FOREST AND STREAM 
97 
Jan. 19, 1907 ] 
Bangor, Me., Jan. 5.— Editor Forest and 
Stream: The proposition of Mr. Clarence L. 
Parker in the last issue of your magazine is of 
considerable interest to us “up in Maine,” not 
only because he refers frequently to Maine’s 
laws for the protection and preservation of big 
game, but because the very thing advocated by 
him, and which seems to be in the minds of a 
great many men in several different States, is 
now being agitated for the “wild lands in unin¬ 
corporated townships” in this State, although 
it is extremely doubtful if such a law is passed 
by the present Legislature—prominent sports¬ 
men say such a law can never be passed in 
Maine. 
At the recent annual meeting oT the Maine 
Sportsmen’s Fish and Game Association, Chair¬ 
man Carleton, of the Inland Fish and Game 
Commission, made a verbal report for the As¬ 
sociation’s committee on legislation. He ex¬ 
plained carefulK that the committee had held 
no formal meeting, nor taken any formal action, 
but that he believed the majority of the commit¬ 
tee was in favor of certain legislation which the 
members had talked over, and which was em¬ 
bodied in reports sent out through the press of 
the State. 
Among these recommendations was one that 
the Legislature pass a law forbidding the carry¬ 
ing of firearms of any kind on to the “wild lands” 
of the State during the months of June, July 
and August. Personally, he was of the opinion 
that this left open the most dangerous months 
in illegal killing of big game, and he then pre¬ 
sented to the meeting a draft of a bill, “not by 
any means perfect,” he said, but embodying 
the principles which he wished carried out in 
the legislation asked for. This bill prohibited 
the carrying of firearms on to the wild lands 
“in unincorporated townships” throughout the 
whole of close time; in fact, nonresidents are 
absolutely prohibited from taking firearms with 
them on camping and canoeing trips between 
Dec. 15 and Oct. 1, next. To make this 
effective there is a penalty, including the for¬ 
feiture of the firearms to the State. There is 
also a clause or section to permit the commis¬ 
sioners, in their judgment, to issue special per¬ 
mits to those residents whom they regard as 
entering legitimately upon the wild lands, who 
may sacrifice $1 (or whatever sum might be de¬ 
cided upon) to the fish and game treasury, for 
this privilege of taking their rifles with them. 
Mr. Carleton stated, frankly, that this bill was 
aimed at “the unnaturalized foreigners and the 
summer canoeists.” He, too, specified a man’s 
“permanent house or residence” as the only 
place where, under such a law, one might keep 
firearms. 
There was not a very large attendance at the 
meeting, and at least two-thirds of those present 
and voting on the question brought up, were 
wardens in the employ of the commission of 
which Mr. Carleton is chairman, so that the 
representative character of the meeting as one 
of sportmen might be questioned if one were 
so inclined. But the meeting decided, by a vote 
of thirty to one, to recommend to the Legisla¬ 
ture that it pass a law embodying the features 
of Mr. Carleton’s draft. 
That is as far, it may be said, as the move¬ 
ment for a gun license, or a prohibition on guns 
on wild lands, has gone up to the present time. 
It is claimed by some that the movement, be¬ 
lieved to have originated with the game commis¬ 
sion, is primarily for the purpose of getting even 
more money into the fish and game treasury, 
and is of a piece with the law that, a few years 
ago, established a license for nonresident 
hunters. This is of course unjust, in view of the 
fact that the commission received, during the 
last fiscal year, something like $41,000 from fines, 
penalties and licenses of various kinds, and un¬ 
less the purpose is to patrol every deer and 
moose path in the big woods, the amount now 
in its control ought to be sufficient for the 
reasonable protection of the big game. Possibly 
this is but an entering wedge, and that eventu¬ 
ally it will, if successful in getting a passage, 
result in a law in future years to forbid any per¬ 
son owning a gun or rifle unless he pays an 
annual tax for keeping same. 
Those in a position to know the temper of 
the Maine Legislature say that it will be im¬ 
possible to pass such a law, even abridged to 
three months of the year. While, perhaps 
from the standpoint of a sportsman who 
honestly wishes to see the illegal killing of game 
made as infrequent as possible, it might under 
certain conditions seem essential to enact some 
such law for the perpetuation of such sport as 
might be left, that time has not yet arrived in 
Maine, nor will it if the sentiment of the citizens 
generally is consulted before the State places 
such a law on its statute books. 
I do not know what the conditions are in 
other States that have big game, nor what 
reasons they may have for prohibiting the carry¬ 
ing of firearms on their wild lands. Perhaps 
the very objections that are brought against 
such a measure in Maine would be just as perti¬ 
nent in any or most of the other States; but 
here, aside from the desire of some sportsmen, 
and of officials and wardens, there appears to 
be little public sentiment in favor of any such 
move. 
