Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1903-11-06
Was IL Cool Impudence 2"

For cool impudence commend us to the
Vermont game warden who wishes to
have n property owner brought before
the courts because he will not permit this
warden and others to hunt deer on his
private property during the open season.
According to "A story In Vermont paper,
IA game warden, James p. Preston, camped
on the property of Joseph Battell, who is
the owner of an extensive estate which
includes a large section of the adjoining
towns of Ripton and Hancock. Mr. Bat
| tell objects to persons hunting on his
property, and has posted notices in many
conspicuous places prohibiting the hunt
| ing of deer on land owned by him. The
game warden and several other hunters
dsregarded these signs, but were finally
sent from the property by men who were
in the employ of the owner. These hunt
ers now claim that the Vermont game
laws permit the killing of deer in any
part of the state during the last ten days
| of October, and they urge that the courts
uphold their claim of "A right to hunt on
Mr. Battells property during these ten
| days. whether he wishes them to or not.
/ OF course, Mr.. Battell would not be al
| lowed to kill deer on his estate outside of
the season when such hunting is permit
| ted. lie is restrained from doing so by
! the game laws; but that surely does not
/ carry with it any right to game wardens
/ or other hunters to hunt on his land when
/
mont had law that provided for the TAX
| ing of trout in any part of the state for
| one month, would the game warden ex-
| pect that this law entitled him to fish in
/ a private pond where fishing was forbid
den by the owner? And yet the cases are
! not dissimilar. We rather imagine that,
! If this dispute were taken to court IT
| would be held that the only ones to be
! punished were the hunters, who might
properly be considered as trespassers on
private property-t Boston Herald.
We are not so sure that the game war
| den was guilty of " cool impudence." The
early settlers, realizing that in England
the rights of fishing and hunting were
| controlled by wealthy land owners. pro-
vided in our state constitution that " The
| inhabitants of this state shall have liberty
| in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on
the lands they hold and on other lands
not nclosed; and in like manner to fish
| in all boatable waters mot private prop
/ erty) under proper regulations. to be here
after made and provided by the general
| assembly"
Mr.. Battel is the owner Of thousands
of acres of wild timber land. He is a
lover of nature and he has kept this tract
a virgin forest, although offered. we be-
lieve, some $780, 900 or $500, 600 by the
pacious pulp companies which wished to
strip off the timber. We do not under
stand that Mr.. Battell's land is a pre-
| serve. or that it is inclosed," certainly
not in the same sense that the Corbin
deer park is, for instance. Mr.. Corbin
had his thousands of acres inclosed with
wire fencing. and he stocked the acres
with a great variety of wild animals
brought a long distance at his own ex-
pense. Mr.. Battell does not own the deer
on his lands any more than other people
| own them. He had nothing to do with
stocking the state with deer, and the ami
mails found on his tract are the ones liber
ated by sportsmen in Rutland, or the de-
scendants OF the animals set free some
10 years ago. If Mr.. Battell can own
| thousands of acres of land and prohibit
hunting on them there is nothing to pre-
vent some one richer and more powerful
than he from buying several townships
or a county in area, and then ordering
the common run Of humanity to keep off
the grass If this position can be main
| tained we are approaching the conditions
of foreign countries and the plain intent
of the authors of our constitution will be
defeated;
The Heralds comparison of Mr.. Bat
tells tract to a private fish pond is not
pertinent A man may build a private fish
pond, stock it with fish at his own expense,
and then use it for his private pleasure
and profit. But Mr.. Battell cannot take
any of our public waters and use them
for himself exclusively. He could buy all
the land around half a dozen of our small
lakes from which fish are now taken, pre-
sumably, but he could not prevent other
people from fishing in the lakes.