776 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[May 14, 1910. 
been lost, the clerk who originally issued the 
license may, on the application of the licensee, 
make out for him under his seal a statement to 
the effect that the license has been lost, giving 
the licensee’s name, residence, number of license, 
age, height, weight, color of eyes and color of 
hair. The licensee can then carry this statement 
on his person when hunting in lieu of the license 
which was lost. 
“Spoiled Licenses.—When a license has acci¬ 
dentally been spoiled at the time of making it 
out, in order to obtain credit for the same, it 
must be attached to the monthly report of the 
month of issue and forwarded with the regular 
returns through the county clerk to the h orest, 
Fish and Game Commission. No explanation 
can be accepted if unaccompanied by the dam¬ 
aged license. Licenses represent cash. For each 
license issued the clerk must return either the 
license itself or its face value. A license which 
has once been issued to a hunter cannot be re¬ 
turned as a spoiled license, neither can a spoiled 
license be'returned at a later date than the month 
of issuance. 
“Signature of Licensee.—The applicant for a 
hunting license must not only sign the affidavit 
on the back of the stub, but must also sign his 
name at the time he receives the license on the 
license in the space provided for that purpose. 
“Applications by Mail.—Clerks are provided 
with application pasters. These blanks are de¬ 
signed to take the place of the regular affidavit 
printed on the back of the stub in the license 
book, of which they are exact duplicates. Direc¬ 
tions are printed on the bottom of the slip.’ 
LAWS FAVORABLE FOR DEER. TROUT PROPAGATION. 
Under the recent law, persons engaged in the 
propagation of trout are given the right to ship 
trout from their hatcheries w'hen accompanied 
by permits issued by the commissioner. Live 
trout, trout fry and eggs may be shipped at any 
time of the year for the purpose of stocking. 
Permits are granted for the shipment of trout 
for table use during the open season only, but 
there is no limit as to the number which may be 
shipped at one time, nor is the owner obliged 
to accompany the shipment as is the case when 
wild trout are transported. 
Venison from deer propagated in wholly in¬ 
closed deer parks may also be shipped during 
the open season on a permit issued by the com¬ 
missioner without the formality of being accom¬ 
panied by the owner, which is the condition re¬ 
quired in the transportation of wild venison 
taken in the State. Under these more liberal 
provisions of the law there is no reason why a 
successful business may not be carried on in the 
propagation of deer and trout for the market. 
The sale of native trout is now prohibited in 
this State, and the supply of trout for the table 
is by no means adequate to the demand. Deal¬ 
ers in game are having difficulty in procuring 
sufficient supply of venison to meet the demands 
of the consumer, and the market is certainly 
bound to present greater attractions from year 
to year to the man engaged in the business of 
propagating deer. The commissioner believes 
that the present law is for the benefit of con¬ 
serving the wild supply, as there would be no 
inducement to the dealer to handle illegitimate 
trout or venison, provided he could secure a 
legitimate supply. The dealer would prefer veni¬ 
son from deer parks and trout from hatcheries, 
which could be supplied him in a fresher and 
more attractive condition than if procured from 
other sources. 
[to be concluded.] 
Massachusetts Deer Law. 
East Holliston, Mass., May 2 . — Editor Forest 
and Stream: Under the heading Massachusetts 
Legislation in your issue of April 30, a corres¬ 
pondent speaks of the so-called farmers’ deer 
law. I wish to quote from “Carleton’s Digest.” 
From the earliest traditions, the right to re¬ 
duce animals ferce natures to possession has been 
subject to the law-making power. (U. S. Supreme 
Court, 161 U. S. Reps., 522). The human race 
having multiplied, men partitioned among them¬ 
selves the earth and the greater part of those 
things which were on its surface; that which 
fell to each one among them commenced to be¬ 
long to him in private ownership, and this pro¬ 
cess is the origin of the right to property. Some 
things did not enter into this division, as the 
air, the light, the water which runs in the streams, 
the sea and its shores and great ponds (of ten 
acres or more) and wild animals, birds and fish. 
There are things which belong to no one and the 
use of which is common to all. Police regula¬ 
tions direct the manner in which they may be 
enjoyed. Hunting and fishing are also regulated 
by special laws. (Provisions of the Napoleon 
code, quoted and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme 
Court, 161 U. S. R. 526.) 
