Virginia's Needs

BEING a frequent visitor to Virginia, I read with profound interest "The Situation in Virginia" in your issue of Aug. 26. My knowledge as to trapping is limited, but as to the other matters mentioned in the article I wish to confirm and support Mr. Buchanan, and with your permission will add a word or two.

There are many good sportsmen in Virginia and by their efforts some good laws have been passed, notably the sale of game has been greatly curtailed and the export from the State practically prohibited. The trouble is in the enforcement of the laws. Game wardens for the most part are a joke, and the reason for this is they are not supported by the sentiment of the community. The lack of this sentiment is due to an erroneous belief as to actual condition and from a sympathy for the "poor market gunner."

The error in belief is that wildfowl and upland game can be shot at all times and by every body without diminishing supply, and so sympathy supports the "poor market gunner" who they think should be allowed to get a living by shooting by night as well as by day and on land or water of private individuals, regardless of such private ownership.

In early days, Virginia was full of game and doubtless the early settlers use it ad libitum for food and they killed it themselves. As the settlement of the country advanced, game became less plentiful and the owners of land and waters began to protect their property and object to people shooting over it without their permission, and it is safe to say that if the land and waters had not been so protected, there would now be no game to speak of. In fact, now the preserves supply the greater part of the game and it is the wanderers from the preserves where game is propagated as well as protected, that supply shooting to the public. Now, as before stated, many think there is as much game as ever there was, and they think it a hardship that the poor man "whose fathers have always shot when and where they liked" should be interfered with or that lands and waters should be protected against him. The sympathy is misplaced, for the hue and cry against protection and for free shooting comes largely from gunners from cities and towns, whom instead of living near the shooting places, visit those places for the purpose of shooting and most of whom do not permit game laws or property right to interfere with their killing game, and these are the ones who fan the sympathy fire.

Then again, assuming for the purpose of this discussion that formerly on a certain water a market gunner made a living by his gun by shipping birds to market. Now are his progeny entitled to sympathy because they cannot do so? There may have been shooting for one gunner where there is not shooting for five. Where there was one gunner then, there would be ten now and nothing whatever done to propagate game, but everything permitted to destroy it. Progeny increases while the game decreases.

I know of one place where a few years ago possibly half a dozen shot for market, and not altogether in public places at that, and now there will be fifty trying, as they put it, to make a living. They fail, of course, the game having been exterminated by reason of over-shooting, and then they demand sympathy because of their failure, and they blame the game laws and the owners of posted lands and en-
deavor to excite popular feeling against game laws and preserves, and 99 per cent of them pay no taxes and they are not required to pay a license fee for shooting. Think of it, you sympathizers. These people so worked on the members of the Legislature that they actually procured a law permitting them to kill geese by night, and that law is on the statute book. The geese, however, refused to stop and be shot at night and they left the premises for good.

Game is one of the resources of the State. Exterminate the game and you destroy a valuable asset. Game properly conserved adds to the material wealth of the State and gives a money value to many places that without game would be waste places. The presence of game invites sportsmen to the State, all of whom spend more or less money and give employment to many. Lands are purchased, preserves are maintained, game is propagated, and not only private lands and waters, but public places are supplied by such preservation and propagation with game.

In order to have proper conservation, a game commissioner is needed. This official will know the wants of the different sections of the State and will be able to point out how the game supply may be increased and advise as to proper laws and instruct the people as to the care and protection and give them information generally as to game. He would also see to it that proper game wardens were appointed.

Then there should be a law permitting owners of property to appoint wardens who should also have all the powers and privileges of the official wardens, but who should be paid by the person employing them and not by the State. There is a law to this effect in New York, and Virginia would do well to copy this law.

In addition there should be a license required, as in New York, of every gunner -- a small license for the resident and a greater for the non-resident. Then there should be a bag limit and the non-resident gunner who pays a greater license than the resident should be permitted to take with him as his personal baggage the game he has lawfully shot in the State.

I hope later to be able to write you as to the outlook for the coming season.