Jan. 5, 1907 ] 
FOREST AND STREAM 
•5 
ffliili <MM 
The Warden’s Side. 
Bennington, Vt., Dec. 20. — Editor Forest and 
Stream: In reading the sportsman’s magazines 
and other periodicals, we invariably find letters 
from sportsmen complaining of the non-enforce¬ 
ment of the game laws in different sections of 
the country, and the woeful neglect and in¬ 
efficiency of the local warden. How seldom do 
we read anything in praise of the game warden, 
or answers to these complaints, wherein the 
warden’s side is set forth. It is in view of this 
state of affairs that I have felt constrained to 
attempt- something in the latter’s defense. We 
have heard only one side—the sportsman’s side. 
He has found intolerable conditions in some 
locality and complains of them, and yet he does 
nothing to aid the warden in ameliorating these 
conditions. 
As I have been a warden for some years, 
have studied the situation in many parts of the 
country, and have heard the warden’s side in 
answer to complaints, I find it usually the same 
story everywhere. . , , , 
The sportsman may sit in his comfortable 
home and complain of the warden’s incompe¬ 
tency, but if that same sportsman undertook to 
enforce the laws he might have a different story 
to write. In the first place, game wardens are 
the poorest paid officers in the country, and in 
the second place they are seldom given sufficient 
powers and support to enforce the laws and 
protect themselves. Three-quarters of the 
wardens receive no pay whatever, and yet their 
work is decidedly of the most difficulty and 
strenuous character. There is no “glory in 
the service, either, and all that a successful 
warden generally receives is criticism and abuse. 
If he is slow and timid about making arrests, 
he is ridiculed and called a “spineless” warden. 
If he enforces the law rigidly, then he is abused 
by those whom he prosecutes and criticised by 
others for being “over-zealous.” 
A warden is necessarily an executive and 
prosecuting officer in one, for he must secure 
his evidence and produce his man before a con¬ 
viction can follow. For this service he receives 
a salary, a fee, a part of the fine, so much per 
diem, or no compensation whatever, as the case 
may be in different States. He must labor with 
many handicaps. Very few States empower him 
to search without a warrant—a power absolutely 
necessary, since in most States the possession 
of illegal fish or game is equivalent to a con¬ 
viction. To be successful he must possess all 
the qualities of an accomplished detective, and 
at the same time be tireless, energetic, honest, 
courageous and enthusiastic for the cause which 
he represents. What are some of the handi¬ 
caps? We must remember that very few viola¬ 
tions occur in the cities or populous sections. 
They are committed where the fish and game 
are-found—in the lonely forests, by the isolated 
lakes and streams, and on the distant waters. 
It is hard to secure evidence in a case from 
farmers and pioneers in sparsely settled districts. 
These natives do not like to testify in court 
against an offender for fear their barns will be 
burned, their cattle poisoned, or themselves 
ostracised for turning informer. Or in many 
instances they are opposed to the game laws 
in general and sympathize with the poachers. 
If we secure men as deputy wardens in these 
sections, we cannot expect much from them, for 
if they do their duty and cause a prosecution 
they become unpopular with their neighbors. 
If they receive little or no pay for their work 
they are sure to say: “Well, I guess I’ll give 
up this warden business. I have made too many 
enemies and the pay is so small. There s noth¬ 
ing in it.” So we find that the regular warden 
or protector must depend, almost wholly, upon 
himself in enforcing the law. To accomplish 
this means extensive traveling—mostly on foot 
—lonely waiting, watching and resourceful 
scheming to outwit the violator. I have, as 
■yet, not mentioned the .personal dangers that 
may menace a warden, with the poachers and 
violators, and their sympathizers, all in league 
against him. 
Suppose our warden or protector clings 
doggedly to his work and gets his man in 
every case. Each time he prosecutes an 
offender he makes a consistent enemy of that 
man, and the latter’s friends become his secret 
enemies. These secret enemies work in the 
dark and injure the warden when he least ex¬ 
pects it. They are men who “knife him in the 
back,” and attack him in cowardly fashion. 
Now, if the warden keeps up his pace vigor¬ 
ously, at the end of a year or so he will begin 
to look about him and take his bearings. He 
finds he has drifted so far out on a sea of un¬ 
popularity that he knows not where to look for 
a friend. Where are all those sportsmen friends 
he had a year ago who were going to support 
him to the bitter end if only he did his duty? 
Alas! They have all abandoned him. Those 
who are opposing him are so open and loud 
in their denunciation that his few remaining 
friends raise but a feeble voice in his behalf. 
These friends feel that they will be on the un¬ 
popular side if they uphold the warden and to 
be on the unpopular side would be detrimental 
to their business. The warden’s enemies are al¬ 
ways alert and active, while his real friends are 
prone to be indifferent and permit things to 
work out his end or salvation. So he is left to 
his own resources and melancholy reflections. 
He soliloquizes after this fashion: “Why is 
this so? Have I not tried to enforce the laws 
honestly? I was informed that is what I was 
appointed'for. I was also to be supported by 
the best men of the community. Now, people 
turn on me or shun me—people whom I have 
never harmed in the least. Can I afford this 
sort of persecution? How much pay have I re¬ 
ceived for' all this hard work and unpopularity? 