This attribute of Government to control the 
taking of wild animals was recognized and en¬ 
forced by the common law of England, and was 
vested in the colonial governments. The power 
which the colonies thus possessed passed to the 
States with the separation from the mother coun¬ 
try and remains in them to the present day. 
From the above it would seem that a State 
has the right to make laws regarding birds and 
animals. If such is the case, has not this State 
the right to make a law to protect the farmer 
as well as anyone else? 
The man in Franklin who shot the deer for 
destroying winter rye raised that fodder and 
cut it for his hens which, as every man knows, 
is a great saving with grain at the present price. 
He satisfied the State authorities that he was 
w r holly right, and his act was legal. Why should 
a farmer, who is trying to get an honest living, 
be obliged to build a deer proof, fence around 
his forage crops? The warden who would say 
that seven deer which were seen feeding on this 
piece of rye would only damage it twenty-five 
cents worth I think could not tell the difference 
between the size of a jack rabbit and a buck 
deer. The farmers of his district certainly need 
a new warden. 
The other men referred to in the same town, 
w r hose grievance is still deeper and who had 
more property destroyed, would no doubt accept 
the damages if the State would tender them the 
sum; why should they be condemned for not 
setting up q claim which Mr. Kimball seems to 
think belongs to them? 
Is it a disgrace for farmers to “get wise” and 
collect for damage, done by deer, which the State 
agrees to pay? I ask you, Mr. Kimball, has the 
State a reason to hang her head in shame for 
protecting the farmers? Has the State of 
Massachusetts a right to raise deer to destroy 
crops that are the livelihood of a poor farmer 
with a family who is trying to get an honest 
living and perhaps pay off a mortgage? His 
neighbors’ cows have no right in his garden; 
why should the State’s deer be there? The men 
who shot those deer were honest. Neither of 
them would have killed a deer had the State built 
a fence around his rye and parsnip patches, but 
why all this fuss and these strong remonstrances? 
So far as I can see, all the sportsmen will say 
the law is only protective so that game animals 
and birds wffll again become thick so there will 
be good hunting. 
Surely, the Legislature will not repeal the 
farmers’ deer law; surely, the farmer must be 
protected as much as the city man. It is not as 
pleasant a sight for the farmer to see his crops 
eaten up by deer, as it is for the city man to 
ride through the country in an automobile and 
see the deer scamper out of the poor farmer’s 
garden. There are two sides to this story, Mr. 
Kimball. 
Personally, I am not a farmer, neither am I 
a sportsman, but I do cause to be prosecuted 
all violations of the fish and game laws brought 
to my attention. Although I am not a warden, 
the above Franklin case was reported to me by 
a man who saw the damage that was done. It 
may be unfortunate for us to be living, but it is 
fortunate that we are living in a State that will 
protect a man who is trying to get an honest 
living. Ira T. Ward. 
East Taunton, Mass., May 1. — Editor Forest 
and Stream: I have read H. H. Kimball’s story 
of the rye field and the deer that the farmer 
killed, and then claimed ten dollars damages. 
Now, listen to my story: Last fall I sowed 
one-half acre of rye thirty rods from my house 
for an experiment. From the middle of Novem¬ 
ber until Christmas from two to three deer fed 
on that rye and a small patch of turnips four 
days in a week, and again for five weeks in Feb¬ 
ruary and March. No damage was done to the 
turnips, and the rye is the best I ever had at 
this time of the year. 
Deer are light feeders. They merely nip the 
tops of turnips, carrots and rye. It is really a 
benefit to rye to be grazed lightly; it stools 
better for it. I inclose a head of rye cut the 
last day of April from a stalk thirty-one inches 
in length. 
My friend said, “Shoot the deer, you have a 
perfect right under the farmers’ law.” I have 
hunted for fifty years and intend to hunt some 
more, but I would not shoot one of those tame 
deer any more than I would shoot a pet calf. 
A Portuguese farmer friend is a famous straw¬ 
berry grower, the best there is in this locality. 
The deer fed on his berry field. Joe says: “Let 
’im feed; he too pretty to kill.” 
Fox dogs are the only enemy the deer have in 
this section. Edward F. Staples. 
Grouse Prospects. 
Terra Alta, W. Va., May 7.— Editor Forest 
and Stream: Unless all signs fail the Alleghany 
Mountains about here will be well lined with 
ruffed grouse next fall. We have very few bob- 
whites. The winters are too rough up here 3,000 
feet above the Battery. R. Morris. 
