Forest and Stream, May 16, 1914

Virginia Game and Game Fish Protective Association.

Natural resources -- Conservation - GameTourists and sportsmen -- Field sports - TrespassAfrican-Americans -- Race relations

Richmond, Va., April 23, 1914.

Editor Forest and Stream:

We note in your issue of April 18, page 510, a letter from a Mr. Craig Eggleston of Amelia Court House, Va. It has never been our policy to indulge in arguments and controversies through the medium of the press, but as this letter contains so many statements which cannot be substantiated and so many theories which cannot be proved, we feel it incumbent upon us to reply in order that the sportsmen of Virginia may not be misinformed. We will take the statements contained in the letter up in sequence.

(1) The gentleman states that should "written permission" be required in order to hunt on lands, that the "shooting rights will be bought up by wealthy non-residents and the only amusement open to countrymen of ordinary means abolished."

Let us ask why should non-residents buy up shooting rights after the passage of the Hart-White bill to a greater extent than they do at present. Would it not be because the non-resident believed that the passage of this bill would increase the game of the state and afford a protection for his investment? But why should the gentleman think that a majority of the land would be so controlled by non-residents? Can he give any statistics from other states showing that this is true? We do not believe that he can. We grant that it would encourage the non-resident to lease and buy lands in this state but not to an extent that would abolish the hunting of the farmer. Evidently the gentleman is opposed to an increase in game to such an extent as would attract non-residents simply for the reason that it might curtail in a small measure the large hunting territory over which he is now shooting. Is this not a selfish motive? Is it the motive of a true sportsman? Usually when hunting rights are bought by non-residents in this state the land owners and their sons retain the right to shoot over said lands, and are in most cases treated as hosts of the non-residents leasing the hunting privilege.

(2) The second paragraph of his letter states that it will be practically impossible to determine "whose land we are on," as thousands of acres belong to colored people, etc. We agree that it is impossible at times to tell when one has crossed the boundary line, and one does not know at all times on whose property he is hunting, but does this change the aspect of the case at all? Emphatically, no! for have we any more right to hunt on a piece of land whose owner is unknown to us and whose boundaries are unfamiliar, than we have to hunt on the land which has its boundaries clearly marked, and is it not our duty to know on whose property we are hunting? Is it not always our duty to know on whose lands we are trespassing? The day of the free hunter and the free range is a thing of the past. It went out with the buffalo. Now, if we are not conversant with the territory over which we are hunting, then it is our duty to engage some one to guide us who is conversant with the territory. As the law stands at present in this state, we have absolutely no right to walk across or trespass on a man's property, and a penalty is already attached for such trespass. In all probability the gentleman in question has, from his own confession, violated this state law for years. We cannot see how anyone can scrape together the slightest bit of argument against this clause of "written permission" except that of pure selfishness, and the desire to shoot over lands without permission. "Written permission" has been required in Alabama since 1907, and we are informed on most excellent authority that the farmers themselves are the strongest advocates of this particular section of the Alabama game laws because it is the one means by which the law can be enforced and under which the farmers may really enjoy any choice or discretion as to who may hunt over their property. How is it possible for a man who has given the question any thought to make a statement that "written permission" to hunt on lands is more to the advantage of the city sportsman than to the advantage of the farmer and county land-holder? Is this not absurd on the face of it? Why, the average city man does not own county property and it is he, the city sportsman, who must obtain "written permission" to shoot. Does it not seem as though the burden of the inconvenience is put upon the city man rather than the farmer in this case?

We note the gentleman states that thousands of acres belong to colored people. Pray let us ask, does he venture to offer this as a reason for not obtaining permission, simply because the man's skin is black? Has not this man the same free man's rights under the law as the man with the white skin? We ask the gentleman to remember that the Hart-White bill was framed from the standpoint of justice to all and did not contemplate discriminations of color or a consideration of previous conditions of servitude. We do not agree with him in this statement, and we deny that "if a man hunts at all it would mean that he would necessarily violate the law," for it would not be a Herculean task to obtain this "written permission." There are many convenient ways in which a true sportsman could obtain his hunting permission without undergoing any unnecessary expense or loss of time. It is being done in several states to the satisfaction of the majority concerned, and why can it not be done in Virginia?

(3) The gentleman states that "95 per cent. of our rural population cherish hunting as their one sport and privilege." Statistics fail to substantiate this statement. From the best information obtainable it cannot be shown that more than 10 per cent. of the population of the state indulge in hunting. This information is taken from records of the state which require resident hunting licenses.

(4) Now, here is where we absolutely agree with the gentleman -- when he makes the statement that "the people of Virginia have never taken the game laws seriously," and we predict that they never will take the game law seriously until there is a state game department formed with a definite head, said department to have the means and authority by which to enforce the statutes of the state.

