds if they had not al¬ 
ready died. Instead of that the farmer took the 
birds home and placed them in his henhouse, 
thereby twice, violating the law. When the birds 
had recovered they stayed with his chickens thus 
making him a third time a violator of the law. 
He was arrested and promptly fined. His appeal 
was pending when the Conservation Commission 
advised that the case be dropped. 
A farmer in Vermont recently shot a deer 
which was grazing in his alfalfa. He had been 
to some trouble and expense to get and maintain 
a stand of that crop and the state law permitted 
him to kill deer which were in the act of de¬ 
stroying crops. When he notified the game pro¬ 
tector of his action he was arrested on the 
grounds that alfalfa is grass and deer eating 
grass may not be killed except in the open sea¬ 
son. His appeal is pending. 
The skunk is one of the very few animals 
which are increasing under the present laws. The 
open season is such that very few can be trapped 
and the prohibition of digging out the dens save 
the others. 
A few weeks ago the writer found one in his 
chicken house eating a freshly killed chicken. 
Before the gun spoke it was noted the animal 
was a very good “No. i.” It was wished that 
there was some way in which it might be kept 
for breeding purposes. However, the law express¬ 
ly prohibits even the possessors of breeding 
licenses from taking fur bearing animals in the 
open season. The skunk alive was worth at 
least two dollars at any time of the year, dead it 
is furnishing fertilizer worth a cent or two in an 
asparagus bed. About the same time several fe¬ 
male skunks were killed in chicken houses near 
here, leaving their young to die. These young 
were old enough to run around a little and most 
of them were killed by dogs. It is known to the 
writer that at least ten of them might have been 
saved under different laws or even under less 
rigid construction of present laws. There is a 
provision of section 159 which would have en¬ 
abled the Conservation Commission to have 
saved these animals but the writer has the writ¬ 
ten word of the Chief Game Protector, in an¬ 
other connection it is true, that no such license 
is issued. Such licenses are issued only to a 
duly chartered museum or society incorporated 
for scientific or public exhibition purposes or an 
officer thereof. The writer supposes that the 
“zoos” in connection with trolley parks come 
under the head of “public exhibition purposes.” 
In this particular case the loss to the community 
in furs alone is probably more than a hundred 
dollars. 
How may the game be increased? It will be 
evident to any one that the game of the country 
can not be protected if the farmers are not will¬ 
ing to give active assistance in enforcing the 
game laws and few farmers will give any active 
aid while they are made to feel that a reduction 
in the number of game animals on their lands is 
a distinct advantage. There are not enough 
peace officers of all kinds in western New York 
to enforce the law in the case of the pheasant. 
The law provides an open season of four days, 
two in October and two in November and a bag 
limit of three males during the season. In reality 
there is or was last year an open season from 
September sixteenth until about the middle of 
December and no bag limit of any kind. This is 
a fact well known but not capable of legal proof. 
In some cases it was proved but those cases form 
a very small part of the actual illegal shooting. 
The game wardens are active but their territory 
is too great and their duties too various to per¬ 
mit them to detect more than occasional offense. 
If the farmers could have the benefit of a good 
trespass law and could be allowed to get profit 
in some way, if only by the sale of hunting per¬ 
mits from the presence of game on their lands 
the disappearance of the game could be stopped. 
The present game laws seem to the farmers to 
have been made by and in the interest of men who 
want to get something for nothing and let the 
farmer pay for it and until this condition is re¬ 
medied laws may be piled on laws but the game 
will keep on its present road to oblivion. 