Personally, I do not believe that such a 
license as is proposed, is of the great value it is 
claimed to be by its proposers, as a game pro¬ 
tective measure. Taking Maine as a territory 
to be affected, my idea is that, if with $41,000 
at their disposal, and the consequent opportunity 
for extending the warden service, the authorities 
are unable to materially reduce the illegal kill¬ 
ing, as the inference is that they are not or 
have not been, then with the added difficulty of 
carrying out the provisions of so drastic a law 
as this would be there would be next to nothing 
done to protect the deer; but the time of all the 
wardens the funds could hire would be dissi¬ 
pated in searching canoes, camps and other 
temporary abiding places for contraband fire¬ 
arms. It is probable that any attempt to search 
the person would cause a few funerals in the 
warden ranks, and so long as pistols of deadly 
calibre and long range may be carried in the 
pocket, the danger to the deer would hardly be 
decreased to any extent, and summer game 
would still be eaten “en route.” 
Another condition, which of course would be 
limited in its application, is that a great many 
of the guides and camp proprietors make their 
homes, all the year through, in their camps. 
These are often accused of killing deer at all 
times when wanted, and whether true or not, 
the warden who presumed to enter their camps 
and seize their rifles would certainly want to 
get out the country by the air line. Not that 
there are many men who Would emulate the 
awful example of Graves, who a number of 
years ago killed a warden who shot his dog, 
but in the heat of passion a guide might do 
things that, in his sober moments he would not 
be likely to do. It was very plainly shown at 
the meeting of the association referred to above, 
that if any attempt were made to have the 
provision of this proposed bill cover those 
counties where the land is all incorporated, then 
those counties would work against it, and if 
they were permitted the same freedom that now 
obtains within their limits, signatures might be 
reasonably numerous. 
One of the reasons why such a law will not, 
and I believe should not, appeal to the people 
in general, is that it is more of the spirit of a 
monarchy than of a republic. There is nothing 
democratic in the growing disposition of some 
of the wealthy men of this country to fence off 
portions of the grand recreation sections of the 
land, and keep them for their own private use, 
taking away from the people their rightful herit¬ 
age, since legal authorities agree that “the fish 
and game belong to the people.” 
The laws of Maine do not and probably never 
will permit the owners of wild lands to pro¬ 
hibit the crossing of those lands, for hunting 
and fishing. Thus there can be no preserves 
here, in the sense that they exist in the Adiron- 
dacks and some other portions of this country. 
Every added restriction on the hunter makes 
the sport of hunting or fishing more and more 
the pleasure and recreation of the men of 
greater means, instead of being open to every 
man, rich or poor, who does not abuse the 
previlege which, for the sake of perpetuating it, 
the State must place under certain rules. 
Then again, there comes into this the ques¬ 
tion of personal privilege: In passing from the 
protection of society and government, as one 
does in leaving the safeguards of the incorpo¬ 
rated towns and entering upon the pathless 
woods and waterways of the timber area of a 
State so large as Maine, the individual has the 
inalienable right to safeguard his person from 
attack from any quarter by carrying a weapon 
with which he may defend himself. Few men 
can tell in advance, unless going purposely into 
danger, the form the danger to their “life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness” is going to take. 
If in their travels they willfully and with force 
of arms feloniously kill game that is marked 
as sacred until Oct. 1, it is “up to” the warden 
force to apprehend them, and having proved the 
violation, see that they are properly punished 
through the usual channels of the law. 
When the law enforcing the employment of 
guides by every nonresident entering upon 
Maine’s wild lands to camp and kindle fires was 
passed, it was freely claimed for it that it would 
lessen the illegal slaughter of game. The state¬ 
ments made at the association meeting, of one 
warden finding 135 carcasses ©f deer near a 
lumber camp (in summer after the camp had 
been occupied the previous winter) and of six 
dead cow moose, each with two unborn calves, 
speaks, to my mind, more forcibly of the in¬ 
effectiveness of the protective service, than of 
the need for the prohibition of rifles. 
Yet there is much to be said on both 
sides, and a way should be devised to protect 
game that will not work hardships on the law- 
abiding citizens of the United States who visit 
the woods in close season, and who ought to 
be permitted to carry arms for their protection 
against—-they know not what. 
Herbert W. Rowe. 
Fairbanks, Cal., Jan. 5.— Editor Forest and 
Stream: I am very bitter against this gun 
license (in a free country such as ours should be, 
but is not). It is flavored too much with imper¬ 
ialism, and the majority of our people do not 
take kindly to that. 
I am in favor of protecting our game, if pos¬ 
sible, by shortening the open season so that the 
game will increase rather than decrease, and 
if that will not do, to close the season altogether 
for three or five years at a time. I would pro¬ 
hibit the killing of does and fawns and running 
deer with hounds under any circumstances. That 
destroys more deer than anything else. The 
hounds catch a great many that are never found, 
and if they are found the flesh is not fit to use, 
for a deer that is run down is so heated up that 
as soon as it is dead it is as rigid as if it had 
laid until it was cold. 
One needs a dog to track the wounded deer, 