Not sufficient to support my family? Very little, 
indeed, so I think I’ll retire.” 
That is the way nine successful wardens out 
of ten are treated,, and that is why they either 
resign or become inactive. And when the war¬ 
den becomes inactive or powerless, then his 
enemies, with renewed efforts, begin to write 
to the Statfe Commission and point .out his short¬ 
comings. Some complain of his incompetence, 
some of his ignorance or discrimination in en¬ 
forcing the laws, while others even attack his 
honor or motives. In time the commission will 
take cognizance of these protests and the war¬ 
den gets a “calling down.” 
This is the final straw. With all these ele¬ 
ments arrayed against him, of course, the 
warden is helpless, and it is impossible for him 
to discharge his duties properly. His good 
record of the past is forgotten, the difficulties 
and conditions of the present are not con¬ 
sidered, and the future prospects of -fish and 
game protection in that community are ignored. 
But where is the enthusiastic sportsman, who 
was so quick to condemn the warden, that is 
willing to take that place and enforce the laws? 
These are not all of the warden’s troubles. 
He must often face criminal poachers, heavily 
armed, who will take advantage of him, if he 
is not careful, and shoot him down, and under 
the laws in some States the warden is compelled 
to go slow in drawing his own weapon. Even 
the State’s representatives in the courts often 
seem prejudiced in their dealings with game 
wardens. Am I exaggerating? Very well, I 
will not be so egotistical as to mention some of 
my own experiences, but will cite the case of 
Frank C. Rowe, a game protector of Wilkes 
Barre, Pa. In October, 1905, Warden Rowe 
arrested a Polander, named Coniff in the bor¬ 
ough of Ashley, Pa., for shooting robins. He 
had some difficulty in getting his man, as he 
found the latter intoxicated, with friends who 
tried to rescue him from the officer, so that 
Rowe was compelled to take his prisoner in a 
wagon and keep back the interfering crowd 
at the point of his revolver. Coniff was con¬ 
victed, but appealed his case and was admitted 
to bail. Within four days after his arrest Coniff 
was taken ill with spinal meningitis and died. 
Rowe and his companion, Charles Holleday, 
were arrested, charged with murder. At the 
coroner’s inquest they were exonerated, but 
Coniff’s relatives had the warden re-arrested on 
the charge of assault. The district-attorney also 
lodged a charge against Rowe of carrying con¬ 
cealed weapons. (Just imagine it! Prosecuting 
an officer for carrying concealed weapons!) 
Of course, the warden was acquitted of assault 
and the other charge was later withdrawn. Then 
on Sept. 8, 1906, Warden Rowe, accompanied 
by a friend, William Walters, started out on 
duty, intending to go into the forests to look 
for some quail the warden had put out for the 
State Game Commission. About 2 P. M. that 
day they came upon Dominic Lebiski and Adam 
Rustas, two foreigners. Lebiski had a gun and 
was shooting robins, while Rustas had about 
thirty dead robins in his possession. Warden 
Rowe arrested Rustas and then started for 
Lebiski, who immediately opened fire with, his 
shotgun upon the officer and his companion. 
Rowe’s body was pierced by fourteen pellets 
of shot, while Walter’s received nine. The war¬ 
den stood his ground like a brave officer and re¬ 
turned Lebiski’s fire with his revolver, when 
suddenly he was surprised to find that his 
prisoner, Rustas, was also shooting at him with 
a revolver. At this Rowe turned and shot 
Rustas dead. He and Walters then went to 
the authorities at Wilkes Barre and surrendered. 
They were held in prison, without bail, until 
November, when they were tried and acquitted. 
Great interest was manifested in the case, and 
the Governor and Attorney-General of Pennsyl¬ 
vania took a hand in the trial to see that the 
officer got justice. He was shamefully treated, 
and witnesses committed perjury in an attempt 
to convict him. While Rowe was being held for 
trial, another warden in the same section, 
Charles Beecham, was ruthlessly murdered by 
another robin-hunting foreigner. In these cases 
the Pennsylvania sportsmen did at last come to 
the front and aided Warden Rowe very ma¬ 
terially. Justice has begun to dawn on them, 
and the outlook is, they will not permit many of' 
these murdering foreigners to carry arms in 
that section much longer, and the wardens will 
be better supported and protected. 
In conclusion, I will say that, despite, this 
shameful record and the numerous handicaps 
connected with the warden’s work, . I am. still 
optimistic and think I can see a silver lining 
to the clouds. Harry Chase, 
County Game Warden. 
Florida Quail. 
Jacksonville, Fla., Dec. 23. — Editor Forest 
and Stream: The weather has been so warm and 
dry -the birds are staying in the bays and hum¬ 
mocks. We have had no rains worth mention¬ 
ing since the first of November, and the mercury 
has been in the 70’s almost every day. 
G. A. Irwin. 
The Forest and Stream may be obtained from 
any newsdealer on order. Ask your dealer to 
supply you regularly. 
1 