(5) He states that our "country people" believe that these laws are put forward by the rich city men for selfish purposes. We are not in a position to dispute relative to what the correspondent's neighbors "believe," but if it is true it only shows that Mr. E. and his friends are ignorant of the contents and real purposes of that comprehensive game law mentioned, for an open-minded man cannot take the Hart-White bill as passed by the Senate and consider it to read to the advantage of the city man rather than the farmer. The shoe is most emphatically on the other foot. It is undeniably a fact, and can be proven, that in those states which have comprehensive game laws the farmers receive the greatest protection and enjoy the greatest benefits thereunder. We have on file a letter from a very prominent farmer of Powhatan County, Va., and which, in discussing the provisions of the Hart-White bill's contents, he made the following statement: "If this proposed law was drafted with the intention to favor the city sportsman, then, they evidently did not see beyond their noses, for the benefit is all in favor of the land owners."

The thinking farmer is better posted and will soon realize the economic value of the wild life on his place. We are making a strenuous effort to get into his hands facts as we feel that 90 per cent. of his antagonism in the past has been due to his ignorance of our purpose rather than to other causes. It is beyond our comprehension why a few men in Virginia feel that because they live within the boundaries of the Old Dominion that they are peculiarly constituted and that conditions surrounding them are entirely different in every way, shape and form, from the conditions existing in other states of the Republic. Perhaps the gentleman is not aware of the fact that he cannot go into the majority of the states of the Union and shoot over land indiscriminately and without a license. For his benefit we will state that in a great number of states the law compels a hunter not only to purchase a license to hunt but to employ a registered guide to conduct him through the hunting fields, and this is becoming more prevalent year by year.

(6) We quote from the fourth paragraph of his letter as follows: "Our Farmer's Union, 14,000 strong, was solidly against destroying the last sport which kept our boys on the farm." We interpret this to mean that the gentleman makes the statement to the effect that the Virginia Farmer's Union was solidly against the Hart-White bill. If our interpretation is correct then the statement made is not a correct one, nor has it any facts to substantiate it. A similar statement was made on the floor of the Senate by one of the members who voted against this bill. We immediately telegraphed the president of the Farmer's Union to know if that association had passed any resolution condemning the Hart-White bill. He immediately wired us "No." A similar statement was made also on the floor of the House and Mr. White, the patron of the bill, shook the documentary evidence in the face of the delegate making the accusation, and branded it as an untruth. The fact is that there are probably as many members of the Farmer's Union who favor this bill as there are members who oppose it. We regret exceedingly that Mr. E. did not inform himself correctly on many points before he set himself the task of criticising through the medium of the public press our endeavors toward better game legislation.

(7) In the fifth paragraph of his letter he suggests: "a fifty cent bounty on hawks." Let us ask him a question. Is he aware of the fact that the United States Biological Survey of the Department of Agriculture advises that there are only two species of hawks that prey upon game, namely, the Sharp-shinned and the Cooper hawks, the remainder of the hawk family ranking among the best friends of the farmer. The United States Agricultural Department strongly advises the farmer not to kill the hawks in the last mentioned class, for they are a valuable asset to the land owner. Now, if a bounty were offered on hawk scalps, how could the farmer discriminate? We are informed by excellent authority that two states which have tried the experiment of paying a bounty on hawk scalps came near bankrupting their game funds because scalps were brought in not only from the hawks killed within the legitimate boundaries of those states, but they were collected from all the surrounding states, and numerous tricks were imposed upon the state officials.

Again, must we hark back to this point: is Virginia a little world unto itself, or have we not some of the moral, physical and geological characteristics of our sister state? Does not precedent count for anything in this gentleman's estimation? If so, will he kindly tell us why forty-four states out of forty-eight in the Union have adopted a system of game commissioners, or their equivalent, and depend on a comprehensive enforcing of good game laws rather than on a bounty on hawk scalps?

(8) In next to his last paragraph he states: "It is the country against the city." Again we say this is not a fact, and he speaks without knowledge of conditions, and for his information we beg to say that the two undersigned associations, who were in reality the fathers of the Hart-White Game Bill, contain educated, up-to-date, and progressive farmers and country land-owners throughout the breadth of the state of Virginia.

We emphatically deny such a statement which has no evidence to substantiate it. We further deny and ask for proof of any ulterior motive behind our endeavors to snatch Virginia from the arms of the game hog.

It is not our intention to pursue this matter further, notwithstanding in what shape replies to this letter may come, as we only wish to set ourselves right with the sportsmen of Virginia who may have absorbed too freely of the intoxicating fiction dealt out by your previous correspondent.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) W. P. PATTERSON, President.

Virginia Game & Game Fish Protective Association.

(Signed) M. D. HART, President,

Virginia Audubon Society.

Forest and Stream
New York
May 16, 1914